Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on April 06, 2010, 05:07:13 AM
-
I wanna hear some feedback from guys here that have served about 'that' apache video. I've watched it several times, and although I see things that I think "OK that was provocative" (like the guy crouching and looking around the corner) I found the whole video pretty shocking. For the life of me I can so no justification in the actions taken and feel that this time the left-wing-whale-hugging-lesbian-peaceniks have it right this time.
From where I sit I think that well... there are thousands of op's in iraq, and there's bound to be some clown screw up every now and then. But then what disappoints me is that no fault was found. However I've never served, let alone in iraq, so part of me says I'm not qualified to judge... but what I've seen I cannot justify.
So iraq-vets - what are your thoughts?
(please keep it civil, I'd like to listen rather than see a thread lock).
-
Mistakes can be made. They may need higher resolution cameras on not just the apaches but on every system like that. Some of these soldiers may be teens or atleast in their early 20s so that must explain the language one tend to see soldiers use in these kinds of video's.
I was beeing polite and civil about it ;)
-
(please keep it civil, I'd like to listen rather than see a thread lock).
I'm pretty sure it's too late for that.
-
If you watch the video carefully there are people with weapons in the group. There was a firefight in the vicinity and a US convoy headed that way.
While it is sad that people died I don't really see that the Apache crew did anything other than try to protect their guys from the bad guys.
Apparently, the journalists killed were covering a weightlifting story when they decided to go check out the firefight with armed men in tow.
As for the kids, who brings kids to pick up wounded people? Never mind who brings kids to a spot recently targeted by 30mm gunfire.
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/akrpg.gif)
If you are disturbed by the language and demeanor used by the crew I would suggest some study of the psychology involved. People who deal with death daily have to develop coping mechanisms simply to survive.
-
As for the journalists, they're in a warzone and they know the risks evolved so it's their own fault. It looks like they are interviewing insurgents in the middle of a courtyard, they could however be security and the journalists are interviewing civilians but I highly doubt it. The way the armed people are postured and handling their weapons is very unprofessional, which leads me to believe that the armed people are indeed "bad guys"
Shooting the unarmed civilians who jumped out of their van to try and retrieve the wounded was messed up. Isn't it a war crime to shoot unarmed civilians? They could have just followed the van and talked the grunts in to intercept it, COPs style! Who the **** brings kids into a warzone anyway? If I had my kids in that van then I would be driving as far away from that place as possible, not driving towards it!!!
The apache gunner was very trigger happy, "Come on, let us shoot! twittle!" Obviously there was only one thought of action going through his mind, which was clouded by pure adrenaline and ignorance of youth.
-
Shooting the unarmed civilians who jumped out of their van to try and retrieve the wounded was messed up. Isn't it a war crime to shoot unarmed civilians? They could have just followed the van and talked the grunts in to intercept it, COPs style! Who the **** brings kids into a warzone anyway? If I had my kids in that van then I would be driving as far away from that place as possible, not driving towards it!!!
The apache gunner was very trigger happy, "Come on, let us shoot! twittle!" Obviously there was only one thought of action going through his mind, which was clouded by pure adrenaline and ignorance of youth.
Shooting the van was where it became really morally questionable. The first shooting can be attributed to error of judgment, or not.
These things happen all the time. I've seen enough of it during my service. There is a very blurry and thick line that separates right and wrong in this kind of warfare. Unfortunately, wars must be fought by 20 year olds with very poor moral judgment. The world look very different when you are 30+ with a family then it did when you were 20. I remember with shudders the obtuse attitude towards death and suffering of "the other side" and the eagerness to see your weapons at work. I also remember the eagerness to defend your buddies even at the cost of collaterals. There is no "evil" behind it, only moral bluntness.
This video is the sad reality of modern asymmetric warfare. Even if your cause is right, some wrong will come out of it. The public in the US, UK and Europe like to bask in the "high morality" of their troops while criticizing the rest of the world at the same time. They have a very ignorant point of view. I hope the pilots are not too obtuse to not be shocked by their own doings. At least they may develop their moral senses a bit faster then others.
Edit:
To keep the record straight, I am not an Iraq veteran, I am Israeli
-
Haven't seen any video - been ootl. Can someone pm mr and direct me?
-
Haven't seen any video - been ootl. Can someone pm mr and direct me?
Search for "WikiLeaks posts video from Iraq".
This is the title BBC have decided to give the news report about it. They have also hidden this in the "Americas" section and not in the Middle east section.
-
dont know why people are surprised by this, its a pretty standard iraq engagement as far as I can tell. the rules of engagement are pretty simple - if you think someone is a bad guy (even if not a direct threat), waste everybody. then when the dust settles and the bodies of women and children are inevitably found, cover it up a fast as possible.
im not an expert on war crimes but i'm betting that waiting for casualties to be evacuated and then killing unarmed paramedics while they try to treat and remove the wounded is probably frowned upon.
btw ive not served, but have as much right as those who have to my opinion. :)
-
Could it be possible those that were armed were guards for the journalists.
-
btw ive not served, but have as much right as those who have to my opinion. :)
Well... that sums up your arrogant and sweeping spit in the face of hundreds of thousands of brave souls who had the courage to step up to the plate and protect your right to denigrate them.
Oh ya... IBTL
-
1) At least two men were armed with long rifles, and one appeared to have a grenade launcher mounted; matching the profiles of insurgents.
2) None were wearing uniforms of any sort; matching the profiles of insurgents.
3) They were in a combat area, without coordinating with local coalition forces; matching the profiles of insurgents.
4) Local US forces were pushing into the area on a combat sweep and the photog was on the enemy's side of the line.
5) Ernie Pyle was smart enough to a) wear a uniform, b) coordinate with local US combat forces, and c) never passed through the lines to the enemy's side of No Man's Land.
I would've shot them, too, in order to protect MY side's ground forces. It wasn't like the gunner could just open a window and shout out "Hey! Have you guys seen any insurgents around here?"
-
IN :bolt:
-
See Rule #4
-
Before this thing gets locked due to the inability of some people to keep things civil.
First, that doesn't sound like a "young twenty something"...close to 30 maybe 28-29...and he is definitely gung ho.
You have to look at these events from the military ground personnel perspective. They are fighting an unknown enemy where any person moving is a potential threat, every vehicle is a bomb, every cell phone is a remote triggering device...even with technological superiority we still lose men on the ground because some young person who doesn't understand the value of life gets talked into walking into a crowded marketplace or police station with a bomb strapped to his chest to blow everyone around him up...the same ignorant goat herding psychopaths who brain wash people into being suicide bombers, plant bombs in cars, inside dead bodies, next to schools, mosques, and anywhere else they can inflict casualties...and it's all for psychological effect. Kill enough people for whatever reason you can call a "just cause" and someone will take notice.
What really puzzles me is that these yellow bellied goat herding terrorist leaders kill more innocent people in a day than the soldiers do in a month...yet the pacifist world wants to condemn the soldiers for their actions...and it was happening around the world before the war...tell those goat herding cave dwellers who are brain washing young people to come out and fight like real men, away from the homes of innocent women and children.
-
Our soldiers are supposed to be better than the terrorists. The terrorists hide behind suicide bombers and kill civilians. As we can see in that video, our soldiers hide behind technology and kill civilians indiscriminately from the safety of distance.
-
Could it be possible those that were armed were guards for the journalists.
:headscratch:
-
Iraqi civilians are not prohibited from carrying arms... much like what it should be like over here, but I digress. It is very common for the Iraqis to form armed neighborhood watches to protect their homes from violent crime and terrorists. Two armed civilians, who have made no aggressive moves, does not justify killing them... and certainly not the indiscriminate killing of all civilians in the immediate area. To say nothing of the indiscriminate killing of other civilians who come to the aid of the wounded. Even if that van had been a uniformed enemy military ambulance its destruction and the killing of its crew would have been a war crime. I'm disgusted.
-
Our soldiers are supposed to be better than the terrorists. The terrorists hide behind suicide bombers and kill civilians. As we can see in that video, our soldiers hide behind technology and kill civilians indiscriminately from the safety of distance.
And I suppose the terrorists are very discriminating in who they kill and how...you're reaction tells me you have never been shot at, never seen a friend killed in the line of duty, never had to think about watching some woman blow herself up in the middle of a crowded market full of children and their mothers, never had to look at the remains of anything more than occasional roadkill near your home. They hide among innocent people because they know they can get away with it...they kill those same people without remorse and call it justifiable...at least the soldiers are out in the open and do what they can to avoid collateral damage...maybe they shouldn't.
It's amazing how people with no experience can hold people to different standards...I don't see as much outrage when a street gang, or lone punk kills someone in a U.S. city...or is that just expected behavior and not as bad as a soldier killing someone carrying a weapon in a combat zone?
-
And I suppose the terrorists are very discriminating in who they kill and how...
Your reaction tells me that you think our troops shouldn't be better than the terrorists. Let's all be like the terrorists!
I DO hold OUR troops to a different standard than the terrorists, and I'm shocked that you don't.
-
Iraqi civilians are not prohibited from carrying arms... Two armed civilians, who have made no aggressive moves, does not justify killing them... I'm disgusted.
There were multiple ak-47's present and a RPG. Iraqi law allows for possession of a AK per family on their own property for self defense. If you walk around an active battle with one, you might expect to receive fire by someone else not wanting to die.
-
There were multiple ak-47's present and a RPG.
No there wasn't. There were two AK's or other rifles. No RPG. When the Apache gunner called out "RPG!" he was looking at one of the journalists carrying a camera with a long lens.
What active battle? The US ground units said themselves they had no units east of their location and it took them eight minutes to get to the scene after the killing.
-
Your reaction tells me that you think our troops shouldn't be better than the terrorists. Let's all be like the terrorists!
Vietnam, Beriut, Mogadishu, etc...etc...etc...all proved that to be the correct way to proceed...when the enemy has no one to be accountable to for who they kill and how, there is only one way to beat them, and it isn't by being polite.
-
No there wasn't. There were two AK's or other rifles. No RPG. When the Apache gunner called out "RPG!" he was looking at one of the journalists carrying a camera with a long lens.
What active battle? The US ground units said themselves they had no units east of their location and it took them eight minutes to get to the scene after the killing.
Perhaps you missed the part with the ground unit calling out incoming fire? They were in contact off and on all day. Hence the gunships.
(http://hallert.net/images/ak-rpg.gif) <--- not a camera.
-
Vietnam, Beriut, Mogadishu, etc...etc...etc...all proved that to be the correct way to proceed...when the enemy has no one to be accountable to for who they kill and how, there is only one way to beat them, and it isn't by being polite.
No wonder the terrorists are winning this war.
-
Perhaps you missed the part with the ground unit calling out incoming fire? They were in off and contact all day.
(http://hallert.net/images/ak-rpg.gif) <--- not a camera.
That's two rifles.
-
Its very easy to pass judgment when you don't have the full context of the event. Seeing as Wikileaks edited 21 minutes of the video prior to posting, while horrible, I see an agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything)
Secondly: if you view the Rules of Engagement - and compare it with the content of the video (The entire unedited version), do you see any violations? I don't - and I did C4I for a living. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf)
-
He got it right, the gentleman in the solid colored shirt (on the right) has an RPG. You can see it better in a previous post on page 1.
As a Desert Shield/Storm vet, I applaud what are troops are doing and agree that there will be bloodloss to innocents in a conflict. Most "smart" people will avoid people and areas where insurgents are walking around with guns/RPGs.... Hello, McFly! Anyone home?
-
Apparently, you don't know what a RPG looks like.
Even if you are right, They put themselves in an obviously exceedingly risky situation and paid a high price for it. How could you be hanging out a hundred yards from soldiers who have been shooting it out with insurgents with some of your group holding aks and rpgs and not expect to call interest? They had to know the Apache was there and they are leaning around the corner taking pics? How are the soldiers to know the intent? Why would they think anything other than a bunch of insurgents messing around endangering the troops? They made bad choices and paid for it. The Apache crew could have used greater restraint but I'm not going to second guess them.
-
Secondly: if you view the Rules of Engagement - and compare it with the content of the video (The entire unedited version), do you see any violations? I don't - and I did C4I for a living. http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf)
If the rules of engagement says you can slaughter civilians does that make it right?
-
No wonder the terrorists are winning this war.
You are correct...because you (the supposedly civilized public) demand that the military forces be polite while they pick up the body parts of innocent women and children, or even comrades whose bodies have been mutilated by those nice people who hide among the civilian population killing without losing a wink of sleep.
Maybe you should watch some of the older videos of a few journalists and soldiers some terrorists kidnapped...they were very nice to them.
Here is an idea...fly to Bagdad with your family and go to one of the markets with some signs telling the bad guys to come out of hiding and stop killing innocent people...maybe then we can have a civilized war.
-
Civilised people find ways not to fight wars.
-
Apparently, you don't know what a RPG looks like.
Even if you are right, They put themselves in an obviously exceedingly risky situation and paid a high price for it. How could you be hanging out a hundred yards from soldiers who have been shooting it out with insurgents with some of your group holding aks and rpgs and not expect to call interest? They had to know the Apache was there and they are leaning around the corner taking pics? How are the soldiers to know the intent? Why would they think anything other than a bunch of insurgents messing around endangering the troops? They made bad choices and paid for it. The Apache crew could have used greater restraint but I'm not going to second guess them.
Where do you get "a hundred yards" from? It took several seconds from the AH-64's gunfire started until the shell arrived on target. That tells me that the Apaches were orbiting a mile away as they usually do. The civilians were walking down the street casually holding their two weapons. Would they do that if there were gunships hovering within sight or ear-shot? Would they do that if they were insurgents in a battle zone? Would the experienced Reuters journalists willingly be anywhere near insurgents if they thought they were in a battle zone with gunships hovering above?
No.
-
You are correct...because you (the supposedly civilized public) demand that the military forces be polite while they pick up the body parts of innocent women and children, or even comrades whose bodies have been mutilated by those nice people who hide among the civilian population killing without losing a wink of sleep.
Maybe they wouldn't have to pick up so many body parts of women and children if they just stopped shooting at them. You'll notice the two wounded children that had to be carried away in that video was shot up by US 30 mm cannon fire.
It is very easy to identify the enemy: The enemy shoots at you.
-
Maybe they wouldn't have to pick up so many body parts of women and children if they just stopped shooting at them. You'll notice the two wounded children that had to be carried away in that video was shot up by US 30 mm cannon fire.
I may be reading this wrong but...are you saying that is more objectionable than 50 women and children being blown to shreds while they shop for food by a car bomb? Or is just reading about the 20 people killed while praying in a mosque by a suicide bomber more justifiable...I mean, you're not there so you have nothing to worry about...right?
It is very easy to identify the enemy: The enemy shoots at you.
Really? You're sure about that...maybe you should get all of the facts before you try speaking with any authority.
-
If the rules of engagement says you can slaughter civilians does that make it right?
I'll quote it for you if you choose not to think.
"Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.
There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:
"Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement."
There is nothing in that video that is inconsistent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.
Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.
Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?
Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.
Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.
Sixth, Wikileaks' claim that the U.S. military's decision to pass the two children inside the van to the Iraqi police for treatment at an Iraqi hospital threatened their lives is unsubstantiated. We do not know the medical assessment of the two Iraqi children wounded in the airstrike. We don't even know if the children were killed in the attack, although you can be sure that if they were Wikileaks would have touted this. (And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?) Having been at attacks where Iraqis have ben killed and wounded, I can say I understand a little about the process that is used to determine if wounded Iraqis are transported to a U.S. hospital. The person has to be considered to have a life-threatening situation or in danger of losing a vital function (eyesight, etc.). Yet, even though the threshold to transfer Iraqis to U.S. military hospitals is high, I have repeatedly seen U.S. personnel err on the side of caution and transport wounded who probably should not have been sent to a U.S. hospital.
Baghdad in July 2007 was a very violent place, and the neighborhoods of Sadr City and New Baghdad were breeding grounds for the Mahdi Army and associated Iranian-backed Shia terror groups. The city was a war zone. To describe the attack you see in the video as "murder" is a sensationalist gimmick that succeeded in driving tons of media attention and traffic to Wikileaks' website."
Not for nothing, a lot of Wikileaks stuff needs to be aired, but to truncate 2/3 of the video footage for a specific spin - is disingenuous and flies in the face of what the site was founded for.
-
Seriously, who would think it would be a good idea to go into a war zone surrounded by people holding weapons that look just like one sides combatants? Carrying a camera with a telephoto lens and pointing it at American troops while their support choppers fly overhead? ffs
-
Your reaction tells me that you think our troops shouldn't be better than the terrorists.
When you say "our" troops, what exactly do you mean by that?
Classic example of poor target identification and an itchy trigger finger. That said, watching the video out of context means we can shake our heads and appreciate the tragedy of it, but shouldn't pass judgment. Those guys get thrust into impossible situations every day and 95% of the time, excel. They should be applauded for that daily, but mostly just get called out for their mistakes. That's unfortunate.
-
Didn't say anything. Sorry to post.
-
Where do you get "a hundred yards" from? It took several seconds from the AH-64's gunfire started until the shell arrived on target. That tells me that the Apaches were orbiting a mile away as they usually do.
Did you happen to notice the ground units? Is it possible the rest of us might be talking about their proximity to them? Did you see the photographers photo of the us troops taken from his camera? They were clearly within 1-2 blocks of the troops.
The Apaches were orbiting a mile away? Please feel free to share your direct experience with Apaches. As with the rest of this, you are just blathering about stuff you don't know. You would be better off trying to keep an open mind and look at the evidence in a fair and honest manner. ASSuming things to fit your agenda does little to substantiate it.
The civilians were walking down the street casually holding their two weapons. Would they do that if there were gunships hovering within sight or ear-shot? Would they do that if they were insurgents in a battle zone? Would the experienced Reuters journalists willingly be anywhere near insurgents if they thought they were in a battle zone with gunships hovering above?
No.
If the "civilians" are milling about an active combat area just around a corner with assault riffles and RPG's, it's safe to assume they voluntarily gave up their "civilian" status. It doesn't take much intelligence to know such action is at serious risk. If you spent much effort, you would see dozens of examples of such "civilians" acting the same way while taking turns at pot shots at soldiers. I sure would not engage an enemy in such a nonchalant manner but I'm still alive, they are not.
The "experienced Reuters journalist" was 22 and supposed to be covering a weight lifting event. He clearly made bad decisions that got him killed. Again and again you assume to know much more than you do and try to analyze situations of which you have no experience in a manner to suit your agenda. Do yourself a favor and step away from the keyboard until you can approach the matter from a more objective manner.
-
See Rule #4
-
No die hard, they are not justifying the troops acting like terrorists. You are simply assuming they are based on incomplete and edited video posted with the intent to provoke your reaction. In short you were played by folks who do that kind of thing all the time. You lack the ability to look with an unbiased attitude at what is presented to you as propaganda and see the manipulation being performed. In that regard the wiki leak thing was perfectly done, it got you to say and think things out of context from a position of total ignorance for the circumstances and all based on incomplete and incorrectly portrayed data. In short, YOU are the one justifying the tactics used by the enemy based on something provided from one of their weapons, their propaganda manipulation. There have been several instances where the insurgents provided civilians a great view of the battle by putting them in front of the insurgents. In that context one can see where or why they would bring kids into an open battle ground, as shields. If they die, inshalah. It's all grist for their manipulation.
-
Just seeing the video and knowing innocent people died, it's easy to get very upset over the actions. But you do have to take the entire situation into effect and I think many here have done that, no reason for me to beat a dead horse.
I think had the language and tone been different, this would have been a significantly different issue. I'm not saying soldiers need to be worrying about their language in the middle of a battle, but just hypothetically, I don't think this would have been as serious an issue. I'm not speaking with experience here so take all this with a grain of salt but I can only imagine their attitudes are coping mechanisms developed to deal with the horrors of war. You cannot be a good soldier if you take a moment and think about each life you take in the middle of a firefight, right? Adrenaline and aggression is feeding them and they cope with what they have to do however they can to continue doing their job. No doubt many soldiers use this kind of language or aggression and then come home with PTSD. They are not inherently bad people, they are people in a wartime environment, and that has to be taken into consideration.
On a bit of a side note it does look a lot like a video game, like scary similar. I can imagine my friends and I acting in a similar way playing Call of Duty. I think it would be a interesting study to look at the relationship between wartime behavior and coping mechanisms with how one plays a video game. But you can't really blame the video games, you have to take into account how soldiers acted pre-video games; you can't say that the attitude shown in the videos is new. Are video games similar enough to certain war time actions (like this one) where soldiers kind of revert back to the mindset of the video game to deal with the act of actually killing people? That is a speculative question not a claim, again this isn't based on experience so I'm not claiming to be an expert by any means.
-
It wasn't as bad as I thought it was gonna be. I heard about this coming out a while ago.
The people on the ground clearly weren't combative so to speak and I'm sure they knew there were two choppers overhead. You can see a couple of the dudes looking at them. Hostile forces typically would appears a little more jittery you'd think.
From my point of view if it was still a full on combat zone then I'd say "cool, good kill" ... It is not though, its like trying to rid streets gangs.
I think maybe pilot shouldn't fly combat missions anymore but nothing more serious than that. Overall it just sucks and we should leave that place all together...
-
I find it interesting that an organization such as wikileaks that supposedly fought for an extended period of time to obtain the video, released a version that has been heavily edited. I will pass judgment when I see the video evidence in its entirety.
-
I'm showing my ignorance here, without any journalistic or RL military experience. But wouldnt the SOP for a journalist in a combat zone be to contact the military with their location? Or indeed have a procedure in place to identify themselves and their planned route?
Hanging round an area with known ground forces, air support and desolate streets is a recepie for utter disaster. As for poking a camera round the side of a building bracing yourself like that, well thats got "shoot me" all over it.
Terrible what happened, but then they had no urgent business to be there, and bringing kids?? seriously??
-
It is very easy to identify the enemy: The enemy shoots at you.
Not in the fight against terrorists. It could be a guy on a bus with an explosive vest. By your logic, no action should be taken until the guy detonates.
I am not trying to be glib. The West, the USA in particular, is in a fight against non-state enemies. These people do not have uniforms, government, or even a united agenda. For all the press that Bin Laden gets, he is not in operational control. No one is.
Regarding peace without fighting, I am open to ideas. I have thought about what would get the terrorists to stop. The only scenario that I can come up with is something like pre-war Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither was a paradise. From their citizens perspective, were they better? For some, yes. For most, I don't believe so.
Regarding the video, I haven't seen it. It seems a decision was made on the spot that is now getting second guessed.
-
Can't comment on the specifics, it's just not clear enough to me whether these people could be seen, even mistakenly as a threat or not.
There is a big difference in that when we kill innocents it is generally regarded as an error
or an unfortunate by-product of the deployment of firepower.
Our enemies do it intentionally as a tactic and are proud of it.
Never equate the two.
-
I find it interesting that an organization such as wikileaks that supposedly fought for an extended period of time to obtain the video, released a version that has been heavily edited. I will pass judgment when I see the video evidence in its entirety.
Edited and removed for the SK
-
I cannot view YooToob videos, but if it shows someone actually being killed, it does not belong here. If that is the case, then this thread needs to be locked. If it cannot be discussed properly, I would rather not have it on here at all.
-
I cannot view YooToob videos, but if it shows someone actually being killed, it does not belong here. If that is the case, then this thread needs to be locked. If it cannot be discussed properly, I would rather not have it on here at all.
The video does show a US helicopter firing and killing people. Youtube requires you to log in to verify your age before viewing. Your call sir.
-
I find it interesting that an organization such as wikileaks that supposedly fought for an extended period of time to obtain the video, released a version that has been heavily edited. I will pass judgment when I see the video evidence in its entirety.
They have both the short version and the full version on their site [link removed].
-
Take the link down Die Hard, you'll get the thread locked.
-
This event was certainly tragic on a number of levels.
Having viewed the redacted clip that wikileaks posted (with editorial commentary) I can confidently say that the soldiers didn't do anything wrong. Rules of Engagement were followed and a respectable level of fire discipline was exercised.
The van incident does seem a little dubious when viewed from the comfort of a desk chair, but from the perspective of the tiny MFDs in the air (and in the context of the situation) it looks like fellow insurgents coming to aid their buddies and recover equipment. It would have been impossible to notice the children in the van without the screen zoomed in and blown up.
To those who can't deal with soldier's language I have nothing to say.
-
Why don't we hear about our allies doing something like this?
-
Why don't we hear about our allies doing something like this?
You mean like the germans and those fuel tankers in Astan? Combat is ugly work. As a society, we can only ask of the few of us who volunteer to carry the sharp tip of the spear that they do their best and promise our best to support them and the burdens we put on them.
-
Honestly Die Hard do you think those soldiers woke up and thought, you know I am going to kill some civilians today. Oh and for giggles wound some children.
NO they did not it was a mistake and put your self in their shoes they look like insurgents gathered with weapons. The reporters made a mistake being with people with weapons in a area where a battle is going on. It is a sad story but it is war bad things are going to happen you can not stop it.
-
Honestly Die Hard do you think those soldiers woke up and thought, you know I am going to kill some civilians today. Oh and for giggles wound some children.
NO they did not it was a mistake and put your self in their shoes they look like insurgents gathered with weapons. The reporters made a mistake being with people with weapons in a area where a battle is going on. It is a sad story but it is war bad things are going to happen you can not stop it.
You mean like these Marines did?
[Link removed]
-
I'm showing my ignorance here, without any journalistic or RL military experience. But wouldnt the SOP for a journalist in a combat zone be to contact the military with their location? Or indeed have a procedure in place to identify themselves and their planned route?
Hanging round an area with known ground forces, air support and desolate streets is a recepie for utter disaster. As for poking a camera round the side of a building bracing yourself like that, well thats got "shoot me" all over it.
Terrible what happened, but then they had no urgent business to be there, and bringing kids?? seriously??
Well the place was / appears to be a residential suburb in baghdad. You're assuming the mission was planned, and I doubt the military would openly publish such activities. So you have a 'fog of war'.
The van was a guy taking his kids to school, he came around the corner upon the scene and decided to lend a hand some time after the firing stopped. Now put yourself in his position, you're driving along, you come across a dozen guys dead and mostly unarmed (we are talking 2 guns and 1 potential rpg across 12-15 bodies). A couple of people are wounded but alive. Do you stop and help or do you drive through letting them bleed to death on the road?
IMHO the guy in the van was a hero. And no I do not think the pilots could see them in there, I think wikileaks is wrong in doing their zoom/enhance on the video which those in the fight did not have the luxury or time for. BTW the kids did survive.
-
You mean like these Marines did, that one day back when?
Get rid of that link Kazaa...unless you really want this thread locked.
Did you happen to hear the return fire ricocheting off the walls where those Marines were? Any civilians in that area were too stupid for their own good...nobody with any sense drives their car through a gunfight or even takes the chance of peeking out a window until the shooting is over.
-
You mean like the germans and those fuel tankers in Astan?
Wasn't that USAF F-15E's?
Added: The German involvement in that incident resulted in the general inspector of the german army, General Wolfgang Schneiderhan, being sacked by the German government. I'd be willing to bet that if our incidents had similar consequences we'd have a lot less of them.
Honestly Die Hard do you think those soldiers woke up and thought, you know I am going to kill some civilians today. Oh and for giggles wound some children.
No... but that's what they did. Malice, incompetence, indifference - take your pick.
-
Get rid of that link Kazaa...unless you really want this thread locked.
I removed it, but you get the point.
-
You mean like these Marines did?
[Link removed]
Just because you youtube up something by it's title does not mean it reflects the truth.
-
Just because you youtube up something by it's title does not mean it reflects the truth.
hahahaha.
"Those two people who pulled up in the white car" referring to the civilians driving through the fire fight:
Soldier 1: "I shot that guy in the white car, 'ran into the building"
Soldier 2: "I f***ing ripped him"
:uhoh
-
No... but that's what they did. Malice, incompetence, indifference - take your pick.
When you put on a uniform and volunteer for a situation like the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have to face daily...you can come back here and marvel us all with your humanitarian work.
The really galling part is you and Kazaa sitting in middle class neighborhoods with no enemies to face have not a tiny inkling of what it's like to be faced with life and death decisions or putting your own lives on the line for complete strangers...and you try to pass judgment based on ignorance of the facts...while you play games and watch movies based on the horrors of war.
-
I don't buy that glorification of our troops. They serve the American people, that's why it is called service. They do a job they've chosen to do, and for money. They serve the people and everything they do reflects upon the American people.
-
i can only say one thing concerning those of you that would try to put these guys on trial.
go over there and spend a month with them, doing their jobs, in their shoes.
i saw the video on another forum.....and they did nothing wrong.
-
hahahaha.
Well.. that sure reflects your attitude and willingness to accept as fact anything that is convenient to your ego. Where do they say they were innocent civilians and shot them anyway? They don't. It's a firefight between insurgents out of uniform and the guys filming it. There is nothing there to indicate they are innocents caught in the middle.
Your clear willingness to act so irresponsibly and without respect for integrity is a reflection on your character which places you ill suited to judge others.
-
I don't buy that glorification of our troops. They serve the American people, that's why it is called service. They do a job they've chosen to do, and for money. They serve the people and everything they do reflects upon the American people.
Enlisted guys in the US military make very little money. They may be motivated by duty, adventure, history, whatever, but certainly not money.
You are correct that the American military reflects on America itself. But, because service is voluntary, it is not a representative cross section of our country. You have mostly young, male, high school graduates. Not criticizing them at all. I volunteered as a young college graduate way back. But the military takes these men and conditions them to behave in certain ways. One of them is to make decisions under fire.
Regarding the American people, I have a memory of a conversation overheard on a plane leaving Boston in the Eighties. Two apparent college kids were discussing a rash of kidnapping/murders in Lebanon. One mentioned the Marine Lt Col. who was hanged. The other smug little ... gentleman said that the Lt. Col. didn't count because he was military. So, civilians can lack moral standards, also.
-
I don't buy that glorification of our troops. They serve the American people, that's why it is called service. They do a job they've chosen to do, and for money. They serve the people and everything they do reflects upon the American people.
You are severely uninformed. Look up the base pay for an E-1 in any branch of service. Then tell me if you think it's worth putting yourself in harms way for ignorant people.
-
no one has really put this into the big picture.
These guys fight and fly every week, every week they risk their lives to fight. When they fly around in engagement zones, they do not wait for a RPG to come at them before they decide "Hey this guy is a bad guy" and shoot back...that is just not smart warfare. You try to identify possible enemy targets and weapons and take them out before they become the nail on your coffin.
We can rewatch this video over and over and we can see where mistakes were made by these service men. Unfortunantly the service men in the video do not have this luxury, they have seconds to identify enemy weapons on a little tv screen inside the cockpit of an apache helicopter probably half a mile to a mile away and act. (Use judgment on when you hear the guns firing and when the bullets actually hit). In normal everyday operations probably no shooting would have happened, but however known insurgents were in the area fighting...so you tell me:
You are in the helicopter, a single RPG or spray of gunfire WILL end your life, you are in a battle zone and you see a group of unknowns. A couple of people ARE carrying weapons and one "might be" carrying a RPG. As you fly around a guy is crouched behind a corner looking up at you with something in his hand, it might be an RPG or nothing. But he is behind a corner looking up at your helicopter with something in his hand, known insurgents are in the area, and a battle has been taking place. What is the logical conclusion you can draw up with those facts behind your mind? If you do not take him out and he has a RPG, sucks to be you. There is only one way ensure that the ground forces are safe and that you go back home that day to eat another meal and call your wife and kids, take out all possible threats.
Like i stated these guys only have one shot, they can not take a picture and study it to make sure they are right, no they have to act by what they see on a small TV screen in a moving helicopter up to a mile away. Cause if they don't, that could be their last mistake.
-
If we were fighting another country you would be right, but we're not. This war is not about killing or territory, it's a war over public opinion. If the terrorists can make us look impotent or perhaps even worse than them they win. They're winning.
-
Sorry flipperk I'll play devil's advocate on this one.
It is not a state of war anymore. And they were operating in an Iraqi residential suburb. The camera's are not even close to RPG's, the one 'RPG' briefly glanced could in fact be an old service rifle from what I could see. US forces were some time away from where those guys were, and the helo's appeared to be circling some distance away, so neither an RPG nor small arms fire presented a direct threat to any US forces operating at the time.
Without getting into the whole WMD exist or not, the US decided to be there (I actually supported the action and still do). They are operating in iraqi cities, full of iraqi civilians, what % of the population do insurgents represent? The question you have to ask yourself is do your normal rules of war exist here - in what is now a policing and peacekeeping action? Can you justify quick snap decisions in heavily civilian populated areas, or should more care have been taken when no direct threat was presented.
Personally I believe the first half of the engagement is 50/50 - a mistake in the fog of war. The van however was clearly wrong - it even breaches the geneva convention on engaging non-combatants. The van occupants presented no weapons, nor any threat.
-
Just an FYI. Wikileaks has a definite agenda. This is taken from the article I'll link.
"the special project URL that WikiLeaks established for it, under the incendiary name of collateralmurder.com."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100406/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1490
Now do you think you are going to get the straight info when the clip is set up under circumstances like that? Are you going to assume the video is total and complete? I sure wouldn't not with an agenda like they are posting it under. I would really like to know who is behind this so called "non profit" organization. Perhaps someone as neutral as code pink or michael moore.
-
When you put on a uniform and volunteer for a situation like the armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have to face daily...you can come back here and marvel us all with your humanitarian work.
The really galling part is you and Kazaa sitting in middle class neighborhoods with no enemies to face have not a tiny inkling of what it's like to be faced with life and death decisions or putting your own lives on the line for complete strangers...and you try to pass judgment based on ignorance of the facts...while you play games and watch movies based on the horrors of war.
I'm from an upper-middle class neighbourhood btw. I have more chance of dying from chocking on my donut then the apache pilot and his gunner have of dying to enemy fire, so I hardly doubt they face life and death situations daily.
-
Well.. that sure reflects your attitude and willingness to accept as fact anything that is convenient to your ego. Where do they say they were innocent civilians and shot them anyway? They don't. It's a firefight between insurgents out of uniform and the guys filming it. There is nothing there to indicate they are innocents caught in the middle.
Your clear willingness to act so irresponsibly and without respect for integrity is a reflection on your character which places you ill suited to judge others.
Did you happen to watch the video before I removed it from my post? I'll PM it to you so you can get a better idea of what's going on, my guess is that you didn't or you wouldn't have posted the above. If you did indeed watch the video then your patten of thought scares the s**t out of me. This is also a scary thought, but have you served in a conflict? If you have, I bet no one who wasn't on your side was left standing.
There was nothing in that video which confirmed them being hostile, no weapons, no uniforms, no tribale wear. Thus against the RoE.
-
Sorry flipperk I'll play devil's advocate on this one.
It is not a state of war anymore. And they were operating in an Iraqi residential suburb. The camera's are not even close to RPG's, the one 'RPG' briefly glanced could in fact be an old service rifle from what I could see. US forces were some time away from where those guys were, and the helo's appeared to be circling some distance away, so neither an RPG nor small arms fire presented a direct threat to any US forces operating at the time.
Without getting into the whole WMD exist or not, the US decided to be there (I actually supported the action and still do). They are operating in iraqi cities, full of iraqi civilians, what % of the population do insurgents represent? The question you have to ask yourself is do your normal rules of war exist here - in what is now a policing and peacekeeping action? Can you justify quick snap decisions in heavily civilian populated areas, or should more care have been taken when no direct threat was presented.
Personally I believe the first half of the engagement is 50/50 - a mistake in the fog of war. The van however was clearly wrong - it even breaches the geneva convention on engaging non-combatants. The van occupants presented no weapons, nor any threat.
Quoted for the truth.
-
No wonder the terrorists are winning this war.
Nvm
Looks as if it was a myth.
You cant win the war against terrorism without killing a sunstantial amount of civilians.
The main variable is the radical muslim.
-
Myth
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm
In any case that tactic has been tried by the Israelis to no avail.
Analysis: I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing, to ask if there's any truth to the above, and he responded via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal.
"I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," Vandiver wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."
Similarly, I've been unable to find any evidence corroborating the claim that Muslims believe that "eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell." It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is "ridiculous." A statement from the Anti-Defamation League characterizes the claim as an "offensive caricature of Muslim beliefs."
-
I'm from an upper-middle class neighbourhood btw. I have more chance of dying from chocking on my donut then the apache pilot and his gunner have of dying to enemy fire, so I hardly doubt they face life and death situations daily.
:headscratch:
You do realize that helicopters are not invincible right?
An rpg anywhere on the helicopter will take it out of the sky.
You must be eating an assload of donuts whole to be matching the danger level.
-
How many Apache crews have we lost in Iraq the past seven years since the end of major combat operations?
I'd bet it is safer to fly an Apache in Iraq shooting up the place than it is to drive on the freeway with a buddy in the passenger seat playing Modern Warfare on a Playstation.
-
I personally dont know the combat losses of the apache.
All i'm saying is it's more dangerous to fly the apache in combat than it is eating alot of donuts in an upper middle class british household.
-
Yeah and how many times would you be willing to wait and see and have RPGs shot at you? All it takes is for someone to have lady luck smile on them and bang you have dead soldiers. While collateral causalities is a terrible thing it happens in war zones. The chance for collateral damage goes up in direct proportion to what kind of enemy forces you face. Against a national uniformed army you can keep it to a minimum. However against a force that has no structure, uniform, has no allegiance to any nation, and/or that uses civilians for little more than human shields or targets, keeping civilian causalities from happening is going to be next to impossible.
I am going to stop with that because I can't trust my brain and hands on a topic like this.
-
I personally dont know the combat losses of the apache.
All i'm saying is it's more dangerous to fly the apache in combat than it is eating alot of donuts in an upper middle class british household.
I'm not so sure. I've tasted British donuts...
-
Wow, a pretty civil debate over a really controversial subject. Go O'club.
-
I'm not so sure. I've tasted British donuts...
Zing!
-
i was reluctant to even post here but since it is still up i will.
why on earth did these journalist's not wave there bags or give some kind of signal? it was obvious that the helicopters where looking at them, the guy sticking his head around the corner was very aware of the danger or he would have just walked out into the open! it would seem to me that anyone on the ground who is aware of what these helicopters will do to you would want to either signal them that they were friendly or disperse, the fact that there were positively two armed men in that group would have been enough to warrant my exit at a high rate of speed, or for me to lay down on the ground face down hands out till they recognized my lack of desire to get killed!! not one of these guys even remotely appeared to be threatened by the heli's, and at, at least one point they did aim something that looked like an RPG at the chopper!
the people in the van did no better, they were being circled at an even closer radius yet they never even attempted to communicate with the heli's, they planed on loading the person in the van as if they knew him, they hid him from view, and immediately tried to leave before they were fired upon, why on earth they had the kids in the van is unknown but to do what they did would be like pulling up to a gangland shootout with police, and loading up some bad guys and trying to drive off, the cops would shoot you as you did so just as these guys did.
it was a very unfortunate accident, the fact that there was a firefight not very far from it, made it much worse, suspicions were high and these people acted suspicious, maybe not on purpose, but they did none the less!
as soon as the guy poked his head around the corner, with what looked like an RPG the deal was done, up until that time, there could have been a different outcome, stupidity by the guys who got killed is the reason this happened, better communication with the public could have prevented it, such as what to do if a couple of helicopters with guns starts circling you!
the other side of this is the fact that none of the films talks about the weapons that were on the scene, if they did have an RPG and an AK47 then they were a threat, if no weapons were found, then what is it that these two guys had? and why isn't anyone talking about that?
-
I think that kazaa and die hard need to get out in the real world and try it on for size before they start passing judgement on folks who are in combat. I cannot believe the depth of naivete displayed by you too. From this thread you have proven you are no more than trolls. You lack an argument and only provide armchair generalship from a position of never having done anything close to the job of those you so sanctimoniously berate and condemn. It sounds trite but is true non the less, you have no grasp or concept of the subject you are discussing with such contempt. Once you put on a uniform and put your own precious hides on the line you may learn what it's like to be in the real world of conflict. Until then you really know nothing about what you are talking about.
-
In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.
-
In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.
That's not what he said at all. Again and again, you continually enter the conversation determined to filter content to your disposition.
-
Outside of the realm of humanitarianism, RoE, whether the decisions made were justifiable, whether the Iraqi civilians were idiots, and what have you...
If I'm not mistaken, the goal of the invasion of Iraq (considering the lack of WMD's) was to set up a free, humane parliamentary democracy both on the behalf of the Iraqi people and for the sake of having a stable, pro-Western state in the Middle East to serve as an example for all... and for the sake of the interest that would serve the US, having an anti-extremist state in the Middle East.
In the current state, having high Iraqi confidence in its democratic government, enough to allow it to become powerful enough to function on its own and maintain security in Iraq, is essential to achieving achieving a level of security for the United States, while at the same time allowing for the toning down of the use of the American military for this purpose, because, like it or not, the American people get tired of war.
Since the current Iraqi regime was set up by Westerners, it's naturally going to be associated with us, for better or for worse.
Trying to completely exterminate extremism in Iraq & Afghanistan is silly... years and years later there's still extremism in Northern Ireland and Southeast Asia. The only practical way to achieve anything is to have the people of this region police themselves and drive their own people out, place trust in their governments, and trust in that what the Westerners have in mind for them is really the best option.
So it's not a war of killing the enemy... it's a war of public opinion. How many terrorists are killed is not so much what is important, it's who the average Iraqi perceives as being fighting for their interest... and the terrorists have home field advantage... it's naturally an up hill battle.
Now's a time of particular political turmoil with contested parliamentary elections in Iraq and the cluster#$@% that is President Karzai in Afghanistan. The people are undoubtedly, and not unjustifiably, becoming less trusting and more fed up with the governments that the west has set up, and perhaps even the democratic process itself.
The last thing that's going to make them say, 'hey maybe this is a good idea afterall, let's place more trust in power in these Western systems' is a bunch of their innocent countrymen being lit up by Americans. So really what's accomplished is nothing, unless you've got money to be made dealing arms to extremists...
Just a teenaged American's take on the situation...
Vietnam, Beriut, Mogadishu, etc...etc...etc...all proved that to be the correct way to proceed...when the enemy has no one to be accountable to for who they kill and how, there is only one way to beat them, and it isn't by being polite.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but... Vietnam is right now a Communist state, and Somalia is a failed one. It would hardly seem that the US strategy worked in those situations.
Unless the real goal of these conflicts was for American corporations have a cheap place to make cotton tee-shirts and overpriced sneakers, I guess.
-
That's not what he said at all. Again and again, you continually enter the conversation determined to filter content to your disposition.
Sure sounds like that's what he said to me.
I think that kazaa and die hard need to get out in the real world and try it on for size before they start passing judgement on folks who are in combat.
-
Sure sounds like that's what he said to me.
He is saying that you lack the wisdom that comes from life experience to fairly judge these types of situations. He, like most others reading this thread, draw that assessment from your continual display of generalized ignorance of what is occurring and its' context. FYI... people sue the military all the time.
-
I don't know if the apache pilots did the right thing in the situation or not. I do know that in 500 years the people who will be remembered as heroes are the insurgents. People will sit round camp fires and tell stories of how valient men dressed in cloth stood up to techno-terminators and steel killing machines. How they kept fighting for what they believed in despite impossible odds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting them, I am remaining neutral in this whole mess with a strong desire to see our boys back home and safe. Suicide bombers and terrorists are a very different thing to the average Insurgent with an ak47 fighting for 'his people and beliefs'. All I am saying is when our time has become a history book we are going to look like murderous fiends and they are going to look like brave men.
-
I don't know if the apache pilots did the right thing in the situation or not. I do know that in 500 years the people who will be remembered as heroes are the insurgents. People will sit round camp fires and tell stories of how valient men dressed in cloth stood up to techno-terminators and steel killing machines. How they kept fighting for what they believed in despite impossible odds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting them, I am remaining neutral in this whole mess with a strong desire to see our boys back home and safe. Suicide bombers and terrorists are a very different thing to the average Insurgent with an ak47 fighting for 'his people and beliefs'. All I am saying is when our time has become a history book we are going to look like murderous fiends and they are going to look like brave men.
probably because its the truth.
this whole "war" is bullsoup, the ones who are guilty will get there just due, in the end. on both sides.
and I have a feeling the gunner in that apache, will be VERY sorry for his actions.
for no man has control over you and your actions, and when we are standing in front of our creator we can not say, well they made me do it, or I was just doing my job.... every one will receive there just due.
-
He is saying that you lack the wisdom that comes from life experience to fairly judge these types of situations. He, like most others reading this thread, draw that assessment from your continual display of generalized ignorance of what is occurring and its' context. FYI... people sue the military all the time.
That's your interpretation, and unlike you I don't presume to speak for "most others reading this thread".
Heh, yeah. Anyone can sue the military, but winning... Ever since Feres v. United States the military has been de facto above the law.
-
I don't know if the apache pilots did the right thing in the situation or not. I do know that in 500 years the people who will be remembered as heroes are the insurgents. People will sit round camp fires and tell stories of how valient men dressed in cloth stood up to techno-terminators and steel killing machines. How they kept fighting for what they believed in despite impossible odds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting them, I am remaining neutral in this whole mess with a strong desire to see our boys back home and safe. Suicide bombers and terrorists are a very different thing to the average Insurgent with an ak47 fighting for 'his people and beliefs'. All I am saying is when our time has become a history book we are going to look like murderous fiends and they are going to look like brave men.
As a veteran of the first year of both A'stan & Iraq, I must say this is the best post in this thread. As for speaking about this incident, I'll pass. I get a little fired up in these types of discussions when 99% of the people posting/talking have never been over there. I'm content with just kicking back & letting you fine folks enjoy your freedom to judge this incident & others like it.
-
Thank you.
-
I have been around the military most of my life, 16 years of my fathers 20 years Air Force career, and I enlisted in the Arkansas Army National Guard. To tell the truth about things I injured my knee for the forth time and it was the most severe to date, hyperextension of the knee resulting in patellar dislocation, I was given the choice of recycling or separating. I chose to separate from the fear of injuring it again and possibly permanently disabling it. I feel for the people who choose to volunteer for military service and deploy to combat zones. They get my respect.
I said that to say this. What pisses me off more than anything are these people that volunteered for military service and then either refuse to deploy or do anything in their power to not deploy. That is almost as bad as the arm chair generals that want to look at something and say "Oh my god I can't believe that they are so blood thirsty that they fire on civilians without just cause." The US military tries to respect their religion by trying their best to not damage mosques. I mean we could be giant sweethearts and issue shotguns with bacon-shells just to cause people that are hit with them to be unclean; which if not purified before death means they are going to hell.
Here is a test for you. Find a picture of a group of Iraqi, Afghani, or Palastiniani and I want you to pick out who is armed, who is a civilian, who is wearing a suicide belt/vest, or who has a detonator for an IED. It is impossible unless you see a weapon to determine who is armed or unarmed. As for the others good luck. What makes that even hard is you have to decide in only seconds if that person with the AK is friendly or if he is about to open fire on you and your squad/platoon killing as many people as possible before he dies. Which serves him just fine since he died in combat against the "infidel" and he goes to heaven and get 72 virgins.
-
In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.
I think you will find that almost all democratic countries found their freedom through armed conflict at some point in their history, so I hope you enjoy your freedom to condemn the armed forces. Watching a clip that has been chopped and sensationalised for effect, then taking the moral high ground with poorly construed ideas, makes you look.... well people can always draw conclusions from that.
Your 'public scrutiny' should be directed at the elected officials that deployed them there in the first place
-
I don't know if the apache pilots did the right thing in the situation or not. I do know that in 500 years the people who will be remembered as heroes are the insurgents. People will sit round camp fires and tell stories of how valient men dressed in cloth stood up to techno-terminators and steel killing machines. How they kept fighting for what they believed in despite impossible odds.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting them, I am remaining neutral in this whole mess with a strong desire to see our boys back home and safe. Suicide bombers and terrorists are a very different thing to the average Insurgent with an ak47 fighting for 'his people and beliefs'. All I am saying is when our time has become a history book we are going to look like murderous fiends and they are going to look like brave men.
Standing up to an AH-64 Apache with an AK47 dressed in cloth is not brave or valiant, it's Darwinism in action.
-
Civilised people find ways not to fight wars.
Chamberlin tried that and look where that got them.
-
As a veteran of the first year of both A'stan & Iraq, I must say this is the best post in this thread. As for speaking about this incident, I'll pass. I get a little fired up in these types of discussions when 99% of the people posting/talking have never been over there. I'm content with just kicking back & letting you fine folks enjoy your freedom to judge this incident & others like it.
Reason I posted was to hear from people like yourself. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to have a look at the video and write down your thoughts.
-
In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.
Why not? You sit here with a sandwich in your hand with nothing more dangerous than going to work everyday and yet you feel like you have enough humanitarian experience in your life to speak what is right and what is wrong with what happens in a warzone?
That is like telling Skuzzy, Pyro, and HiTech how to code their game when you have never coded a game before.
-
Reason I posted was to hear from people like yourself. I'd appreciate it if you took the time to have a look at the video and write down your thoughts.
I watched the video. Let me think on it tonight to collect my thoughts on how I would like to respond.
-
well here we go try an take my 2 cents with a grain of salt.
what a mess! im not sure what all the details are but we should remember that our military is like our police force, its not
perfect but what a "wild west" we would live in if not for them. also just because they joined is not neccesarily because they had defending your rights in mind. ive had friends deployed an came back in both marines and army who simply joined because they were adrenaline junkys and others who "just wanted to shoot somebody" an thats straight from the horses mouth. To say someone is ignorant for sharing a negative oppinion on are millitary almost implys that you believe everyone in a uniform is a good person and its simply not true.
i only say this because its slightly irritating to see someone call someone ignorant for insulting those who "fight for our freedom" when in actuality they could care less about your freedoms. Although not to throw the baby out with bathwater, there are still alot of good men fighting with good intentions in mind.
I am thankful to those who serve but darn trying to stop terrorism just seems like sending police to a school to stop the kids who lie. we are fighting an mindset
-
1) At least two men were armed with long rifles, and one appeared to have a grenade launcher mounted; matching the profiles of insurgents.
2) None were wearing uniforms of any sort; matching the profiles of insurgents.
3) They were in a combat area, without coordinating with local coalition forces; matching the profiles of insurgents.
4) Local US forces were pushing into the area on a combat sweep and the photog was on the enemy's side of the line.
5) Ernie Pyle was smart enough to a) wear a uniform, b) coordinate with local US combat forces, and c) never passed through the lines to the enemy's side of No Man's Land.
I would've shot them, too, in order to protect MY side's ground forces. It wasn't like the gunner could just open a window and shout out "Hey! Have you guys seen any insurgents around here?"
agreed :salute
loss of life sucks (anytime) but this ain't Disneyland....it's a war zone
just my thoughts...
froger
-
loss of life sucks (anytime) but this ain't Disneyland....it's a war zone
Whether what they did was right or wrong, it's not a war zone. It's a residential neighbourhood in their capital city. It's their home. If you were driving to work one day and came across 2 or 3 people shot and lying wounded near your house, would you stop to lend assistance or just keep going and ignore their pleas for help?
-
Well the place was / appears to be a residential suburb in baghdad. You're assuming the mission was planned, and I doubt the military would openly publish such activities. So you have a 'fog of war'.
The van was a guy taking his kids to school, he came around the corner upon the scene and decided to lend a hand some time after the firing stopped. Now put yourself in his position, you're driving along, you come across a dozen guys dead and mostly unarmed (we are talking 2 guns and 1 potential rpg across 12-15 bodies). A couple of people are wounded but alive. Do you stop and help or do you drive through letting them bleed to death on the road?
IMHO the guy in the van was a hero. And no I do not think the pilots could see them in there, I think wikileaks is wrong in doing their zoom/enhance on the video which those in the fight did not have the luxury or time for. BTW the kids did survive.
The guy in the van was stupid !!! not a hero, his stupidity cost is measured in the life changing injuries of two children and the death of him and his friend. no kids....maybe you stop to render aid.
-
hahahaha.
"Those two people who pulled up in the white car" referring to the civilians driving through the fire fight:
Soldier 1: "I shot that guy in the white car, 'ran into the building"
Soldier 2: "I f***ing ripped him"
:uhoh
your point ?
-
Whether what they did was right or wrong, it's not a war zone. It's a residential neighbourhood in their capital city. It's their home. If you were driving to work one day and came across 2 or 3 people shot and lying wounded near your house, would you stop to lend assistance or just keep going and ignore their pleas for help?
Let's see, if you had your two kids in the car with you and you just saw a crap load of led come raining down on a crowd of people(Knowing it could happen again ) would you put your kids in the possible line of fire?
as for this not being a war zone it would seem to me that we as a nation have declared war on terrorism and that many years ago we as a nation chose to occupy that country for reasons i do not understand but as far as i can see your so called residential neighborhood looks like a war zone to me.
-
Let's see, if you had your two kids in the car with you and you just saw a crap load of led come raining down on a crowd of people(Knowing it could happen again ) would you put your kids in the possible line of fire?
as for this not being a war zone it would seem to me that we as a nation have declared war on terrorism and that many years ago we as a nation chose to occupy that country for reasons i do not understand but as far as i can see your so called residential neighborhood looks like a war zone to me.
First off the van did not arrive immediately after or during the firing. It arrived some time afterwards. So he most likely had no idea what had happened and may have assumed it was the aftermath of gun fight or a suicide bomb attack. I'd suggest you read all the documentation available, there is a 4 minute break between the chopper ceasing fan and the van arriving on scene.
As for the war on terrorism, well if I remember correctly the USA has suffered attacks on it's home soil. Should it to be treated as a war zone? Are you saying you'd be comfortable with marshall law declared in the USA and the army to patrol your streets with armoured vehicles and live ammunition? For them to setup checkpoints to check your ID and search you? Before you answer how dangerous baghdad looks I suggest you check some online stats for the worst cities in the world for murder per capita ;)
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #6
-
See Rule #6
Did I miss something there Skuzz?
Had the journalists followed a proper procedure, whether by personal means, or under the supervision of a professional security detail, they would most likely be alive today.
If you go out in the rain, bring an umbrella. If you don't want to take an umbrella because it is restricting, don't complain when you get wet.
-
See Rule #2
-
Just an FYI. Wikileaks has a definite agenda. This is taken from the article I'll link.
"the special project URL that WikiLeaks established for it, under the incendiary name of collateralmurder.com."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100406/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1490
Now do you think you are going to get the straight info when the clip is set up under circumstances like that? Are you going to assume the video is total and complete? I sure wouldn't not with an agenda like they are posting it under. I would really like to know who is behind this so called "non profit" organization. Perhaps someone as neutral as code pink or michael moore.
This might answer some of your questions: http://features.techworld.com/security/3212595/wikileaks-project-to-make-iceland-free-information-host/
Apparently an Icelandic Minister of Parliament and "activist", Birgitta Jonsdottir, is one of the volunteers who work for Wikileaks. And according to Wikipedia, "Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden and founded by Julian Assange, an Australian journalist. As of June 2009, the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[2] and the advisory board consisted of Assange, Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, CJ Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker, and Wang Youcai."
Wikileaks states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations."
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #14
-
See Rule #14
-
Brace yourself for the lock.... here it comes... any minute now. :aok
-
There was no excuse for shooting the van. They had no reason to suspect that these are "insurgents" that came to help their buddies and not civilians trying to assist injured men laying in the street. The helicopter pilots were simply in a killing mode and were in a hurry to make the most out of the fire permission they got. They were not TRYING to kill civilians, but they WERE reckless.
AGAIN, would you put your children in harms way?
your all stuck on if it was right or wrong. read what I wrote!!! i never said anything about right or wrong my only thoughts were the safety of those children. that was it!
frog
-
I thought about it. It should be locked. There is no way to fully discuss this particular topic on our board. It is pretty much a dead end.