Collateral Murder (merged) [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

CCIP

04-06-10, 06:53 AM

I'm in no way defending the above but I should imagine every country has a number of individuals within their armed forces of a similar disposition.

Well, I think we shouldn't forget that however you slice it - the problem is that the military's job is to kill people. That always has been and always will be their job, and by all means they have to be trained to do so quickly and effectively.

This doesn't mean that responsibility doesn't need to be exercised and enforced though. One of the problems here is that there is an illusion that with all this technology, everyone has total and accurate information - pilots, ground controllers, troops etc. With that assumption, the ROE totally works - except it doesn't, because the assumption is false. The pilots have already made up their mind about what they're seeing before the first shot is fired, and continue to convince themselves that what they're seeing matches their own imaginary story about what's going on down there as they shoot. And they're going to keep seeing that, because what they came here for is not to make peace and spread positive ideology, but to kill Iraqis.

In short, this is what happens when you put together people trained to kill and an illusion that the technology will help control their killing. There's nothing, in theory, wrong with an army that kills people - that's what it's for. A military that doesn't have killing people as its first objective isn't a real military, and noone needs a wussified military like that. It's that total-information illusion that needs to be tackled and worked with, hopefully with some openness and via the democratic process that its ultimate leaders are elected by. It's getting more ludicrous as to the length the military is willing to go into denial about this in order to do what it wants, not what it should. But I fear it's only getting worse.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 07:10 AM

The slaughter of the unarmed men trying to rescue the injured journalist made me feel sick. Anyone with some respect for human value, would try to help that man. And the US army just wipes them out with eager. What for? "saving insurgents and picking up weapons...", yeah right. Not by a damn sight.

And the comments they give... Unbelivable...

Freiwillige

04-06-10, 10:20 AM

I agree :sign_yeah:

I can see the accident happening from the beginning but what happened after the initial burst was just horrific. I mean they broke up the perceived threat, Why keep killing???!!! And then to randomly fire into a van stopping to help!

They weren't grabbing bodies or Guns they were helping the one guy still moving.

The words of the pilots showed the disregard for human life...How would they feel if it was their family's down there and it was an Iraqi helicopter slaughtering their children and brothers? I think givin the evidance those guys should be ejected from the military at the very least! Bad judgments like that feed hatred of us.

Now I am far from a tree hugging hippy but our Country is getting further and further off track.

Ron Paul 2012!

Skybird

04-06-10, 10:37 AM

"Krieg vertiert." (Egon Bahr)

WikiLeaks, who published that video after Reuters was driven away by the Pentagon when they demanded release of the material on basis of the freedom of information act ( http://www.collateralmurder.com/ ), said that they prepare another video anytime soon, showing the intentional killing of civilians by soldiers.

I repeat this, since I mentioned the same incident in the other thread about WikiLeaks.

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

It is not only an issue of how war cripples the psyche of those participating in it. It also is about lowered standards for recruitment in order to copensate the fallen interest for joining the armed forces since the Iraq wear began. This fallen interest is both a conseqeunce of fallen wages (especially the air force suffers a shortage in qualified pilots who preferred to join civilian compnaies fpor getting better payment), and the ongoing war and the risk to be sent to Iraq. The fallen levels of character fitness and general social competence and education has been pointed out by US journalists repeatedly in the past 5 years.

The coverup by the pentagon is unexcusable, because this was no mistake being made, but an intentional act of murder.

The crews must face court martial for committing war crimes. I personally would line them up on the wall - last but not least as an examplary call to maintain discipline.

Dowly

04-06-10, 11:59 AM

Wow... if you watch the full video, you can hear towards the end where there's another engagement, the gunner is constantly (ok ok, twice) asking how to find some setting or why something's flashing in the HUD. :doh: Umm... training anyone?

GoldenRivet

04-06-10, 12:31 PM

The issue isn't that it happened, its that they lied about it and then went to great lengths to hide the truth after their initial lies were exposed.

true.

"Its their fault for bringing children to a battle."Also true.

Wow... if you watch the full video, you can hear towards the end where there's another engagement, the gunner is constantly (ok ok, twice) asking how to find some setting or why something's flashing in the HUD. :doh: Umm... training anyone?

He was giting an azimuth limit warning during a time when the HUD indicated that his gun had not reached full azimuth and therefore should not be getting an azimuth limit warning.

thats why he says "Im getting an azimuth limit for some reason"

working in the field of aviation i have learned that sometimes you get warnings and cautions when you shouldnt be getting them... this is called a malfunction. it is more a testament to the high quality of his training that he recognized the caution as being in error, rather than not assessing his situation and accepting a false error message

Dowly

04-06-10, 12:49 PM

He was giting an azimuth limit warning during a time when the HUD indicated that his gun had not reached full azimuth and therefore should not be getting an azimuth limit warning.

thats why he says "Im getting an azimuth limit for some reason"

working in the field of aviation i have learned that sometimes you get warnings and cautions when you shouldnt be getting them... this is called a malfunction. it is more a testament to the high quality of his training that he recognized the caution as being in error, rather than not assessing his situation and accepting a false error message

No, I think it was after that. He was looking for the Man(ual) Advancement button, the pilot said "It's by your left door in a clutch", then he asks the gunner "Got it?" and the gunner replies "No."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something like manual advancement would be pretty important and much used feature for the gunner. :yep:

The other time is when he asks "Why the AP is flashing?".

So, no he didn't know much about what was happening in those two occasions.

You can check them yourself, after 20 mins or so in the vid.

Freiwillige

04-06-10, 01:10 PM

tater

04-06-10, 01:50 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/video_of_errant_us_shootings_o.html

It's easy to look at a youtube video compared to watching the camera in the cockpit, I'd imagine. Any helo drivers here care to comment on the stability of head vs screen compared to sitting at your desk?

The above link says that there was in fact an AK, RPG, and grenades at the scene. Reuters has been known to hire local photographers and reporters who are in fact associated with one of the combatant forces (the guy who photoshopped the smoke in Lebanon, for example). Not saying these guys were, but in Sadr City, they could very well have been escorted by local (possibly hostile) militia units, no?

Without far more data, it's hard to make a call. Did reporters in areas like Sadr City have to file a "flight plan" with the US to avoid stuff like this, or was it suggested? Was there a warning for reporters not to ever go in some areas unless embedded with US forces?

Bottom line is that this happens, even when the air assets have to call in and get permission for every single engagement. In WW2, a P-47 would simply have gunned down anything that moved on the other side of Allied lines. Anything that moved. So sad as this might be, the % of "collateral" (called "spillage" in WW2) casualties is FAR lower than in previous conflicts, and becomes lower every year.

CCIP

04-06-10, 01:54 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure that we can really call this a "battle". It's a civilian area however you slice it, and as long as the population is there, there's nothing to say they couldn't have been just driving along on their daily business and came across this. I'm willing to buy the "good samaritan" explanation for why the van stopped. All the more, I highly suspect that the people there are not so stupid and would have seen the chopper that shot up the scene. The fact that they did not seem concerned by it being overhead seems to tell me they weren't expecting to be shot at - at least in the case of the would-be rescuers, seems like it was just an error.

I'm also quite willing to buy that there were two guys with AKs and an RPG in the original group. Immediately assuming them to be bad guys is problematic, but again, when there are friendly troops rolling through the sector, it's not like anyone would be willing to risk walking up and asking who they were and what they were up to. It does make sense, though, to bring up the old pro-gun argument about self-defense - armed dudes don't immediately equal bad dudes. In this case, though, it doesn't totally matter. What does bother me though is that again, the effect that the pilots were concerned with was not taking out guys already in possession of a weapon, denying a potential ambush, or otherwise pursuing actual tactical goals - what they were really concerned about is killing the entire group and anyone who assisted it, as quickly as possible. That right there is, well, really messed up and indicates a wider systemic problem with the US military - it's all about efficiency, with dubious effectiveness at best. When the primary effect of engagement being sought is achieving kills, well, there's your problem with stability on the ground right there.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 01:59 PM

Who says that they brought children into battle? It looks as if they were just driving down the road and saw an injured guy on the side walk and went to help him. Maybe get him to a hospital. The pilots couldn't wait to get clearance to fire and in fact kept saying that they were going for weapons which they clearly weren't!

Even the wounded dude crawling they were begging for him to grab anything that looked like a weapon so they could fire again like he could be much of a threat.

I'm all for blowing up the bad guys but this just has bad judgment written all over it!

I double that...

It could also be the men that dropped the journalists off. As a matter of fact... It could be anyone acting under emotional stress when seeing a man crawling on the street, fighting for hes life.

Why should anyone open fire on unarmed men taking care of a wounded guy. The SOB is lying to the command, just to get a ok to bring them down. This is murder in cold blood. This is so sick that it can by no means be justified at all.

August

04-06-10, 02:01 PM

I personally would line them up on the wall - last but not least as an examplary call to maintain discipline.

Germans shooting Americans was tried in the last century. It didn't work out so well for the Germans.

CCIP

04-06-10, 02:04 PM

Bottom line is that this happens, even when the air assets have to call in and get permission for every single engagement. In WW2, a P-47 would simply have gunned down anything that moved on the other side of Allied lines. Anything that moved. So sad as this might be, the % of "collateral" (called "spillage" in WW2) casualties is FAR lower than in previous conflicts, and becomes lower every year.

I don't think that's a problem. The problem is a) dealing with it when it is avoidable, and some of it here absolutely was; b) cover-ups. There was a pretty blatant cover-up in this case, and in general the military puts out very misleading presentations of what they actually do out there and how it all works. From where I sit, at least - I think if the public was better-aware of the real risks and issues of 'spillage', there might be a lot less chance that these air assets - or any military assets - would have been where they were. And if it is the Mehdi army we're talking about - any strategic gains from killing those guys are definitely extremely dubious and have nothing to do with the initial war aims as it is.

Dowly

04-06-10, 02:08 PM

HunterICX

04-06-10, 02:11 PM

Germans shooting Americans was tried in the last century. It didn't work out so well for the Germans.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8717/facepalml.gif

HunterICX

tater

04-06-10, 02:12 PM

Sadr City was (is?) walled off from the rest of Bagdad as I recall reading once. It was (particularly back in 2007 when this took place) the area where the bad guys were.

I think that oversimplifying this is way too easy, but by all means, keep doing so, particularly those of you that reflexively hate the US (since you will anyway).

Without knowing far more than I can find in news stories right now, it's hard to say if it was a screw up, or overly aggressive pilot, or anything at all.

tater

04-06-10, 02:14 PM

I don't think that's a problem. The problem is a) dealing with it when it is avoidable, and some of it here absolutely was; b) cover-ups. There was a pretty blatant cover-up in this case, and in general the military puts out very misleading presentations of what they actually do out there and how it all works. From where I sit, at least - I think if the public was better-aware of the real risks and issues of 'spillage', there might be a lot less chance that these air assets - or any military assets - would have been where they were. And if it is the Mehdi army we're talking about - any strategic gains from killing those guys are definitely extremely dubious and have nothing to do with the initial war aims as it is.

Do you have links to good articles on this? I listened to NPR this morning (as I always do) and I didn't get any sense of cover up from them—and NPR usually likes painting the military in a less than glowing light.

August

04-06-10, 02:18 PM

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8717/facepalml.gif

HunterICX

Well sorry to dissapoint you Capt Picard but where is your face palm for Skybird? The man just advocated the murder of my countrymen to teach a lesson to others. That doesn't rate?

CCIP

04-06-10, 02:19 PM

It was (particularly back in 2007 when this took place) the area where the bad guys were.

I think that oversimplifying this is way too easy

Those two statements next to each other are pretty ironic :-?
(i.e., that's quite a big simplification there - bad guys relative to whom? I think it's safe to call Moqtada a whackjob, but as far as militias like that go, calling them bad guys is a vast oversimplification - and from the US perspective, the Mehdi army has nothing to do with stated war aims nor is a threat to national security. It's a real mixed bag down there, and in some regard these militias are only a natural response to the lack of security and government control on the ground. They're part of the problem, but in some sense they're also a local solution. I don't think "bad guys" quite covers it.)

Also, at the risk of sounding like I'm on the wrong side of this - I should also admit that "Collateral Murder" is, by definition, a rather obvious piece of propaganda. The title itself is propaganda gold. For all the wrongness of what's happened, grains of salt are also due.

tater

04-06-10, 02:20 PM

I don't know, the more I watch it the more I get the idea that civilian population means close to nothing as long as the target is destroyed. The full version shows the other engagement against a building where they saw bunch of gunmen walk into. As they fire the Hellfire, there's clearly a guy walking by the building who seemed to me be just a civilian passing it on his way somewhere *KABOOM*, he dead. :doh: (At around 34min to the full vid)

Now, I know there will always be civilian casualties in a war, but it would've taken less than a minute for the POSSIBLE civvy to get clear before shooting.

I've watched other vid where they don't engage, and miss the guys because of passers by, too. Might depend on the locale, targets, possible friendlies in area, all sorts of stuff we don't know. Or maybe just who is on the other end of the radio giving permission.

Regardless, it's still far better than, say, carpet bombing (WW2 solution). In ww2, US ground forces would approach a german town, and they might have a captured german warn them not to fight. If a lone sniper—or a misguided kid given a rifle or RPG by the nazis—fired on them, they might very well call in divisional artillery and wreck the place.

FWIW, it's a good sign that people are actually concerned about non-combatant deaths in small numbers. Like all other casualties our tolerance for ANY (not just on "our side") has decreased to a great degree.

tater

04-06-10, 02:24 PM

CCIP, I was thinking in terms of how we viewed that area generally in 2007 when I said "bad guys." Meaning that it was one of the more dangerous parts of town to be in, not that it was all, or even mostly bad guys, just that attacks were staged from there as I recall, and it was a principle area of concern.

It was (is?) walled off, after all, so clearly they had some concerns, no?

I suppose "bad guys" should have been in quotes? <S>

tater

PS, I got the impression that the photographer went to the corner of that building, knelt, and was taking pictures around the corner right before they were engaged (the audio talks about RPG getting ready to fire at that point). The NPR article has an update saying that he was taking pictures of US forces, so that would have escalated the situation for the Apache, no? They think (mistaken) that the long-lens is an RPG, and one of the guides HAS an RPG, and then he "sneaks" around corner to take a pic? (sneaking would be sensible, as he doesn't want to get shot at. It really is tough, a war photographer is a pretty dangerous job.

CCIP

04-06-10, 02:37 PM

CCIP, I was thinking in terms of how we viewed that area generally in 2007 when I said "bad guys." Meaning that it was one of the more dangerous parts of town to be in, not that it was all, or even mostly bad guys, just that attacks were staged from there as I recall, and it was a principle area of concern.

It was (is?) walled off, after all, so clearly they had some concerns, no?

I suppose "bad guys" should have been in quotes? <S>

The problem in Sadr city was basically civil ("civil"?) conflict between local militias, not even mostly sunni vs. shia (Sadr city is mostly Shia), but just different Shia groups, Mehdi army being the most powerful of them. And yeah, they were quite happy to kill people that didn't agree with them, whether they were Sunnis, members of other militias, government representatives or US troops. At the same time, of course, the Mehdi army more or less ran all the infrastructure in the areas it controlled - and was composed of and working with the local population.

The problem, really, is that it's the kind of clusterf**k that the US should've kept out of. This is not a "battle" nor even a real civil war. It was a policing scenario and using heavy military ass[ault equipment] to tackle it was fraught with problems from the start. And like I said, the inevitable is seen happening here - instead of effective policing, you get effective killing. From civil life, it's pretty easy to tell that in order to work, the overlap between those two things should be minimal.

HunterICX

04-06-10, 02:46 PM

Well sorry to dissapoint you Capt Picard but where is your face palm for Skybird? The man just advocated the murder of my countrymen to teach a lesson to others. That doesn't rate?

So? should I take him serious that he wants to have them lined up and shot? I just Ignore...it aint his call so your countrymen are most likely still alive...(I would have liked to see them tossed out of the Army thought as they really have a lack of proffesionalism, but again it ain't my call)

anyway...
but what Skybird's comment has that to do with this:

Germans shooting Americans was tried in the last century. It didn't work out so well for the Germans.

I'm sorry that just doesn't make any bloody sense...just because he's German you base that comment on? What if he was a Swiss or (insert any other nation here)

HunterICX

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 02:50 PM

Germans shooting Americans was tried in the last century. It didn't work out so well for the Germans.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8717/facepalml.gif

We haven't seen any Nuremberg Trials against americans either... soldiers, presidents and/or generals alike.

This isn't about your countrymen. This is about soldiers that murder in cold blood. Iraqi, british or americans... It really doesn't matter.
It's also about idiots that try to justify this ****.

krashkart

04-06-10, 03:05 PM

:nope:

Nicolas

04-06-10, 03:15 PM

I didnt want to view this video, seems the media dont care anymore about sensibility and passed it on tv. this were real people. Since when nobody cares viewing 10 people killed like this? :nope:

August

04-06-10, 03:19 PM

I'm sorry that just doesn't make any bloody sense...

Well ok then...

August

04-06-10, 03:20 PM

This is about soldiers that murder in cold blood. Iraqi, british or americans... It really doesn't matter.
It's also about idiots that try to justify this ****.

I guess then there is no real need for a trial since it seems you've already made up your mind as to their guilt.

Skybird

04-06-10, 03:48 PM

To make one thing clear, if it hasn't been that clear before.

The crews committing this intended murder of civilians were soldiers in an army that is at war, and the nation of this army claims to be at war. The rules of war apply. Shooting civilians without military need for me is a war crime, and war crimes committed by soldiers of a national army at war must be object of court martials. And for the intended murder of civilians by soldiers of the army that is at war, the court martial imo should come to a sentence of "standrechtliche Erschießung" (getting shot by firing squad).

The comments made by the crew to me clearly illustrate that they knew this was not a battle going on, and that they were in full knowledge that they were not aiming at enemy combatants. "The comment on bringing children to battle, in this case is pure cynism.

Not more, not less.

For upholding discipline and as an exemplary warning for all other trigger happy freaks eventually serving in the uniform: court martial, and firing squad.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 03:55 PM

I guess then there is no real need for a trial since it seems you've already made up your mind as to their guilt.
Are you for real? I have eyes you know. I make a judgement of what I see. But in difference to you, and your "fellow countrymen" on the video, I'm not the judge and executioner. I'm ready to let a independent court to decide - whether they are doing it all wrong or not - despite my own thought about it.
But, as we all know, that's never gonna happen with american soldiers.

I'm just sick of it...

Tribesman

04-06-10, 04:01 PM

The rules of war apply. Shooting civilians without military need for me is a war crime, and war crimes committed by soldiers of a national army at war must be object of court martials.
I wish Skybird would make up his mind, one minute its laws of war are silly and we must just do what needs to be done to win, the next its OMG prosecute the war criminals.

Platapus

04-06-10, 04:15 PM

It is the duty of the military to kill the enemy. It is also the duty of the military to treat the killing in a professional way.

We have a professional military not simply because they are paid. Being paid to do something does not make one a professional. :nope:

What makes one a professional is the adherence to a set of ethics that governs actions. :yep:. That's what makes someone a professional.

Killing and death are part of war. But a professional soldier derives no joy or enjoyment from killing. It is a duty and he or she takes pride in fulfilling their duty, but to derive pleasure out of killing is not the sign of a professional military member. :nope:

Just an old vet's opinion.

tater

04-06-10, 04:28 PM

Not intentionally attacking civilians is certainly part of the rules we use. If our intent was to murder civilians, they're be none (or very few) left.

We intentionally attacked civilians in ww2, and killed them by the tens or hundreds of thousands per night (though in the case of Japan it was actually legally ambiguous due to an Imperial Edict that made almost the entire population technically combatants—though the US didn't know that at the time, so our intent was clearly at odds with the rules regardless). This case is not at all the same as that.

You might not like the tone of the audio, but the reality is that the guys doing the shooting clearly, at the time, thought that their targets were armed, and intended to engage in combat (they thought his taking a knee and pointing his long-lens was pointing an RPG). The INTENT was clearly to attack combatants. You can argue that they should not have been there, or that they should have known they were not operating with hostile intent, whatever, but the intent of the shooter in this case was clearly to attack combatants. There was no intent to do harm to innocents.

The comment about taking kids to a war? What do you expect? The guy is a human being, maybe with kids at home. He's of course going to try and rationalize—it's a survival mechanism for his sanity, he didn't want to shoot at kids. I've seen a few helo guncam vids where they specifically don't engage because a kid is nearby, even one where the kid was clearly helping plant an IED.

Oberon

04-06-10, 04:35 PM

The guy will be raked over the coals for this most likely when the dust settles, either that or he'll be well hidden when the reporters come knocking.
The problem with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is that every single civilian is a potential combatant. There are no uniforms, the only difference between a civilian and a combatant is that one is holding a gun and one isn't, and the time it takes for you to ascertain this fact is time that the combatant (if he or she is a combatant) can use to either cover their tracks or move out of line of sight into cover if they become aware that a gunship is monitoring them.
I would believe the reason they engaged the van is that they were under the impression it was picking up the bodies and the weapons, now, although that video is bloody clear, and objects like AKs and that would stand out like a sore thumb, would explosives? Would a pistol or a small SMG like an Uzi? I dunno, I'm not there so I could not say. However, one thing to be said in the defence of the gunner, he was champing at the bit to engage (he thought they were hostiles) however he did not defy the chain of command, he obtained clearance to engage the van.
This sort of thing happens a fair deal, and it will continue to happen a fair deal in an environment where the only uniforms are worn by the coalition forces (and even then you have the problem of infiltrators) and the enemy does not play by the rules that you are forced to.

It's even worse for the guys who have the feet on the deck, at least the Apache drivers have the benefit of height, face to face though, the moment you realise that that civilian is actually a combatant could very well be your last.

So, I'm not going to condemn them, chances are, as Jim says, there are many in other armies who are as 'bloodthirsty' (to use a crude term) as the Apache gunner. I'm not serving in Iraqi or Afghanistan, I have never served in any of the armed forces, so I do not judge myself as able to fully understand the situation that the gunner and pilot were in. It's not good for public relations, this is certain, but public relations over the 'War on Terror' are so abysmal anyway that I doubt this will do much more damage than has already been done.

Another telling point is the footnote at the end which I wonder how many here have noticed that states that the soldiers who found the wounded children sent them to a US base hospital, but were then ordered by the Higher ups to turn them over to Iraqi police who would take them to an Iraqi hospital, eventually. I would say that if any blame were to be delivered, it should be from the top down, not from the bottom up. The United States Armed Forces, and the NATO forces involved in the 'War on Terror' were never designed for a 'War on Terror' they were designed for a war on the Soviet Union and that is what they have been geared to for the past five decades, it's taken until now to adjust to this new way of fighting and many groups and branches of the military are still adjusting, some, the 'old guard' may never adjust and will attempt to use tactics that were developed against the Soviet forces against insurgent forces which differ in many, many ways. However, this is me rambling and not a coherent response to this thread.

TLDR?
It's a disturbing video yes, but war is disturbing. One cannot be at war without accepting that such incidences may occur. Training and technology help to cut down on the amount of times that such events occur, but they will still occur so long as humans are brought into contact with weaponry and told to kill other humans. After all, remember the Polish pilots in the Battle of Britain who used to strafe Germans who had bailed out of their shot down planes? Or the strafing runs on villages in Kent and France? People and war never mix, and as long as they do, people will die.

Skybird

04-06-10, 04:41 PM

If I would have been given an impression of that it was a target misidentification, an accident, a misjudgement of the situation, i would not complain the way I do (we have had our German scandal just weeks ago too, the Kunduz bombing called in by a German Colonel). But I do not get the impression from that video. I rate it as intentional murder of civilians, not as a valid military intention, with the crews being aware that they were not shooting at combatants and that is what differs the act of murder from an act of war.

Sorry, but that's how that video reaches me.

I do not rate it as a fight that went wrong for any of the above mentioned reasons, but as murder. Thus my harsh conclusion.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 04:44 PM

(though in the case of Japan it was actually legally ambiguous due to an Imperial Edict that made almost the entire population technically combatants—though the US didn't know that at the time, so our intent was clearly at odds with the rules regardless).

WTF?! Are you trying to justify the A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a paranthesis?

Raptor1

04-06-10, 04:47 PM

WTF?! Are you trying to justify the A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a paranthesis?

Is there something about parentheses that make them unsuitable for justification of events?

Even though I see no justification...

Aramike

04-06-10, 04:54 PM

WTF?! Are you trying to justify the A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a paranthesis?It must be nice to live in a world where harsh applications of force are never necessary.

tater

04-06-10, 04:54 PM

WTF?! Are you trying to justify the A-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a paranthesis?

I have no problem with either of those attacks, actually. never had, never will. They without question saved more lives—even just Japanese lives—than they took. Had we not used the 2 devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we certainly would have used them in advance of the invasion. Had the war lasted a couple weeks longer, the UK would have invaded Malaya, and there was a standing order for all POWs to then be executed. That totaled about the number killed by the bombs just counting POWs in the Malaya area. Similar orders were followed through with everywhere else, there is no reason to expect they would not have in Malaya on September 1st.

I was, however, actually thinking more of LeMay's firebombing campaign, which killed more people than both atomic weapons combined. The 2d fire raid on Tokyo killed 102,000 alone, for example.

Technically speaking—which is all that matters legally—all men 15-65, and all women 17-47 in Japan were soldiers by Imperial Edict. While that certainly leaves many kids and old people as non-combatants, they were if anything outnumbered by combatants. If you mix combatants and noncombatants intentionally, you cannot complain when the latter are killed.

That's just a statement of reality.

tater

04-06-10, 04:55 PM

It must be nice to live in a world where harsh applications of force are never necessary.

True, it's easier to just sell arms to the bad guys than fight them. When you get paid in gold, just try to ignore that it looks like fillings. ;)

TLAM Strike

04-06-10, 05:11 PM

We have a professional military not simply because they are paid. Being paid to do something does not make one a professional. :nope:

As the joke goes, what do you call a soldier who cashes his paycheck? A mercenary.

Oberon

04-06-10, 05:13 PM

At 3:19 approx, you can see the two reporters with cameras on straps slung over their shoulders, without being told that they were reporters and those were cameras, one could make the mistake that those were possibly SMGs or RPGs in that shot.
At 3:39, the camera slews up and there are three gentlemen with what appear to be weapons of some sort, at least from the altitude and angle of the chopper. They radio in to check that there are no friendlies in the area, and receive the all clear.
At 4:08, one of the camera crew appears to be picking up a long lens camera from the ground, unfortunately all that is visible on the tape is a long black object, which is something an RPG happens to be. Only at 4:13ish can one be sure that it's a camera, but if in advance you did not know that he was a camera man, would this still register so obviously?
4:21 he reports that there was 'a guy shooting', which obviously did not occur. This is the gunners error. You cannot excuse this statement save for words uttered in the grip of the moment which once uttered can never be returned to whence they came.
4:41 it sounds as though there is a US unit in a nearby street, talk of Humvees and Bradleys, and later in the video he talks in a unit. This would make any gunner just that little more jumpy knowing that his or hers countrymen are just a few streets away and the people you have in front of you could be mustering to attack them.
4:51 Yeah...by this point, now that you know who they are, it's obvious that they are a bit too relaxed to be planning an attack, but that's hindsight for you. Something that you only get after the event.
5:09 Primary engagement concluded. Civilians and combatants scatter alike, he who fights and runs away lives to kill you or a friend another day.
5:19 Two random shots at the fleeing reporter, gunner seems to lose track or something. Some humour. Not appropriate for the situation, but one way of relieving tension.
5:53 Ok, a bit overkill now, although probably aimed at the last survivor. Again, if a combatant survives, he can return to the battlefield. This gentleman was not a combatant, however the crew was firmly in the belief that he was and thus acted so.
Asking for the guy to reach for a weapon is perhaps not appropriate, however in an age when SWAT teams cannot use force unless they've already been shot at (and possibly killed or injured) then he has to have what looks like a weapon in his hands before they can open fire.

Let me bring forward another little story from another war.
Malaya, 1950-52.
45 Commando of the Royal Marines, were deployed to Malaya during the crisis, it was in climate conditions probably quite similar to Vietnam, likewise in geography. Isolated villages surrounded by jungles, perfect ambush territory.
As the Commandos patrolled, they would come across villages and the children of the village would run out to meet them, the Commandos would pick the children up, play games with them, share their rations with them, generally the things that you or I would do with children no matter if we were in a war or not.
The enemy, Communist guerrillas, got word of this, probably through local sympathisers, and began to use the children as a weapon against the Commandos. The children were wired up with explosives, to them it was just a game, perhaps a new type of clothing, and when they ran out to greet the Commandos to play their games and get their sweets, the explosives were detonated and the children and Marines killed.
After a time, quite a few Marines had succumbed to this new tactic, so an order was issued from command, any children who ran towards the Marines as they entered a village were to be shot on sight.
Can you imagine that? To the children it was business as usual, some of them might have had a bomb vest, some of them might not have done...but if they ran towards the Marines to greet them...it was the last thing they did. Let me tell you something...it haunted those Marines to their final days, however what choice did they have? It was kill or be killed, for if one of those children with a bomb vest had met my grandfather in Malaya, I would not be typing these words right now. I'm just bloody grateful that I'm not in a position where my judgment is responsible for the life and death of those around me.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 05:26 PM

It must be nice to live in a world where harsh applications of force are never necessary.
Well, I can't get closer to a better world than the worst of idiots, obviously.

I was, however, actually thinking more of LeMay's firebombing campaign, which killed more people than both atomic weapons combined. The 2d fire raid on Tokyo killed 102,000 alone, for example.
The bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, togehter killed almost 200.000 people instantly? The death toll to this day is totaling ~400.000 people who died in the consequence of the bombs because of radiation. Far most of them civilians.

"Imperial Edict", yeah right... That's one sorry excuse. :nope:

Oberon

04-06-10, 05:32 PM

Oberon

04-06-10, 05:36 PM

And let me just state for the record, before I retire to bed, that I am not American, I am British, and I am not some hard right wing conservative, in fact I consider myself quite liberal. I wasn't a particularly big fan of George Bush, and expected highly of Obama when he was first inaugurated.
All in all, I tick most of the boxes to be what Americans would call a Democrat, and yet I do not think of things as left or right wing, conservative or liberal, because there is no such thing as black or white, in any situation and in my opinion, and my opinion alone, I think that it is incredibly naive to think that the world exists in Black and White.

That's all I'll say on the subject for now, I'm going to bed before my rambling becomes uncontrollable. :ping:

Raptor1

04-06-10, 05:36 PM

The bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, togehter killed almost 200.000 people instantly? The death toll to this day is totaling ~400.000 people who died in the consequence of the bombs because of radiation. Far most of them civilians.

"Imperial Edict", yeah right... That's one sorry excuse. :nope:

200,000? I think the highest estimates don't go over 150,000.

Regardless, the bombing saved many more lives than they caused deaths. Estimated casualties for a successful execution of Olympic and Coronet went up to 1 million men for the Allies alone; the fact that the Japanese conscripted most of their population into the army without any proper armament or training and with suicidal orders to resist the invasion at all costs meant that Japanese casualties would far exceed that. All this is combined with the casualties that would've been caused by Operation Zipper in Malaya, Operation Tiderace in Signapore and, most importantly, the impending Soviet invasion of Hokkaido that was to follow the landing in the Kurils.

Not to mention the fact that quite a few nuclear weapons were planned to have been used as tactical nukes to balance out the operational numerical equality that the Japanese have created with their conscription.

EDIT: Bah, shouldn't be writing so late at night.

EDIT 2: There, should be comprehensible now.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 05:44 PM

Oberon has done an excellent job above with his timeline. :salute:

I will also say this - to those of you who have never seen combat - never been shot at, and never had to pull a trigger - you have no understanding of the stresses involved.

The comment of 5:53 - encouraging a person to reach for a weapon - is actually a comment that makes note of the ROE - if he DOES reach for a weapon, he confirms his own status as a combatant. Now - you just pulled a trigger - you now have an injured person in your sights - do you want to see him reach for a weapon - proving he is a "bad guy" - or do you want to see him hobble off, passing by a weapon and instead reaching for safety. If there is any doubt in your mind about him actually being a combatant - you know you have already injured him - if he is not a combatant - you have to face the fact that your actions marred for life an innocent person. It is part of the mental rationalization to want that person to reach for a weapon - which absolves you of the wounding and gives you the (somewhat shaky) ethical ground to put him out of his misery.

Now - a comment about what is conspicuously absent in this discussion. You have a "reporter" - often local populace member - in an area of conflict - and around people with weapons. In addition, you have a unit of your own army nearby. The video shows the photographer was going to take a picture of SOMETHING - and being a "war correspondant" - you can bet a doughnut that he wasn't going to take a picture of a little girl playing with her doggy in the park. Something was going down - and the "reporter" knew it. Otherwise he wouldn't have been setting up to capture it. The fact there were armed elements in his immediate vicinity show that there was action about to occur (or in the case of the "sneaking" aroung the corner - already going on). Against whom - is unknown. It might have been the unit entering the area - it might have been another militia group, or any other possibilities. But the reality is $hit was about to get (or already was) hot, and the intervention by the soldiers involved obviously stopped things. Good or bad - we won't ever know.

But to claim that the entire thing was just "indescriminant" killing by US forces is a total croc.

Castout

04-06-10, 06:03 PM

OMG a camera was thought of an RPG...
It must be a combination of poor tracking technology, poor judgment and an appetite for some action after some extended lull.

Some more brain should be put into the brawn especially before engaging from high above.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 06:08 PM

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 06:16 PM

You do realise that most of the purple hearts issued today were quite likely from the five hundred thousand that were made in preparation for Operation Downfall? It's hard to tell whether or not the casualties of Operation Downfall would have exceeded that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but considering that at least seven nuclear weapons would have been used or available to be used during Operation Downfall, it could be argued that the civilian deaths alone would be three times higher. The devastation would not have been limited to two cities either it would have been distributed equally across the whole continent.
Very much a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, but an invasion of Japan would have been monstrous for both sides.
Nice hypothesis... We'll never know, do we. We could have spare at least 350.000 civilian lives too. And I don't care if you're republican or democrat, by the way. Not the least...

200,000? I think the highest estimates don't go over 150,000.
Regardless, the bombing saved many more lives than they caused.
I have proved you wrong then, haven't I. We can dispute the numbers, but it is one hell of a impressive detah toll within hours. You've just got to admit that.
I disagree over the necessarity of it all. Japan was already defeated. There wasn't much more for them to do. They didn't pose any direct threat to the US or any surrouning countries since almost the whole country was in ruins. It might had been hard to invade Japan at the time. But they had no fair option other than to surrender in the long run. I think lives could have been spared if they choosed to wait them out.
Now, there is no news that USA makes their vengence and benefit priority number one. We've seen it time after time in history. No human life without a US citizenchip (or their allies) are worth ****. That's pretty much what this video shows.

Have a nice day.

TLAM Strike

04-06-10, 06:18 PM

I noticed these reporters don't ware the blue flack jackets and helmets with "PRESS" written on them. :down:

Raptor1

04-06-10, 06:28 PM

I have proved you wrong then, haven't I. We can dispute the numbers, but it is one hell of a impressive detah toll within hours. You've just got to admit that.
I disagree over the necessarity of it all. Japan was already defeated. There wasn't much more for them to do. They didn't pose any direct threat to the US or any surrouning countries since almost the whole country was in ruins. It might had been hard to invade Japan at the time. But they had no fair option other than to surrender in the long run. I think lives could have been spared if they choosed to wait them out.
Now, there is no news that USA makes their vengence and benefit priority number one. We've seen it time after time in history. No human life without a US citizenchip (or their allies) are worth ****. That's pretty much what this video shows.

Have a nice day.

You have not proven anything wrong. The bombing of Tokyo on the night of March 10th, 1945 caused over 100,000 deaths alone, which is quite a bit more than the highest casualty estimate on either of the atomic bombs.

Waiting it out? You mean staving the Japanese home islands by blockade and continuing the conventional bombing which has killed far more people than the Atomic bombs? This would still have caused more casualties...

Also, don't forget that the Soviets had plans of their own and, had the US not invaded or performed anything to end the war, you can be sure the Soviets would have, likely causing massive casualties as well...

tater

04-06-10, 06:29 PM

Well, I can't get closer to a better world than the worst of idiots, obviously.

The bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, togehter killed almost 200.000 people instantly? The death toll to this day is totaling ~400.000 people who died in the consequence of the bombs because of radiation. Far most of them civilians.

"Imperial Edict", yeah right... That's one sorry excuse. :nope:

Raptor beat me to it. Your numbers are flat out wrong. The total approaches 200k including all deaths after war to cancer, etc (not sure if that is all, or only "excess" deaths to cancer that would not have normally happened).

The 2d firebombing raid was ONE raid. At the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (you seem to be pretty ignorant of the air war vs Japan, so I'll educate you), we were engaging in such raids a few times PER WEEK. Had the a-bombs not been dropped on those two cities, they would have instead faced large fire bombing raids by B-29s. The only functional difference between the normal "day at the office" B-29 raids and the a-bombs was vastly fewer planes, and a more certain outcome per attack. For regular raids sometimes they got a firestorm going, other times not so much. As I recall a large % of the a-bomb casualties were actually attributed to the firestorm that ensued. Unlike a conventional version, it started everywhere all at once, and left no avenue for escape, exacerbating the effect.

As for the Imperial Edict, it's a fact, not an excuse. It's explicitly not an excuse because as I said that the USAAF did not know about it. I specifically said it was NOT an excuse, and that our intent was in fact to bomb civilians. The excuse at the time was that Japanese industry had been farmed out to cottage industry within homes (which was in fact true). Ie: woman worker goes to factory, and takes home gun parts, assembles them, then brings finished receiver to factory and gets more parts to bring home.

A suggestion for further reading on the final days of the Imperial Japanese Empire would be Richard Frank's excellent book, Downfall.

On topic, Oberon and CaptainHaplo both make excellent analysis of the situation. Myself, I neither really defend nor condemn the actions, I wasn't there, I've not been in that situation, and I don't have all the information required to form a definition opinion other than the video, and the gunship crew certainly seemed to think they were engaging combatants—it's not like they said "let's slaughter some raghead civies!" on the radio, quite the opposite.

I have proved you wrong then, haven't I. We can dispute the numbers, but it is one hell of a impressive detah toll within hours. You've just got to admit that.
I disagree over the necessarity of it all. Japan was already defeated. There wasn't much more for them to do. They didn't pose any direct threat to the US or any surrouning countries since almost the whole country was in ruins. It might had been hard to invade Japan at the time. But they had no fair option other than to surrender in the long run. I think lives could have been spared if they choosed to wait them out.
Now, there is no news that USA makes their vengence and benefit priority number one. We've seen it time after time in history. No human life without a US citizenchip (or their allies) are worth ****. That's pretty much what this video shows.

Have a nice day.

Japan was not defeated. She would not have surrendered without an invasion, that was their entire point. A bloody invasion, THEN sue for peace with terms to their liking. Any text written before 1996 misses information only declassified in 1996 regarding some code breaking work we had done. We knew this to be true, because we had their communications (many cite a jap diplomat suggesting that they accept Potsdam, but they did not have the reply—using a higher level code—that said in no uncertain terms that this would NEVER be acceptable. Read Downfall. Regardless, every single day the war went on there was the chance of another 1000 B-29s flying over some city burning it to the ground.

Buddahaid

04-06-10, 06:30 PM

There is never justification for war, only explanations.

People have been fighting seen the dawn of mankind.

Dehumanizing ones enemy is how you motivate soldiers to kill and is as old as war itself.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 06:34 PM

I disagree over the necessarity of it all. Japan was already defeated. But they had no fair option other than to surrender in the long run. I think lives could have been spared if they choosed to wait them out.

So what your saying is - instead of ending the war - ending the suffering of the entire nation by forcing the surrender - we should have just parked our subs around the island and sunk anything going into it.... meaning more lives on ships lost - not to mention the prolonged agony of what would have amounted to the complete and total destruction of the economy, including food. So instead of making the war end quickly, we should have let untold numbers of those same innocent civilians suffer and starve to death while they waited for the the military heirarchy to throw in the towel....

Yea... that makes lots of sense....:doh:

tater

04-06-10, 06:40 PM

Japanese civilians were already quite literally eating sawdust by the early summer of 1945.

Every day the war went on many people died. Every day. If the weather was suitable for a B-29 raid, maybe only a few thousand beyond starvation, maybe many more.

When the Malaya invasion would have happened, many would have been murdered in cold blood by the japs (mostly native populations, but tens of thousands of europeans as well).

If you want to compare japanese murder to area bombing, figure out how many we killed AFTER Japan surrendered. We know that is "none." The japs killed millions of civilians after they had capitulated. That makes all the difference in the world.

krashkart

04-06-10, 07:10 PM

Since nobody is going to post it. Hence, I decided to take the lead :oops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

America. Land of the free. Home of the brave. Bringing freedom and peace through superior firepower.

Go back to sleep. Everything is fine.

Thanks for bringing this up. :up:

To my recollection (from last viewing of the video) I only saw three instances of what might appear to be weapons, and the rest of those men appear to be very much unarmed. Still trying to figure out if the RPG was an RPG or a camera lens. I'll have another look at this.

At about 5:10-5:20, where Saaed tries to run for cover, the crosshairs make a wild jerk to the left while the chain gun fires. Four of those rounds appear to have hit nearly half a block away on the other side of the intersection. A line of rooftops above Saaed were pounded just a moment before.

Then there is the van. Did anyone else see weapons on those men helping Saaed? They were helping a possible enemy combatant, but they didn't appear to be carrying anything more harmful than a grown man who could barely manage to crawl. :hmmm:

Could it be possible, the area being in a Baghdad fraught with religious division, that the armed men were simply a local escort to protect the journalists? Enemy or not, there were too few militants present in that group to justify the kill.

***

Notice any difference with the crew emotion in this next clip? There are a couple of places toward the end where the crew are excited about well-placed shots, but they don't seem to lose their grip or stray off target.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gMMQTt5-c

***

August

04-06-10, 07:38 PM

...I'm just bloody grateful that I'm not in a position where my judgment is responsible for the life and death of those around me.

That was a great post Oberon but I don't think some folks here really care about reality. To them all they see is some Americans they can criticize.

CCIP

04-06-10, 08:08 PM

That was a great post Oberon but I don't think some folks here really care about reality. To them all they see is some Americans they can criticize.

Honestly, I should point out that I don't think it really matters who does what. I don't care if it's Americans, I care that it's wrong. Anyone can make a wrong judgment. I do agree with Oberon that a lot of the alternate-judgment here would be purely hindsight, but far from all of it. As I say, as much as the situation was unclear, the pilots already formed a story in their head as to what was going on, and no amount of "grey area" seemed to deter them from making a kill. There are things in that situation that they should not have done, and could have been judged then and there rather than in hindsight.

A lot of the arguments on this revolve around it being a war. But I really have trouble calling what was going on in Sadr City in 2007 an actual war. And if this was not called a war, and the people committing the attack were not in the military, I think they would have had to face a court with some serious consequences. I'm not convinced if "murder" is necessarily what happened, but it was some serious and unjustified homicide nonetheless. By any normal civil standard, this cannot be argued to have been correct or justified in any fashion. The actions of the pilots may be partially excusable, but ultimately indefensible imho. Imagine police in your home town using the same methods to deal with any large gathering of people who might possibly be armed. What would your reaction be then? Why is this supposed to be any different?

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 08:55 PM

Could it be possible, the area being in a Baghdad fraught with religious division, that the armed men were simply a local escort to protect the journalists? Enemy or not, there were too few militants present in that group to justify the kill.

OK this is facepalm material here.....

Think about what you said Krashkart...

First - "could it be possible" - well sure it could. And the hijackers that flew into the twin towers COULD have just POSSIBLY been on a downtown sightseeing tour and F'ed it up by accident.... I mean - if you want to stretch possibilities.....

So what do you do in a conflict zone there Krashkart, walk up to the guys with guns and ask "Uhm, excuse me - but are you here for bad $hit or are you just here to escort that guy with a camera that looks like an RPG? Cuz I need to know so I can let the guys in the attack bird up there know whether to clean your clocks or not."? How long do ya think your gonna survive in a shooting gallery doing that? (A shooting gallery is exactly what Sadr City was during this time frame).

So what we have here is an armed group of unknown intent - along with a "reporter" with a device that is easily mistaken at distance through the equipment used - as an RPG. You have no clue what that group is up to, but given the operational area situation, its doubtful to be any good. Regardless of which militia they are part of - not a single one of em is doing anything positive - just killing each other and innocents trying to grab power. So what do you do? Oh wait - it gets better - a friendly unit is entering the area - and is close by - you going to wait till they start wasting your buddies before you do something?

If your answer is yes - hopefully you don't mind swapping roles with that other guy next time - willing to die just so your buddy can fire..... (With the shoe on the other foot its a different picture ain't it...)

Btw - even though its admitted that you couldn't identify the device as a camera or an RPG - how is the guy in the bird supposed to know the fella "setting up" what looks to be a weapon is a reporter? Is military training supposed to make him like one of the guys in "The Men who Stare at Goats" or a Jedi where he can read the man's mind and know he isn't up to no good? C'mon - you have the luxury of hindsight - knowing now what was unknowable then - yet you judge them as if they should have known - when that was impossible.

Also - how do you figure out who in a group is militant and who isn't? Again, are you saying someone should just go ask em??? If you see a group of people helping someone that you have determined - to the best of your ability - to be a militant - thats called giving aid to the enemy.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy...

Enemy or not, there were too few militants present in that group to justify the kill.

God I hope you never run a war. In war - its kill or be killed. When you see an opening - you take it - because if you don't - that target may take you or your buddies out 10 minutes later. Using your logic - there are "too few" to justify the kill - is the same as saying a shot to old Adolph's head in 42 when he decided to go take a leak on a tree out back of wolf's lair shouldn't have been taken - because one guy isn't enough of a target for a kill.....

We may be able to figure a body count from the attack - but what you can never figure out is what the body count would have been if you had not taken the shot.

TLAM Strike

04-06-10, 09:04 PM

I should point out that militants have been known to film their attacks, so a person with a camera hanging out with some guys with guns and an RPG doesn't mean he is a reporter with some body guards. :yep:

August

04-06-10, 09:23 PM

Imagine police in your home town using the same methods to deal with any large gathering of people who might possibly be armed. What would your reaction be then? Why is this supposed to be any different?

I don't see it as a valid comparison. How many police forces have attack helicopters? Artillery? Nuclear Weapons? How many police forces face constant fire from automatic weapons, rockets mines and booby traps?

If you think that Sadr city in 2007 was a job for a police force then fine but I don't see how any police force in the world could have handled it.

CCIP

04-06-10, 09:26 PM

Yeah, but by the same token I'm not convinced that the military ever handled it appropriately either. This video is a case in point. As is the fact that nothing ever really happened to the Mehdi army, either. They're still there.

nikimcbee

04-06-10, 09:54 PM

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 10:49 PM

Nikimcbee - thanks for the kind words - and congrats on 8k+!

As for the situation - Sadr city is a suberb of Baghdad. At various times the Al-Mahdi militia (answering to Muqtada al-Sadr) has dominated the area. At the time of the fighting - and this is WHY there was no wrongdoing by the US forces - the Iraqi National Security Council (an arm of the duly elected government) had called for the disbanding of all militia forces. The Al-Mahdi militia refused. Thus they were in violation of Iraqi law - and a joint Iraqi and US operation was conducted.

The time frame in question was during this operation - and thus ANY militia forces were valid targets - at the request of the Iraqi government. So yes, there as significant combat operations going on in the area. The actions by the crew in the video were legal and sanctioned by official request for US assistance by the Iraqi government.

The reality is that any armed group of non US or Iraqi military personnel were violating the Iraqi NSC directive - making themselves targets. So this idea of "well we don't know what there intent was" is irrelevant.

As for taking out the van - you have someone that is rendering aid to a combatant - while we cannot know if their motivation was simply seeing an injured person and trying to help - or not - the reality is they were in a known conflict area - and shooting was going on. Helping a wounded militia member - is giving aid to those who were in violation of legal instructions - and thus made themselves targets as well.

Do any of us like that fact? No. I am sure that we all would have liked for them to just drive away and not die. But every action has a repercussion - and their act - whether driven by kindness or the intent to help a fellow militia member - caused them to be targetted as well.

I have to say what I did earlier - the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Nicolas

04-06-10, 10:53 PM

ww2 was about some countries invading others but this.. i dont know really why mr bush insisted much on 'weapons of mass destruction' most the united nations opposed to this war, and there were no such weapons.

I dont like give opinions on something others are suffering, but.. something just bothers me. What was the reason for this war??? i just dont get it. :stare::stare::stare: Can someone explain? Sounds like absolutly unfair worthless uneccesary blood spill.

Torvald Von Mansee

04-06-10, 10:57 PM

CaptainHaplo

04-06-10, 11:18 PM

An excellent find Torvald!

Nicolas - your misinformed on a few things. First off - the majority of the UN nations in the area had no qualms with the invasion of Iraq - as demonstrated by the number of supporting countries involved.

As for WHY - there were specific indications that multiple types of WMD's were present or being developed - and the refusal by Iraq to conform to international demand regarding Nuclear Inspections were the tipping point. Only later did we learn that Saddam refused the inspections to make it APPEAR that he had a program that was further advanced than the reality. This was done to display strength regionally - and was a massive miscalculation on his part. Documents found after the fall of the regime show that a nuclear program was in process - but it was VERY rudimentary and presented no immediate danger. But without inspections - how could anyone know that - especially when the ruler was giving every indication that they were farther along?

As for the question of WMD's - while you won't hear about it in standard media - the reality is there is satellite photos of chemical tankers with escort going into syria right before the war - and syria denies that such convoys existed. Recall that the ruling party in Syria is also that Bath party - same as what controlled Iraq - though there were some differences - it is branches of the same tree. Now - in addition, chemical warheads HAVE been found that - had they been used - easily could have killed 100k plus - equaling the UN definition of WMD. Then you have the "duel use" laboratories that were found buried - after having been sanitized. They could be used for legitimate purposes - or used to manufacture chemical and biological weapons. The fact that they were sanitized before burial is a clear indication that htey were not being used for legitimate purposes..... Had they been, why even bury them?

Lastly - the invasion was legal due to the fact that the Hussein government had repeatedly violated the cease fire. It consistently fired on allied aircraft on patrol - negating the cease fire in doing so. Thus, their decision to shoot at allied assets constituted them reopening the conflict. After literally years of this occuring - action was taken.

When all these factors are combined - and recall it was MULTIPLE countries intelligence agencies that all agreed there was an immediate danger -an ultimatum was issued: unrestricted IAEA access. That ultimatum was ignored. Thus the invasion.

Hope this helps.

Fader_Berg

04-06-10, 11:47 PM

A suggestion for further reading on the final days of the Imperial Japanese Empire would be Richard Frank's excellent book, Downfall.
I'll do that...

VonHesse

04-06-10, 11:51 PM

Anyone read this, yet?

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

Sorry if someone else has already mentioned it; I'm not going to go back through the thread to see if someone has (if so, someone delete this post).

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that yet. Couldn't have put it better myself. As a former member of the US Army who luckily never had to go to war, I was only bothered by one portion of the incident - the firing on the van.

As far as I can see, the sodiers were in compliance with the rules of engagement up until that point. As I was trained, soldiers are allowed to respond with deadly force when they are attacked, or they have reasonable cause to believe that they (or others) are in a percieved danger of being attacked. I've seen the grainy video, and imagining myself in that situation, I refuse to second guess their response. If it looks like people carrying weapons and pointing them at you - shoot it. Heck shoot it twice.

The flip side of that is (again, as I was trained) soldiers are prohibited from firing on any enemy who has ceased to present an active threat, whether by actively surrendering, or by being incapacitated due to injuries sustained. Period. Also, by every convention that I was trained by, firing on any person (soldier or not) who is rendering aid to wounded persons is most highly prohibited and is (as taught to me by my Drill Sargeant) to be considered a war crime, (yes those are the words my D.S. used). That rule is supposed to be followed even if it means that a bad guy gets away to rest up and heal only for us to have to fight him again in the future.

Treating the wounded and persons giving aid with respect is what is supposed to seperate us from the bad guys.

Again, I'm not second guessing the initial firing. I watched the video fully expecting it to be some overblown media hype and for the most part it was. Watching the van that was providing aid get fired on turned my stomach though. We're supposed to be better than that.

nikimcbee

04-07-10, 12:22 AM

Castout

04-07-10, 02:51 AM

Castout - US land forces are stretched thin, but the reality is that few countries are in a position to do much to the US. Could they use our current state to pursue regional goals? Possibly - but it would be a dangerous decision. Could a country invade the US? Only if its Canada or Mexico - and Mexico has been doing that for decades already. Anyone else has to deal with our navy, and no country on earth has the ability to take on our navy in the open ocean and win right now.

Umm yea you got a point but a front should not be opened or a war should not be entertained for extended period of time. In conventional war the ideal is to attack with overwhelming force, crush the enemy and END the war under the victor's terms.

But anyone cannot be ignorant as not to say that Afghanistan and Iraq couldn't pose as a destabilizing stage for a third or fourth conflict elsewhere and after that God knows who would take advantage of what and who would not.

Somehow the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been dragging its feet too long.

PS I deleted my original comment to which you were replying. Sorry about that.

Tribesman

04-07-10, 03:03 AM

As for WHY - there were specific indications that multiple types of WMD's were present or being developed
Thats strange, when the "evidence" of these specific indications was put to the security council Colin Powell looked very stupid when it was rejected by several countries as nonsense. didn't he describe that as the worst point of his career, being asked to present such a pile of crap as "evidence".

As for the question of WMD's - while you won't hear about it in standard media - the reality is there is satellite photos of chemical tankers with escort going into syria right before the war
Chemical tankers? all those claims about Syria were given much publicity throughout the media and at all levels of the governments and NGOs involved. They have consistantly been demonstrated as bollox.

It consistently fired on allied aircraft on patrol - negating the cease fire in doing so.
Wierd, what part of the ceasefire agreement allowed for the setting up of those patrols?

When all these factors are combined - and recall it was MULTIPLE countries intelligence agencies that all agreed there was an immediate danger
Why does CAPS LOCK remind me of the manifesto of industrial society and its future?
But anyway, multiple couintries intelligence agencies rejected the claims about the "immediate threat" and several of the key countries who did agree with the "evidence" knew they had fabricated the evidence.

Sorry for addressing those slightly off topic points but I find it amazing that all these years after the invasion and after all the testimony and inquiries some people can still attempt to peddle that nonsense.

krashkart

04-07-10, 04:06 AM

OK this is facepalm material here.....

Think about what you said Krashkart...

.......
.......

Well, the footage was upsetting enough to me to evoke the response I wrote. I just don't have the same angle on the subject, Cap'n. What I saw in that video was of something that I'm not accustomed to seeing on a regular basis.

So what do you do in a conflict zone there Krashkart, walk up to the guys with guns and ask "Uhm, excuse me - but are you here for bad $hit or are you just here to escort that guy with a camera that looks like an RPG?"...

Okay, I can laugh. I'm not quite that naive, but I see your point. :D

you have the luxury of hindsight

Very true. I wish there wasn't a need for that kind of hindsight - but it is what it is. :o

God I hope you never run a war.

Rest easy, sir. I am nowhere near being in a position to do such a thing. Breathe man, breathe! :DL

Using your logic - there are "too few" to justify the kill - is the same as saying a shot to old Adolph's head in 42 when he decided to go take a leak on a tree out back of wolf's lair shouldn't have been taken - because one guy isn't enough of a target for a kill.....

Yes, I stated that there was no justification for what happened. It made sense to me at the time, but it was based on the one side of the story provided by a video clip instead of a larger chunk of the big picture. It tugged at my heartstrings, I tell ya.

Thanks for jostling my brain, CaptainHaplo. *fistbump* :)

***

I should point out that militants have been known to film their attacks, so a person with a camera hanging out with some guys with guns and an RPG doesn't mean he is a reporter with some body guards. :yep:

Good point. I had forgotten about those. :oops:

CaptainHaplo

04-07-10, 06:17 AM

Krashkart - thank you for having the wisdom and maturity to take my response so well. I know we may not agree 100% here, but I appreciate you taking this constructively. *Fist bumps back at ya!

Zachstar

04-07-10, 06:36 AM

Thank god for wikileaks. I can only guess how many people on free republic are screaming treason at whoever decided to reveal the truth to the world.

You know what? It was bad enough. But now its 10x as bad for our credibility because it was hidden. The pilot and gunner need to face justice. The same kind of justice murderers face in a court of law in the civilian world. That is what a court martial is supposed to do. Justice

But this BULL**** about keeping the truth hidden because it can "stir up anti-american feelings" is causing TONS of damage to our credibility. It's got to end in my opinion and the pentagon ought to get out these videos and deal with the crap now and serve justice to the scum involved and be done with it.

BTW I have to just laugh at whoever calls the pilot and gunner their "countrymen" Would you call a rapist your "countrymen" ? What about the mall shooter? Is he your "countrymen" as well?

August

04-07-10, 06:57 AM

BTW I have to just laugh at whoever calls the pilot and gunner their "countrymen" Would you call a rapist your "countrymen" ? What about the mall shooter? Is he your "countrymen" as well?

Well they are. They are your countrymen as well whether you like it or not.

Zachstar

04-07-10, 07:09 AM

No man they are YOUR countrymen in your opinion it seems apparently. Do they deserve the rights under the constitution? Yes. But I refuse to call such scum countrymen.

Countrymen are people you respect and are proud to share society with the firemen the police officers the nurses the mothers the farmers the miners etc...

These 2 are not my countrymen. They are Americans but not Countrymen. I hope the military gives them the justice they and civilized society deserve. They don't have my respect.

August

04-07-10, 07:18 AM

No man they are YOUR countrymen in your opinion it seems apparently. Do they deserve the rights under the constitution? Yes. But I refuse to call such scum countrymen.

What you refuse to do is irrelevant. The fact is as Americans they are your countrymen. Either learn to live with that or hit the road for some place better, if they'll have you that is.

Oberon

04-07-10, 07:39 AM

Just a little thing to add here to those who may think of all those in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'Generation Kill', here's a clip from an A-10 during a tragic blue on blue back in 2003 when an A-10 strafed a British convoy, killing one and injuring five. Bad intel meant that they were only made aware of friendly armour in the area after they had already attacked. The video starts as the A-10s receive word of friendly armour in their grid space and realise what has happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3THYnJ-PK6U

They know they have screwed up, they know that people might have died, and the tone of their voice displays the raw anger and disappointment they feel.

As wartime reporters they would have known the risk they were taking, furthermore, as TLAM strike has stated, they should have been wearing the PRESS flakjacket and helmet which would have made them stand out and probably saved their lives. They don't give you outfits to protect you from the enemy, it's to protect you from your own side.
But again, I am not aware of the full thoughts of the two men, therefore I will refrain from second-guessing them. It's a tragedy that they were killed but they are not the first, nor will they be the last civilian deaths in war, civilians have been the front line targets in most wars since war began, in my town there is a plaque in our Post Office to the three people who were killed when the town was bombed by a Dornier I think it was, during the war. Dresden and Tokyo were both fire stormed by the allies whilst London and other British cities received heavy bombing from the Luftwaffe.

Ok, the technology has changed since then and you can now post missiles down chimneys instead of blanketing the area, but you are still going to get civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, particularly in a war where the difference between civilian and combatant is not even marked with a uniform.

Zachstar

04-07-10, 08:18 AM

What you refuse to do is irrelevant. The fact is as Americans they are your countrymen. Either learn to live with that or hit the road for some place better, if they'll have you that is.

The old and fully expected "Don't like it leave" Tea party line. Thankfully most of the rest of the country does not think like you. I aint leaving Oh and I refuse to call them countrymen and that is that.

It's 2010 the old conservative lines don't work anymore. We don't let murderers off the hook because Iraq sucks. You can't wave the flag everytime a family gets massacred or hellfires or mavericks fly into crowded areas. The only truly sad thing is that it took a damn leak site to get the ball rolling on this justice.

krashkart

04-07-10, 08:20 AM

Krashkart - thank you for having the wisdom and maturity to take my response so well. I know we may not agree 100% here, but I appreciate you taking this constructively. *Fist bumps back at ya!

I really had to take the time to think it through as I was writing that time. I spend most of my time here in the lol threads, and maybe this was my first official step into the serious discussions. I want to get it right the first time, but I also recognize that there will be occasions when my thinking is inaccurate, lopsided, whatever the case may be. If a reply stings a little, maybe I need to rethink my approach.

Sure we may not agree 100% on this. It's nothing major. I'd rather make a new friend and maybe even learn a thing or two than spoil a chance at earning someone's respect. :sunny:

August

04-07-10, 09:08 AM

The old and fully expected "Don't like it leave" Tea party line.

Old Tea Party line? They've only been around for a year! :haha:

Thankfully most of the rest of the country does not think like you. I aint leaving Oh and I refuse to call them countrymen and that is that.

You can refuse, hold your breath or pull a temper tantrum if you want to but the fact remains that they are still your countrymen. :yep:

It's 2010 the old conservative lines don't work anymore. We don't let murderers off the hook because Iraq sucks. You can't wave the flag everytime a family gets massacred or hellfires or mavericks fly into crowded areas. The only truly sad thing is that it took a damn leak site to get the ball rolling on this justice.

I guess we'll see then. Judging by the video they were well within the RoE.

August

04-07-10, 09:09 AM

I'd rather make a new friend and maybe even learn a thing or two than spoil a chance at earning someone's respect. :sunny:

Hap might be a wannabe dictator :DL but he is a good egg.

NeonSamurai

04-07-10, 09:30 AM

Old Tea Party line? They've only been around for a year! :haha:

Well you must admit that the statement "if you don't like it you can git out" has been around since just about the inception of the states. I have to say I don't much care for the concept though and think it goes against the basic founding spirit of the US, of liberty and the freedom to think, believe, and express yourself as you choose. Besides that statement could be applied to the other side just as equally as they don't seem to like it either.

Also Zachstar, like it or not these people are your countrymen, as August states, by definition of the word. Even if you hold no kinship with them and do not consider them compatriots due to their actions, they still are citizens of the same country you are.

August

04-07-10, 09:59 AM

Well you must admit that the statement "if you don't like it you can git out" has been around since just about the inception of the states. I have to say I don't much care for the concept though and think it goes against the basic founding spirit of the US, of liberty and the freedom to think, believe, and express yourself as you choose. Besides that statement could be applied to the other side just as equally as they don't seem to like it either.

Point taken Neo. I just found it amusing that suddenly it's a "Tea Party line" as if;

A. I am a TP member, which I am not.
B. That I would ever need an organization to tell me what to say those with such a ridiculous "facts be damned" lynch mob mentality.

krashkart

04-07-10, 10:14 AM

Point taken Neo. I just found it amusing that suddenly it's a "Tea Party line" as if;

A. I am a TP member, which I am not.
B. That I would ever need an organization to tell me what to say those with such a ridiculous "facts be damned" lynch mob mentality.

Oh god, and Palin was pandering to them last I heard. Go figure. She thinks the Lord killed off the dinosaurs for whatever crack-brained reason. Can I borrow your helmet, August? I need something with which to dig a hidey hole.

tater

04-07-10, 10:15 AM

We don't let murderers off the hook because Iraq sucks.

"Murder" requires malicious intent and premeditation. Intent MATTERS.

If the intent was to kill civilians, you're right, it was murder. If the intent was to kill combatants, it was not murder.

There have been a few really excellent posts in here that make it pretty clear to me that the intent was not malicious, even if the outcome was wrong. You have said this air crew should be charged. Why? They asked for, and got permission to engage. They thought they were dealing with combatants, and they did not have the luxury of a pause mutton, or video annotated by propagandists in real time (sorry, but the very title of the vid makes it propaganda).

Sh*t, as they say, happens.

Should they use this as a learning experience? By all means. Should reporters in war zones do the same? Yep. Heck, here's a good idea, reporters should have IR strobes or some other IFF gear. Of course then you'll get a local photographer helping insurgents by wearing his strobe around them (like the japanese shipped troops in hospital ships).

Catfish

04-07-10, 10:28 AM

Well why do US americans are in Iraq at all ? Bad bad Saddam, sure.
Don't you think this "identifying" and "judging" from the distant cockpit of an attack helicopter before just plain killing a person is not "a bit superficial" ?
And do not forget the lazy tone and conversation, it really seems they don't give a damn. Sh!t happens, right. I wonder what they will think and do when they become 40 years, and look back. A "war", my god.

Greetings,
Catfish

tater

04-07-10, 10:34 AM

It's far more than was done in past wars.

They actually look for small arms before engaging. Think of that. What did 500 B-29s do before unloading? Or 500 Lancasters? Individual fighters of the "greatest generation" unmercifully strafed anything that moved throughout Europe and Asia.

Is it perfect? No. Can they improve? Yeah, I imagine so.

I think it's reasonable to ask if air assets should have been used in that situation, but again, I don't really know the specifics—nor does anyone here.

Zachstar

04-07-10, 02:00 PM

World War 2 was FAR FAR different. You didn't have FLIR showing someone trying to help wounded before he is torn to shreds. And that was actual WAR 100 percent declared war. Where losing diddnt mean a civil war in the country but destruction of your very way of life.

Iraq cant ruin our way of life nor can it land a force at our shores. Its a police action where you dont take off looking for action.

tater

04-07-10, 02:17 PM

Exactly, which is why we have restrictive ROE, and pilots have to phone up a lawyer to ask if they are allowed to shoot (some at least in the AF that advise on ROE over the radio have legal training).

Happy Times

04-07-10, 02:53 PM

Now, there is no news that USA makes their vengence and benefit priority number one. We've seen it time after time in history. No human life without a US citizenchip (or their allies) are worth ****. That's pretty much what this video shows.

Have a nice day.

What if i said the Swedes are cowards that havent been in a war since 1812 even there have been morally justified reasons to go to war.

And that Sweden has only had its own benefit in mind kissing up who ever seems to be the strongest power at the given moment.

Since WW2 ended that has been USA btw.

But i dont really label all Swedes and the country like that and i think you shouldnt concerning USA.

Have a nice day.

CaptainHaplo

04-07-10, 07:36 PM

Hap might be a wannabe dictator :DL but he is a good egg.

Thanks August :yeah:

Naw, I don't wanna be a dictator - but I wouldn't mind leading people in extracting their heads from their butts and getting this country back on track!

Zachstar - FLIR is infrared - the vid isn't using FLIR. FLIR is used at night.
Also - let me assure you that as one famous quote goes - if they are shooting - it ain't a low intensity conflict! The fact is you want to complain about the decision to fire - but it was not the decision of the CPG - he used the radio to discuss the issue with another person - who happened to be in a Bradley close by. The Commander on the ground - being told that an armed force was in the area - gave the go ahead to take it out. Put yourself in that man's shoes.... your responsible for the lives of your men - you have been bombed, shot at, and you happen to have an asset with eyes on armed targets nearby - and you know your in a hostile environment.

You want to fuss about it not being "100%" war - blame Congress for not declaring war. But I would bet that you would be here complaining if war had been declared and we just flattened 30 or so square blocks at a time......

You can call it "Not a 100% war" - but to that commander on the ground who made the call - I guarantee you it was exactly that - 100% war....

Catfish - remember that these are guys that are trained to control emotions and do a job - along with the fact there is this thing called radio protocol. You don't yell and scream and go ape**** like a rambo hollering as he mows down the enemy. "Lazy tone" - I assure you - those guys were under serious pucker factor - especially since they didn't KNOW if they were the next target. Is it "a bit superficial" to identify a target from a distance? Depends on the circumstance. In this one - you have at least 1 RPG, mutliple small calibre weapons, etc - in a area that was under legal Iraqi direction to have been disarmed. Don't like that - take it up with the Iraqi NSC - because that was their call. As for it being "a bit superficial" - perhaps you would like soldiers to walk up and ask them who they are before they decide if they need to shoot them? :doh:

Does that Pilot and CPG care? Sure they do - but what they care about is ranked in order or priority.....

#1 Safety of the aircraft and aircrew (aka - each other)
#2 Safety of allied forces in the area (like the grunts close by)
#3 Completion of the mission as defined - which combine the 2 above.
#4 Everything else.

Alot is made of the fact the van was fired on. I will remind everyone that the Rules of War (as defined by the Geneva Convention) state that any vehicle engaged in "humanitarian" actions (such as rendering aid to the injured) must be labeled or marked in such a way as to make its purpose clear. Failure to do so means that its safety is NOT assured. Did anyone see a big ole red Crescent on that vehicle marking it as a humanitarian vehicle? Oh that's right - the answer is no - because it WAS NOT MARKED. The reality is that in the moment - its very possible that it could have carried 5 more people with all kinds of equipment ready to make life miserable for nearby Iraqi or US forces..... Taking that van out was well within the ROE and the Geneva Convention.

Don't like it? I don't blame you - you just got the smallest glimpse of what real war is - and it sure as F$*k ain't pretty. No sane person that has ever been in those situations likes it - but the reality is that that same group - or someone hiding in the van - could have taken out a bunch of Iraqi or US forces.

The golden rule of combat: Do unto your enemy before they can do unto you.

These were militants - later reports show that at least 3 rpg's were found at the strike scene - as well as multiple AK's. Also note that the video slows down to show someone NOT armed - but skims over the one RPG that was caught on film - but pretending it ain't there doesn't make it go away. Then the question is - where did the other 2 come from? Where they from the structure - or the van? We don't know - but regardless - that wasn't just a couple of bodyguards with the "reporters".

Aramike

04-08-10, 12:02 AM

And do not forget the lazy tone and conversation, it really seems they don't give a damn. I'm not going to give my entire opinion here, but this sentiment seems to be cropping up again and again.

And, I have to ask ... what the hell do you think it SHOULD sound like? Should the pilots be weeping over their controls?

I'm sorry that the world involves bad things, and that sometimes people have to conduct "bad things", but it is what it is. Quite frankly, if I ever had to kill anyone I would much rather approach it desensitized as though from a videogame. What - do you think that the soldiers that stand, carrying their nation's military burdens should also have a heavy psychological burden as well?

Catfish

04-08-10, 07:18 AM

Hello,
you can try to justify this as much as you want, this killing from a distant location is - if it is not a "war against civilians" - murder.
Wasn't it Tucholsky who said that all soldiers are murderers, only with a charter for killing - but then he was a german, and certainly only meant german soldiers :shifty:
The strategy as such sure is not the guilt of the pilots, but they will probably think else about it somewhere during their lives. Or maybe not. One of them already seems to have doubts about this "action".

When the US decided to use satellites, drones and remote-spying rather than going physically in, and talk and control people from face to face, the whole scenario has changed from a police mission to a war, against civilians. It is much more convenient, you need less men and this bit of collateral damage ... they're only "sand ******s" after all, as the jargon was in Iraq.

But even with all this striving for justification i am sure this video has left its mark, and rightly so. Maybe not in the US, but surely in the "rest of the world".

Greetings,
Catfish

Skybird

04-08-10, 07:41 AM

"Murder" is an attributed quality defined by a.) legal terms, and b.) moral terms. In case of the latter, it obviosuly is culture-dependant.

Neither "nature" nor "reality" knows of categories like this, they are human thoughts only, and live as long as humans exist only. Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is.

In war, killing others in parts is legalised by according legal codes. However, even in times of war killing done outside such a legalised context, is illegal, and then it is not an act of war, but "murder" and/or a war crime. IMO, this is the case with the situaton covered by the video. And that is why I have a problem with it. I have seen such videos before, where fights and battles were shown and the crosshair focussed on people who got shot. I saw no moral problem there, for there it was obvious that it were combatants that were shot at, or mixed groups of combatants and civilian victims. I see it like this because both of the pictures, and the comments by the crew.

Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. both are different moral codes, and laws and treaties reflect that. However, the morals of peacetime effect war in so far as they usually are designed to discourage going from peace to war, or raise hurdles before going to war could be morally justified.

What never works, never, is using morals of war in peace time, or trying to morally judge war by moral categories of peacetimes. The latter is a very popular hobby these days, but it is intellectual and moral nonsense. It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands.

tater

04-08-10, 08:26 AM

CaptainHaplo hits it out of the park (again).

Catfish, if the people in question are armed—and the investigation showed significant weapons—then they were not civilians. Reporters (the civilians here) "embed" with combatants all the time. If a reporter is hit while patrolling with US forces—tough, that's the risk he decided to take to get the story. The converse is also true should he embed with other forces.

Murder—even in war—requires a specific intent. Civilians are accidentally killed all the time in war, and it is not murder. Civilians are killed in peacetime as the result of police action, and it's not murder, either, even here in the States.

Catfish

04-08-10, 08:29 AM

Hello,
"murder is culture-dependent". Ah.

"... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..."

1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is. This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder. You can call this a "war" crime if you wish, fine.
2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom.

" ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..."
Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything. There can only be one unversal "morale", otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless. You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others.

" ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..."

But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium. You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ?

Greetings,
Catfish

tater

04-08-10, 08:34 AM

Catfish, US forces were in fact on the ground. they show up in that very video. The photog seems to look around the corner to take a pic. Perhaps he hopes to get a Pulitzer shot in a few moments when the RPG toting guys with him engage those ground forces?

This war is actually characterized (particular the Petraeus period) by US forces being in the community walking the streets (at grave risk). These air assets fired on a group that included men with RPGs. Did they need to be dragging a howitzer to be targets?

Onkel Neal

04-08-10, 08:44 AM

Has this been posted in this thread (http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/)? Good analysis.

Catfish

04-08-10, 08:48 AM

Hello,
thanks for your answers and reluctancy, don't know whether i deserved it :D
I am not a peace hippie but this kind of action absolutely disgusts me. The guys and children on the ground are not even aware of that anyone might be shooting at them, surely they did least expect an attack from accompanying Apaches.
Those two guys with the guns/long sticks/flagpoles/baseball clubs (what?) were actually a team belonging to the Reuter correspondent, as body guards. His showing-up and filming was indeed communicated to the US forces before, and had all that not happened it still is quite a superficial "check" before just killing someone. In this case, civilians.
If those heli pilots cannot distinguish cameras from bazookas why are such tactics used for this purpose ?
Yes i should know better, sh!t happens in a war. It only makes this thin skin of polished surface of civilisation a bit dull. :shifty:

Greetings,
Catfish

Skybird

04-08-10, 09:20 AM

Hello,
"murder is culture-dependent". Ah.

"... Where there is no human mind, there is no human conception of what "murder" is. ..."

It is, because whether or not an act of killing is socially acceptable or not, depends on the values of that society and culture. The Aztecs massacred prisoners by the thousands during their rites, which was acceptable for them because they saw it as a way to communicate with their deity. For us, it would be unacceptable to do so. In Islam the killing of dhimmis under certain circumstances is not only acceptable, but encouraged, and in the days of the Grenada intermezzo it could happen that a Muslim who slaughtered another Muslim, would be executed, but if a dhimmi was killed just for fun, the murderer had to fear no legal sanctions because he did not do something that was considered as "immoral" by Quranic standards.

Moral is an artifical, abstract quality system, Catfish, it did not fell down fromt he sky, it is not engraved in stone, it is highly subjective, it does not compare to nature's laws. Two weeks ago I linked to an experiment that showed that moral behavior even can be influenced by something as external and physical like magnetism effecting certain brain areas. the subjects rated the apparent poisening of an unsuspicious person as morally "fine".

You maybe remember that I said often, in discussions, that for right these reasons, our society must be more hesitent to see every culture as of the same cultural value like our own, and that we must not tolerate everything in a foreign culture just because it is called a "culture". It still can be not only an inferior, backwardish culture, but also an inhumane and barbaric culture. There are differences between cultures, and some are more inhumane than others, and of lesser worth in this understanding.

1st There indeed is a human mind, and it clearly has a conception of what murder is.

Does not matter beyond human mind. Ask your dog if it ever has heared of your morals, or ask that star in the sky.

This "death from above" god like behaviour of remote-killing civilians is just that - murder.

In this case of this video, I tend to agree, like i said before. In other circumstances, killing people intentionally, can be seen as legal (a question of laws exclusively), or morally justifiable (fighting done in war). Take the Dutch at Srebrenica. Today, their inaction is seen as a moral failure. You know what happened there due to the Dutch and the UN mission in general failing so miserably. If they would have fought and killed Serbs in order to protect the Bosnian civilians - would this then also be "murder" for you? What differs the committing of a genocide then from fighting in defence of the victims? And how to justify the war against the Third Reich?

Dealing in absolutes you can, if you want, and claim it all to be "murder". But it will not lead you very far, not in this life and this world you live in.

You seem to take an absolute approach on war, ruling it out under all circumstances, even if the price for not fighting it might be higher than the price of accepting it. Okay, that is your opinion then, and I see it different. I never claimed to be an unconditional pacifist - I am not. I do not believe in "just wars", war is never just, and it always also effects innocents. I only differ between wars of need - and wars of choice, that are wanted but not needed.

2nd those generalized statements are coming out of the blue, and have no right or justification in itself, other than you just say it and declare it a universal truth or wisdom.

No, you are the one claiming universal rules here, haven't you just said that it all is just "murder", and that there always is a human mind, implying that by that "fact" that all nature is revolving around human philosophic considerations and conceptions that beyond human thinking have no meaning and realiy at all? What I say, is much more relative, and depending on the reality you are in. I am pragmatist. Claiming eternal truths I leave to religious infallibles like the pope.

" ... Morally, peace needs to be judged by the moral categories of peacetime, and war needs to be judged by the moral qualities of wartime. ..."
Sounds reasonable, but it only sounds this way. Who says this, you ? Sun Tzu ? This is plain rubbish for justifying anything.

So far you just give a rant, but no argument proving me wrong.

There can only be one unversal "morale"
Why?

, otherwise warfare as such is pretty useless.

How's that?

You are enforcing your morale, will, thinking, common sense, way of life, onto others.

I give argument for why I think the way I do, and I oppose your absolutistic stand on your one and only universal moral as a cultural subjectivism that you are not aware of. If you would have been raised in some fanatic family of some kind and have not known anything different than what that fanatic community is teaching you, your moral thinking today would be different.

" ... It leads to the schizophrenic percpezion of how wars could be won without becoming inhumane and getting dirt on one's hands. ..."

But this is just what we see in the video - a new strategy that unfortunately creates odium.

I do not see a strategy in that video, but an act of murder committed by soldiers that I cannot bring into congruence with what I said about the morals of war. This killing incident to me is not an act of war (="fighting"), but murder. Thus my harsh judgement that I have voiced earlier in this thread. To me they are not acting as soldiers in conformity with the needs of war, but like criminals. And that'S why I would court martial them.

You do not get dirt on your hands, it is all far away. No need for infiltration, using real people spying, or gathering intelligence by going in and deal with real people. It is instant judgement from above killing electronic dots. It all becomes an ego shooter. Same is done with remotely-controlled drones, where the "pilot" finishes off a few sand ******s at his home bureau, and then goes down to dinner with his family. They call it war porn. How can one watch this and not be disgusted ?

Now you switch to a completely different level, from the morals of peace over the morals of war to the tools and means and tactics of war.

Well. This is a war being fought. You try to kill the enemy, you try to hurt him as bad as you can. you try to do it in safe ways, maximising the damage to him by minimising the risk to your own side. That often translates into maximum firepower from the greatest distance possible, both get's judged versus the chance to really acchieve the mission objectives: you use as much firepower and approach as close as is needed to achcieve the mission objective. that way, a war gets won. Fight by some romantic ideas of "man versus man" and images of idealism and dealing fair with the nenemy - and lose and die. For me, there is no nobless or gallantry in war, only fighting, needs and fulfilling duties. It's mean and dirty. Thats why it is called not a condition of peace, but a war.

You are right, war is disgusting. I strongly recommend to stay away from it as long as you do not have very, very good reasons. "I shall not be a guest of war, but war shall be my guest, uninvited", says Lao Tse. Don't go to war because you desire it. Only go to war because you must.

Whether or not the Iraq war can be won anymore, or if this stupid hrase "war on terror" means something that can be won militarily, or needs more intel operation, infiltration, is a different debate. To me it is about counter terror operations. But the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are there, fought competently or not, picked wisely or not - they are real. My opinions on them you can read in threads from today back to 2003. I have opposed the Iraq war from day one on, and I have criticised the way Afghanistan has been approached from beginning on. the lebanon war I first supported, than understood how ill-prepared and thus: chanceless the Israelis were, then I u-turned and took a stand against it, for it was destruction done for no use. Either do war right, or don't do it all so - so that the destruction and horror and the killing being done is not in vain.

I do not believe in humane ways to wage wars, like I also do not believe in "just wars". To me it is an on-off-issue. Either it is off, good for you. Or it is "on", then may god have mercy with you for I would will to let loose all hell against you if that is needed to overcome you.

It's like holding a pistol to your head and have a finger on the trigger. You either do it, or not. Half-hearted wars - can only go lost and end in failures. the UN missions and Afghanistan are good examples.

August

04-08-10, 09:23 AM

If those heli pilots cannot distinguish cameras from bazookas why are such tactics used for this purpose ?

That is a very valid point Catfish though an RPG was indeed found on the site so they weren't all cameras.

Onkel Neal

04-08-10, 11:47 AM

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

Skybird

04-08-10, 12:04 PM

BTW, Catfish, since you are angry about this "distance-killing from the sky" - I do not remember where I have read it, one week ago there was an interview with a US military about the stress of drone pilots. You might be surprised that combat stress and according consequences was described in that interview to be higher than with real combat plane pilots. Many drone pilots have problems to be confronted with war, and then their shift is over and they go home and meet their family, all within minutes. they literally travel between two worlds - onw a peaceful idyll, the other being a chaotic, barbaric hell. A drone pilots sees what he does when firing a mission, like in that video, from A to Z. A plane pilot just flies and holds the trigger until the zipper in the HUD crosses a marking, and the weapon is automatically released - the plane pilot does not see the consequences of his action on the ground. The drone pilot also sees own troops in combat, and them getting shot at, and getting killed - the airplane pilot most of the time does not.

I was surprised to read that, but when thinking of it, it made sense to me.

Probably on the same day, I read a statistics note that the number of Vietnam vets who were so traumatised that they keep on committing suicide until today has passed the numbers of actual KIA during the times of war. More veteran have killed themselves after the war has ended, than troops got killed in action. KIA number is around 56 or 58 thousand. Suicide number after the war has passed 60 thousand now.

CaptainHaplo

04-08-10, 07:10 PM

Catfish - it seems that your objection is not so much the "how" or "why" of this situation - but the "how" and "why" of the war - or perhaps all wars. I understand that - but you cannot take an isolated incident and turn it into a generalization of the entire conflict.

After reviewing the video again, let me make a couple of observations.....

The camera's were misidentified as weapons - yet other weapons were correctly identified. Having sat in that CPG seat a few times (worked on that armament system) that initial RPG call was one I am totally ok with. That was a "textbook" (if such a thing existed) look of a what combatant holding a RPG looking around a corner for a target appears like in a TADS/PNVS system. So the question becomes - was the misidentification INTENTIONAL? Given the chatter - absolutely not. Had they wanted to - they could have just said "Hey an RPG" and called that in. No RPG call was made until a rather damning (though incorrect) visual cue was noted. So the idea that the strike was just to "take out a few sand ******s" for jollies - as some want to imply (or just outright state) - doesn't hold water. Note that weapons were identified - and a request at that point made for engagement permission.

I am going to break this down using the vid from Neal's post.

2:50 is the first "weapon call" - its a wrong call - but understandable.
3:13 you have a second set of eyes on the same person - and the wrong call is confirmed....
3:20 you have the second weapon call - angle and shadow make the call reasonable - but its still wrong...
3:34 - "Individuals with weapons" call goes out. At this moment - no actual weapon has CLEARLY or INDISPUTABLY been captured in view.
3:39 - first confirmed correct sighting of a weapon.

Here there is one problem I have with the following call:

3:47 - "we have five to six" weapon toting people.... This call is factually in error. At this point in the video - only 3 individuals have been specifically noted (thought) to be carrying weapons. The call is made based on the assumption that others in the group are likely armed as well.

This is the same time that the first request to engage is made.... This call - because of the assumption - is a bad one. Its a crappy situation - but the decisions made are at this point in accordance with the ROE. Recall that the fact is that being armed in such a group was a violation of Iraqi goverment directives. So the ROE was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi government. Permission is granted but the engagement is delayed due to buildings in the way.

4:07 - RPG call - and this one was the clincher for me. OK - maybe just maybe the exaggeration on the number of armed people was over the top (I don't think so - I feel it was reasonable given the operational area and situation) - but this shot totally clears the aircrew. No way in hell they could know it was a camera and not an RPG. It looked like an RPG without a doubt - and the posture of the holder was entirely consistent with a person looking to take a quick shot.

4:17-4:18 The "RPG" guy comes around and as he leaves the FOV due to the building - looks to be aiming a shot. This is when you get the "we got a guy firing". Again - the appearance is entirely consistent with an RPG being aimed to fire. Nothing wrong with the call made as it is based of visual cues and are reasonable.

6:30 "Look at those dead bastards".... Is this cold and callous? Maybe so - but considering that those dead bastards were - in the mind of the aircrew - people who were part of a group that just took a shot at someone else - whether civvies, Iraqi or US military forces - with the intent to kill whoever the targets where - I fail to see a problem here.

6:31-6:34 "Nice, Nice" and "Good Shooting" - A job well done - you in all likelyhood just saved the lives of some friends. Nobody in their right mind wants to kill, but if you do it - at least you can take pride in a job well done when that job was to protect others. Entirely understandable.

Its important to remember that part of what allows men to perform their duty is rationalization - and the "dehumanizing" of the enemy. Submarines sank ships - not sailors - for example. You never try to think of the person - and when you have to - its natural to push the human side away. It keeps you sane.

Now to the van episode. It made me damn near sick (literally) to see how Wikileaks slowed down and blew up the video to show the kids. Tell me - did ANYONE watching that the first time honestly see kids in that van? Hell no they didn't. But somehow - the guy responsible for watching all the moving - potentially armed adults running around not only the van but the entire scene - was supposed to see em at the outset? What utter bull$hit! Again - unmarked vehicle rendering aid on a battlefield - falls under the Geneva convention as a non-protected target.

Oh - and one other little tidbit the wikileaks vid leaves out - you had at least 8 fatalities confirmed. 2 were reporters - but the other 6 - notice they don't talk about what affiliations they were found to have had. Being presented with such an anti-war bias - the absence of that information being provided is rather telling. Had they had no insurgent/militia ties, that piece of propaganda would have been trumpeting it.... It didn't....

War absolutely sucks. But the investigation into this returned the right outcome by clearing the aircrew. For those who don't think so - break down the video as I and others have done - and give reasons why - based on the directive from the Iraqi NSC that defined the ROE - this was wrong.

Don't just spew out the "war is bad and killing civilians is wrong". We can all agree that collateral damage is horrible. Make a reasoned case for why the actions taken - from the calls made by the aircrew, to the strike authorizations by ground commanders, were intentionally in error based on the situation. When you do this - make sure you lay out the reasons this was a bad call when during the video one RPG can be identified (though after the fact) as well as when all was done - multiple AK's and at least 3 RPG's were found at the scene.

Multiple AK's and 3 RPG's = good strike under the ROE and the Iraqi mandate. Doesn't make it nice or pretty - but combat never is.

tater

04-09-10, 11:06 AM

August

04-09-10, 11:13 AM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

I have not seen the unedited video (link?) This one at least shows that the ground forces that appear at the end were already nearby—and under small arms fire at the time. In addition, the van was seen before the engagement in question, and it was dropping off men just north of the firefight. The van was not some random "good Samaritan."

Notice how none of the "line them up against the wall" people like Skybird have anything to say about this. To them they were guilty the second the word "American" was applied.

Dowly

04-09-10, 11:37 AM

Umm... the full version of the video (30+ minutes) is available from collateralmurder.com and propably from youtube aswell. Wikileaks shortened and showed the 'highlights'. Now, I didn't watch that live leak vid for more than 10 seconds, but the opening text was enough to show it as another biased video, which BTW the wikileaks edition was too IMHO.

And August, why the attitude, everyone has their opinions, no need to start acting like an butt and start a flamewar.

tater

04-09-10, 11:44 AM

True, I only saw the wikileaks one. Annotation, none the less is nice to see for those of use with less experience, but not biased annotation. The one I posted is certainly worth watching along with the wikileaks to see what was missed given most people are only watching a shorter version—and the wikileaks at that.

Other useful annotations might be arrows and directions to friendly forces, and similarly forces under fire at the time.

I certainly don't claim the vid I posted is unbiased, it's a biased response to a biased vid.

I didn;t see the full version because I'd not follow a link to anyplace called "collateral murder" and give them the satisfaction of a unique visitor. I'll look again on youtube.

Freiwillige

04-09-10, 01:19 PM

I'm good with it all, It was a mistake but justifiable.....Until the Van shows up to help the injured guy.

In the full video it looks as if the Van was dropping off the photographers and it was also the photographer that they were helping.

All said war is hell and stuff happens but I do believe that they should have been more patient with the Van crew rescuing the one wounded guy. I mean what was the hurry? If they were going for weapons it would have been apparent given another ten seconds of observation. And there is no way that they could have confirmed that the Van was hostile, neutral or friendly in intent with out careful observation. This was in an occupied city full of civilians not on some remote battlefield!

So I can see that some mistakes were made but not unjustifiably so....such is the fog of war.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

04-09-10, 02:19 PM

I hadn't seen the unedited video yet (in fact, I hadn't even watched more than 5 minutes of the Wikileaks video yet), but have glimpsed at the Army's official investigation. I was positively groaning at lines such as:

"Due to the furtive nature of his movements, the cameraman gave every appearance of preparing to fire an RPG on US soldiers."

Victim-blaming, anyone?

But the funnier thing is the way all of a sudden, the "military-aged" (here we note the loaded language - this could cover anyone from ~16-50!) men seen are re-rated by the investigator as "insurgents", and then a further leap to being the same ones that were shooting at B Company that day. The investigator doesn't even make a token effort to justify all these re-ratings in his report.

Or how about "the mere fact that the two individuals carried cameras instead of weapons would not indicate that they are noncombatants..." At this rate of rationalization, even wearing all those press symbols requested won't be much of a liferaft.

I also note that no one even tries to involve the supposed Iraqi directive. Surely, that might have at least have a case towards the whole "insurgent" thing.

August

04-09-10, 02:39 PM

And August, why the attitude, everyone has their opinions, no need to start acting like an butt and start a flamewar.

*I'm* starting a flamewar?

You have people in this thread advocating the execution of my countrymen as a lesson to others and i'm starting a flamewar. Yeah right. Go back and reread the first couple of pages of this thread and tell me again how i'm starting anything.

Skybird

04-09-10, 04:09 PM

CaptainHaplo

04-09-10, 05:15 PM

How one could assume that camera to be an RPG, escapes me, completely, i fail to identify any visual hint for that.

Skybird - have you seen ANY video of a RPG being used in urban combat in the middle east? I ask only because if you had, you would understand why the actions of the "reporter" 9peeking around a corner, long tube shape hanging low, then raised as he comes around the corner) appears as an RPG being aimed to a soldier.

I also note that no one even tries to involve the supposed Iraqi directive. Surely, that might have at least have a case towards the whole "insurgent" thing.

Kazuaki - I have noted that the ROE was based off the Iraqi directive (Iraqi NSC) repeatedly in this thread. Still no one wants to address the fact that 3 RPG's were found at the scene after this went down....

I do believe that they should have been more patient with the Van crew rescuing the one wounded guy. I mean what was the hurry?

Freiwillige - was the van marked in accordance with the rules of war? No - thus it is a legitimate target on a battlefield. Working under the assumption (as that aircrew was) that the injured man is an enemy, anyone "rescuing" him is likely a cohort / fellow "insurgent". Why show patience - when that means they can just drive away - perhaps getting into a more crowded area where innocent women and children are.... You forget - your battling an enemy that intentionally blends in with the civilian population. Also note they were in the process of driving away (the van was moving) when the rounds impacted. Not to mention the circling aircraft was moving into a portion of its arc that would make a successful attack more difficult. This is why the "hurry". How long did it take that van to drive up, load and start to roll out? That bird could not follow the van - it had a specific sector for which it was responsible - the "you got my turf?" questions you hear. If you don't get go on the engage - that van escapes.

It's also important to note - as tater did - the following:

This one at least shows that the ground forces that appear at the end were already nearby—and under small arms fire at the time. In addition, the van was seen before the engagement in question, and it was dropping off men just north of the firefight. The van was not some random "good Samaritan."

Lets look at this in a realistic way.... just a few blocks away there is a firefight. How many innocent civilians are going to be standing in the streets when a few blocks over there are explosions going off? How many innocent civilians are going to be driving around near firefights? Civilians tend to have a healthy sense of self-preservation - stuff like that happens - they head indoors damned quick! Notice that some of the men that wandered off at the very beginning of the video as the 2 reporters walked down the road sure as heck never came back to help. Probably heard stuff and kept their heads down. Notice no women or children running out to see what was going on - because in a battle zone - if your out in it - you have a darned good reason to be - otherwise you keep your arse safe inside and hope it all passes by. With the initial group - and all those structures around - no one came out..... because civilians in a war zone DO NOT act as the men in the video did. People can call that "blaming the victim" - but I see it as evidence that they were not "victims" at all.... and also once again no one wants to talk about the LACK of info about the association of the other people killed in the video.... Couldn't be they were affiliated with anyone could it?

tater

04-09-10, 05:24 PM

I have watched the video two times, and a third time in parts whent the debate became hotter. I only can say that even in that small, low resolution picture there was not a single second when I felt tempted to mistake the camera with an RPG or any kind of a bigger weapon case in those scenes where it was exposed to the camera. How one could assume that camera to be an RPG, escapes me, completely, i fail to identify any visual hint for that. That claim only makes me shake my head.

Except there was a guy in the group with an RPG. This is not debated.

Are you suggesting that any group that carries a camera be immune from attack?

krashkart

04-09-10, 09:50 PM

Have a look at the map as well. He appeared to be pointing the RPG-like object at troops operating to the west of that street. I'm guessing that was the same ground unit in contact with the attack helo.

http://collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/afstoumyndin.jpg.html

From the transcript:

Roger that. Uh, we have no personnel east of our position. So, uh, you are free to engage. Over.

http://collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

How much time does a crew have to make a decision, and how long does it take to fire a rocket?

tater

04-09-10, 11:09 PM

Having no troops in a specific direction is important so they are not down range.

This is supposed to be the picture taken when the photog shot that pic around the corner, BTW:

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/tatersw/Misc/lastpic.jpg

No idea of the veracity of the image, but it is being reported as such.

Skybird

04-10-10, 03:10 AM

Skybird - have you seen ANY video of a RPG being used in urban combat in the middle east?
Yes.

Skybird

04-10-10, 03:16 AM

Are you suggesting that any group that carries a camera be immune from attack?
No, not in principle. If you ever have read one of the war-related debates we had on this board where I said that the presence of unfortunate civilians should not stop you from going for your military target/firing at the identified enemies, you would have known that answer. ;)

It's just that I do not see myself able to understand the situation on that video the way it is described here. The scene reaches my quite differently, no matter subtitling or not.

----

I think nobody here will convince anyone of his own interpretation of this incident. Maybe we should agree on that the incident shown here is heavily disputed between the critics and defenders, and we leave it to that and simply move on. we could debate this for another week, but probably will not advance a single step.

krashkart

04-10-10, 03:54 AM

I think nobody here will convince anyone of his own interpretation of this incident.

That's one thing I think most everyone would be able to agree on - although I will say that someone did help me see things a bit differently.

I think the people who put the Collateral Murder video out there for the world to see rely on the shock value to get their point across, and when ya get right down to it, the war isn't a popular endeavor these days (if ever it was with anybody). It almost smacks of anti-war sentiment, or maybe that's just my whacky perspective. :)

Oberon

04-10-10, 07:41 AM

Having no troops in a specific direction is important so they are not down range.

This is supposed to be the picture taken when the photog shot that pic around the corner, BTW:

No idea of the veracity of the image, but it is being reported as such.

If that IS the image, then that explains a lot. It is little surprise that the gunner wanted to engage ASAP, because if that HAD have been an RPG then that Hummer would have been history.

Oberon

04-10-10, 07:46 AM

But yeah, I agree with Skybird in that this is something that people are going to either agree with or against this incident and the motives behind it.

As such, further arguments on the subject are pointless. :yep:

tater

04-10-10, 09:30 AM

Video like this has been around since well before this incident. Anyone on the ground in Iraq would be aware of the threat of air attack, and would likely have seen guncam footage of other attacks. I'm sure reporters would have.

I don't understand how anyone would go off as a reporter without arranging it with the US military to avoid something like this unless doing so would trash their street cred to embed with people the US and Iraqi forces want to kill.

In the latter case, well, tough.

If this was a case where they had filed a "flight plan" (reporting plan?) with the military, and then were mistakenly attacked I'd be far more concerned. As it is, they didn't even paint PRESS on the roof of the truck. Seriously, who would not mark their van if that's what they were?

Why walk with men that are armed if holding arms is illegal, and you know they could get attacked from the air—particularly guys with RPGs. War correspondents get killed all the time in combat. These guys made a really dangerous choice.

Minus the 2 photographers, this would be just another gun cam movie, right? Guys armed with AKs and RPGs near a US patrol get squished from the air. The ONLY difference is 2 guys have cameras. There is not shortage of movies and pictures taken with long-lenses of US forces being attacked by small arms fire and IEDs, online, too—by the guys doing the attacking. The guys that took those images hand cameras, too.

Tribesman

04-10-10, 02:52 PM

Sailor Steve

04-10-10, 03:57 PM

If you watch the old William Wyler documentary "Thunderbolt", about P-47 pilots in Italy, there are two unnerving scenes. Unnerving, not because of what you see, but because of Wyler's commentary.

In the first scene you see gun-camera footage of a Jug strafing several farm houses. Each time Wyler says "Nothing in that house." "Nothing in that house." Then one explodes. "Well, what do you know?" It was entertaining the first time, but then I began to wonder exactly what was in those houses. Soldiers? Farmers? Children? And exactly what exploded. Munitions, or some farmer's propane tank?

The second scene involves another gun-camera shot. This time the pilot shoots at someone in a field. The target runs and apparently is missed. All Wyler says is "No friend of mine." I thought it was funny the first time around. Later I wondered just who that person was.

Another example is from fiction, this time the original book The Bourne Identity, by Robert Ludlum. The main character, David Webb, is a linguist-turned-spy in Laos, becomes a guerilla fighter against the Vietnamese after a jet fighter strafes and kills his wife and children while they're playing in a river. When his boss is telling the story years later he says that Webb came to him in Saigon demanding to know whose fighter it was. The boss tells him it was Vietnamese. At this point a listener says "Let me guess - it was one of ours?" The boss answers "How the hell should I know who it was? Some passing fighter jock saw people in the river and thought it would be fun to shoot them. It's what fighter pilots do. That kind of thing doesn't get recorded. We'll never know who it was!"

Fiction, but truth. People trained to fight and kill...fight and kill. If a mistake was made it needs to be sorted out. If evil was done it needs to be answered for. The real answer needs to be discovered, but neither condemnation nor dismissal is proper without knowing the whole truth.

tater

04-10-10, 04:08 PM

Unbelieveable, incredible in its range of detatchment.
Its almost as though two entirely detatched creatures from two civilisations on two alterrnate realities had decided to approach a subject for discussion yet cannot work out that they are presently unable to see or comprehend the issue at all

You seem to want to live in a fantasy land.

This action was (properly, IMO) decided not to be criminal.

That said, assuming the reporters were not functioning as propagandists for insurgents (which would make them desirable targets, IMO), it does suggest ways to try and prevent such outcomes in the future.

This would frankly be hard to do. You cannot simply not attack vehicles or people marked "press" since they'll paint PRESS on the roof of every single vehicle.

They could perhaps give reporters a IFF device that has some sort of time limit, and/or can be controlled remotely to turn on/off in case it is lost/stolen. The IFF might be a phone, actually. The troops or AS would know it was there, then make it so they can instantly communicate with it. If the person on the other end doesn't satisfy them that he is legit—including perhaps moving to some area at the command of the helo—then they might get permission to shoot anyway. This at least seems possible.

The only problem will be reporters that want ot embed with the enemy. The enemy troops won;t want their position marked on a GPS someplace, so those reporters will have to risk their lives if they think it is worth it.

Tribesman

04-10-10, 04:35 PM

You seem to want to live in a fantasy land.

You seem to be lacking in comprehension

This action was (properly, IMO) decided not to be criminal.

What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

That said, assuming the reporters were not functioning as propagandists for insurgents
Errrrrrr....could you remind me again what irrelevant means?

Simple question Tater, what did I say the real issue was here?:doh:

Have a clue, its quite complicated(or simple really), it doesn't have to do with the specifics of the justifyability of the incident or any mitigating circumstances from either perspective, it has nothing really to do with ROE at all.
Hey have another clue, its not that the matress is full of bugs, its springs sprung and its covered in piss stains, its the fact that someone put a sheet on it and then claimed the matress was in good condition.

If you sre still stuck them review the topic.
It is quite easy, follow a simple process. Start at post #1, then get as far as post#2 then come back and review what you wrote in post #136

tater

04-10-10, 05:03 PM

Who are the two creatures of which you speak? Your previous post references no other post, and doesn't seem to apply to any that I can make out directly. I assume anyone not involved in the real events, who is chatting about it is detached, so that's all of us.

So who did your post refer to, it is entirely unclear.

Tribesman

04-10-10, 05:20 PM

Who are the two creatures of which you speak?
Those who are condemning the actions of the pilot/gunner in the incident and those who are justifying the actions.
Which is why its such a range of detatchment from the issue

It was a screw up, screw ups happen.

So who did your post refer to, it is entirely unclear.
It refers to all those who argue about the pros and cons of the little engagement when the real issue is what went on afterwards

tater

04-10-10, 05:49 PM

Gotcha. Sorry about my post, I was honestly confused and thought it was less generalized.

My remaining point about using the incident to try and figure out ways to avoid it in the future stands, of course.

:salute:

Foxtrot

04-11-10, 05:11 AM

I am not sure if this case will be re-investigated and the lies from military. Despite the claims and believes, some people and some institutions are just above the law.

*cough* the presence of eeevvviilll and bbbaaaddd Weapons of Mass Destruction in North, South, East and West of Baghdad and Tilkrit *cough*

Fish

04-11-10, 09:17 AM

And giving aid to a wounded is reason to be killed too, shocking.http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-429355

Edit: I see there's a tread alreay .
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=167176

Fish

04-11-10, 09:39 AM

The video shows the photographer was going to take a picture of SOMETHING - and being a "war correspondant" - you can bet a doughnut that he wasn't going to take a picture of a little girl playing with her doggy in the park..

And thats a reason to be killed?

CaptainHaplo

04-11-10, 09:46 AM

Its been stated in the other thread repeatedly - there was an Iraqi NSC directive to disarm - being continually in the presence of armed men who are subject to lethal force for being armed in violation of such act, not making sure that combat forces in the area know your there, hanging out near a firefight - are all things that can get you killed. While the camera was mis-identified - 3 RPG's were found at the scene along with numerous AK's. One weapon was correctly identified prior to the attack. This justifies the action under the rules imposed by the Iraqi NSC and the ROE.

As for "helping" - note that the van was not marked in accordance with the Geneva Convention - and had been spotted earlier dropping off fighters involved in an ongoing firefight. Those earlier actions make it a combatant vehicle - as well as its lack of markings make it a legitimate target under international combat law.

War ain't pretty - if your going to be in or near a combat situation - you are accepting a level of risk. Walking with a person who you know to be armed in violation of governmental decree - thus making himself a target - means you accept greater risk. Doing so with a firefight nearby increases it further. Not making sure people know your there - making it worse.

I don't say its not a tragedy. But it was avoidable - and not just on the side of the aircrew - but on the side of the "reporters".

Ask yourself - if it were not for the 2 guys with cameras - but instead was a strike against armed men (which was what the other men were) - would this be so big of a deal to most? If not - then why - when it was the choice of the reporters to be there with those armed men (knowing the situationa as they did and the danger that decisions would create) - is it the fault of the aircrew or ground commanders who gave the ok instead of those who decided to put themsleves in that situation?

August

04-11-10, 09:55 AM

And thats a reason to be killed?

Apparently yes. Pointing things that resemble weapons in the direction of patrolling soldiers, in a combat zone, is an inherently dangerous activity. He might as well have run around with a bunch of road flares taped to his chest.

CaptainHaplo

04-11-10, 10:07 AM

Fish - your requote of me intentionally disregards the situation that photographer CHOSE to put himself in.

Hanging out with armed men when armed men - by law - are subject to lethal military force.

This - ^ - is all that is needed realize that while one can handwring over it - it was the decision by those reporters to walk down a road in the company of armed civilians - knowing the situation - and near a firefight - that means they chose to put themselves into a situation where they could be killed. That was their choice - and it cost them their lives.

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

krashkart

04-11-10, 10:41 AM

He might as well have run around with a bunch of road flares taped to his chest.

:har:

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

True. They knew what they were getting into.

The thing with the RPG, as difficult as it may be for some of us to fathom, is that time was a critical factor for the air crew and the people they were protecting. Had the camera actually been an RPG, the person carrying it could have made the decision to fire in the same amount of time as it took for the air crew to decide on firing. What would have happened then?

That chopper crew wasn't there for a sightseeing tour of Baghdad, they were there to support and protect friendly units in the area. And that is precisely what they did. Time was not on their side. They could not stop to take a closer look. The results weren't pretty, but neither was the task. Those of us who have never been to war will never fully understand that kind of environment - and like it or not, there are people who will use horrific video footage to make us angry at the people who are in the war.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

04-11-10, 12:06 PM

Had there not been an NSC directive - then we could all discuss the issue of "did it look like an RPG" or whatnot. But the reality is armed civilians were subject to no warning lethal attacks - these reporters knew that - and chose to be with such a group. That decisions killed them. Unfortunate - but no one's fault but their own.

Hold up. This is like the 4th time you mentioned this supposed directive on this thread. This directive is either so obscure or so irrelevant that as I've mentioned, the US Army didn't even TRY to use it as a shield (as you are doing on their behalf) in their investigation report, even though depending on its exact wording it would have been the perfect pretext for the rather abrupt classification of "military-aged men" into "insurgents", thus justifying this mini-massacre.

Since every other piece of evidence presented has been put up on a spindle and poked at all over, would it be possible to present the directive for review?

CaptainHaplo

04-11-10, 03:34 PM

Kazuaki Shimazaki II - a fair question - and one that in answering I actually learned a bit - and am able to correct an error on my part.

It was not the NSC who made initially made militia's illegal - but rather it was Order 91: Regulation of Armed Forces and Militias within Iraq - which can be found here:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Order_91:_Regulation_of_Armed_Forces_and_Militias_ within_Iraq

At this point - from 2004 and forward, any armed group operating outside the guidelines above is illegal. The Mahdi Army at no time has met the critera to be legal. Political considerations allowed tolerance of them, primarily due to Sadr supporting Al-Maliki. Jump forward to 2007 - and Al-Sadr withdrew his support from Al-Maliki. This is what precipitated Operation Law and Order (originally Operation Imposing Law)which began in Basra - and spread into the Sadr City sections of Baghdad.

Some instances where it can be demonstrated that the Mahdi Army are deemed illegal under Iraqi law at this point may be justified to insure there is no confusion.

"The news conference at the lone American Army and Iraqi combat outpost in Sadr City was given by Gen. Abud Qanbar Hashim, the Iraqi commander for Baghdad, and Maj. Gen. Jeffrey W. Hammond, who leads the American division charged with securing the capital, and began as bursts of gunfire rattled nearby streets.

... General Abud insisted that Iraqi security forces would take action against any militia brandishing arms.

“The main thing is that arms should be in the hands of the state,” he said. “And we will never allow any armed group to carry arms as an alternative to the state to provide security to the citizens.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp

as well as :

"Al-Maliki said Iraq had become a "nation of gangs, militias and outlaws" and he was undertaking a "historic mission" in Basra to restore "the law of the land."

But the Sadrists have been angry over recent raids and detentions, saying U.S. and Iraqi forces have taken advantage of their 7-month-old cease-fire to crack down on the movement."

http://wbztv.com/national/iraq.basra.fighting.2.685861.html

Lets not forget "Iraqi goverment crackdown" -(underlining was done be me for emphasis):

"Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki demanded Sunday that the cleric disband his militia, which waged two uprisings against U.S. troops in 2004, or see his supporters barred from public office."

"The Mehdi Army has borne the brunt of an Iraqi government crackdown on what Iraqi and U.S. officials call "outlaw" militias in the past two weeks. The government's effort to reclaim control of the southern city of Basra in late March sparked clashes across southern Iraq and into Baghdad, leaving more than 700 dead, according to U.N. agencies."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.sadr/index.html

Wait - there is more!

"Speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Maliki said he would deal with the militias. "The state is the only one that has the right to carry weapons," he said. "We will deal with anybody who is outside the law."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR531634.htm

Want one more? The cities in question are Basra and Baghdad.

"Both cities are under an indefinite curfew due to ongoing clashes between government forces and the Mahdi Army, the Shia militia led by Moqtada al-Sadr."

http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77516

Information on the Siege of Sadr City can be found lots of places - but here is a decent start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sadr_City#cite_note-nytimes20080407-13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sadr_City#cite_note-nytimes20080407-13)

Now, with all that digested - we can decide this whole matter with a few questions and answer....

Where militias illegal? Yes
Armed citizenry on the streets illegal per Iraqi government? Yes
Were there armed citizens in the video in question? Yes
Was it the Iraqi government's decision that armed citizenry be dealt with via lethal force? Yes
Did the US provide support & assist with carrying out such decisions? Yes
Were such actions by the US military done under the legal auspices of the Iraqi government? Yes
Did the reporters who were killed know about the prohibition? Yes, given what their actual job was...
Did they knowingly enter a combat area with armed people who - by Iraqi government definition, met the conditions of "illegal militia" - and thus were subject to attack? Yes
Did this decision cost them their lives? Yes

Now I have laid this all out in a reasoned and logical way. Note that the sources I posted were CNN, Reuters affiliates, etc - so just dissing the source as some "conservative hackjob" isn't going to hold water. Feel free to use logic and sources to rebut the reasoning here.....

However, I am able to correct that it was not the NSC that outlawed the militias. It was the Iraqi government in general based of the Provisional Government's Order 91. After review - they (the Iraqi NSC) simply declared that any political group that did not disband their militias would not be allowed to participate in the political process. For the opportunity to correct that mis-statement, I offer a thank you to my friend Kazuaki Shimazaki II. :yeah:

Tribesman

04-11-10, 07:10 PM

Where militias illegal?
No
some militias are legal and some are illegal, the list of legal militias has grown over time.
Armed citizenry on the streets illegal per Iraqi government?

No, some armed citizens are illegal while others are legal.

Wait - there is more!

"Speaking at a news conference on Wednesday, Maliki said he would deal with the militias. "The state is the only one that has the right to carry weapons," he said. "We will deal with anybody who is outside the law."

He said he would deal with the problem of the illegal militias not the militias as he cannot work without the militias and their political backers

After review - they (the Iraqi NSC) simply declared that any political group that did not disband their militias would not be allowed to participate in the political process.
So 6 major parties and about the same amount of minor ones cannot participate in the political process even though they lead the government on national and regional levels and are still standing for elections.

None of which has any bearing on the real issue which is the governments attempt at covering up the screw up.

OakGroove

04-11-10, 07:35 PM

This action was (properly, IMO) decided not to be criminal.

Gitmo, Abu Ghuraib, Haditha, immunity before the ICC ... i don't think such incidents were, or will be subject to transparent investigation or accountablility by legislation, but juristic pettifoggery based on ad hoc nomenclature and red herring tossed by the Gvt.. With a smoke screen failing, at best we'll see a peasant or two getting sacrificed at times. In germany there is a similar discussion ongoing over an incident that happened last year near Kunduz, after the relay of knowingly false information to US CAS assets via a german JTAC, leading to the deaths of 140+ people, mostly civilians. The person resposible is more than likely to receive a first class verdict of not being guilty. As for the protagonists in the video - having read the comms transcript, i can't help the impression that Beavis& Butthead are for real, eager to project power on "lower-life", with killing being something of a rite for passage into manhood. Who gets killed seems to be of secondary nature (as long as they're indigenous people). Certainly life has become cheap again, with international law taking a backseat in conflicts waged by the nations who once installed those treaties and protocols, but refuse to get measured by them. Instead efforts are being made to by-pass, invalidate or bend these laws to fit- and rally support for the own agenda.

Freiwillige

04-11-10, 09:48 PM

Found this today and noticed nobody posted on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_5tZqzwXg&feature=player_embedded#

CaptainHaplo

04-12-10, 06:41 AM

OakGrove - I have to ask:

Certainly life has become cheap again, with international law taking a backseat in conflicts waged by the nations who once installed those treaties and protocols, but refuse to get measured by them.

What treaty in the case of this matter has the US violated? The US military was assisting Iraqi National Security forces - under Rules of Engagement that was defined in accordance with the wishes of the Iraqi Government. No treaty violation there.

Combat was initiated within the boundaries of that ROE (armed men on the street when the region was under restriction and curfew imposed by the Iraqi government) - leading to the death of 8 people, two of whom should not have been there but chose to. Still no violation of international treaties....

In accordance with the Geneva Conventions - the secondary attack upon the van withstands review for the following reasons:

1) The van was not marked as a humanitarian vehicle, as required by the convention. This failure to be marked means that combatants have no idea what is in it, and thus are allowed to target it as it is in a conflict zone and is rendering aid to the enemy.

2) The van had been seen shortly before, dropping of other men near an ongoing firefight. This makes the vehicle a transport for the enemy, and thus a legitimate target.

So far, the only arguement that has come up was "this is horrible, people died" touchy feely stuff. War is a horrible thing, and people die in it. The reality is that this was not murder, it was a military operation in which 2 men made really bad decisions that put them into the firing line. A tragedy - and an avoidable one - but the decision to walk down a road with men carrying at least one RPG and some small arms - knowing that such action could lead to lethal force against them - was their own.

Hate it? Good! We should all hate war. If more people did - there would be a whole lot less of it. But when your in a conflict - its wise to remember the quote of Admiral Sir John Fisher:

"The essence of war is violence; moderation in war is imbecility!"