Collateral Murder (merged)

[tater]

Originally Posted by Fader_Berg

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Fader_Berg

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....

[tater]

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]

Originally Posted by Foxtrot

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



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.


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.

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.



***

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

...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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by CCIP

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]

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]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Oberon has done an excellent job above with his timeline.

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.

War is hell. Sucks to be them. Haplo, you are right on. There's lots of monday morning QBing here. These guys had to make a desicion; there's a group of men, with straps over their shoulders and acting some what suspiciously. The dude sneaking around the corner is the gamebreaker for me. Having known someone who has fought over there and hearing it first hand, I have zero sympathy for them (this group of guys). One ambush that they, my friend's squad, there were journalists in position ready to film the ambush. So they aren't so innocent.

I wonder what else was going on in the area before all this happened? Was there fighting?

The part that does make me mad is the fact that they shot at the van while they were taking away the wounded.

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

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. Can someone explain? Sounds like absolutly unfair worthless uneccesary blood spill.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Anyone read this, yet?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...gon-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).