Collateral Murder (merged) - Page 3

HunterICX · 04-06-10, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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

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

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?

August · 04-06-10, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HunterICX

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

Well ok then...

August · 04-06-10, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fader_Berg

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

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...

04-06-10, 04:01 PM

Quote:

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.

What makes one a professional is the adherence to a set of ethics that governs actions.

. 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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater

(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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fader_Berg

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...

04-06-10, 03:05 PM	#33
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	__________________ sent from my fingertips using a cheap keyboard

04-06-10, 03:48 PM	#37
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,768 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-06-10, 04:15 PM	#40
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,425 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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. What makes one a professional is the adherence to a set of ethics that governs actions. . 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. Just an old vet's opinion. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

04-06-10, 04:41 PM	#43
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,768 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

04-06-10, 03:15 PM	#34
Nicolas Commander Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Uruguay Posts: 453 Downloads: 196 Uploads: 4	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?

04-06-10, 04:28 PM	#41
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	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.

04-06-10, 04:35 PM	#42
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.