US attack on Iraqis, intentional?

[THORNHEART]

what jefjef said.

[Symmetry]

The real issue isn't about intentionality, but whether the troops involved were grossly negligent. I don't see too many people arguing that the soldiers intended to kill journalists, but it's still a crime if they didn't act in a way that would normally prevent civilian deaths.

Good post on the legal issues, and I guess you can make up your own minds if the soldiers did there jobs well:

Here

I'd just add that I think it's a tough job, and a stressful situation, but that's mitigation, not an excuse.

[spurgistan]

so you think because you watched a video....you have more insight to what was happening that day....

I definitely have more context than you, based on your probing analysis of f*ck-all that has nothing to do with the linked video, yeah. Firefight? Check one for things not happening. Imminent threat? You had people loading bodies and wounded into vans. That's not a threat. I didn't watch the full 40 minute video, but I did watch the 18 minute annotated version, and it depicted a gratuitous failure of the command structure to prevent civilian casualties, which is supposed to be the basis of Counter-Terrorism. I saw one thing that looked anything like a weapon, and if I'm an American soldier fighting for hearts and minds I'd better be able to identify a friggin' camera when I see one. But the worst thing about this isn't the gross misconduct, if not on the soldiers themselves (stressful job, for sure) then definitely on their superiors, but on the massive cover-up that blamed this whole incident on a reporter with a camera walking into a live firefight, which was clearly not the case. Heads should be rolling.

[jefjef]

so you think because you watched a video....you have more insight to what was happening that day....

I definitely have more context than you, based on your probing analysis of f*ck-all that has nothing to do with the linked video, yeah. Firefight? Check one for things not happening. Imminent threat? You had people loading bodies and wounded into vans. That's not a threat. I didn't watch the full 40 minute video, but I did watch the 18 minute annotated version, and it depicted a gratuitous failure of the command structure to prevent civilian casualties, which is supposed to be the basis of Counter-Terrorism. I saw one thing that looked anything like a weapon, and if I'm an American soldier fighting for hearts and minds I'd better be able to identify a friggin' camera when I see one. But the worst thing about this isn't the gross misconduct, if not on the soldiers themselves (stressful job, for sure) then definitely on their superiors, but on the massive cover-up that blamed this whole incident on a reporter with a camera walking into a live firefight, which was clearly not the case. Heads should be rolling.

Did you watch the video? Perhaps try it with your eyes open.

[Symmetry]

so you think because you watched a video....you have more insight to what was happening that day....

I definitely have more context than you, based on your probing analysis of f*ck-all that has nothing to do with the linked video, yeah. Firefight? Check one for things not happening. Imminent threat? You had people loading bodies and wounded into vans. That's not a threat. I didn't watch the full 40 minute video, but I did watch the 18 minute annotated version, and it depicted a gratuitous failure of the command structure to prevent civilian casualties, which is supposed to be the basis of Counter-Terrorism. I saw one thing that looked anything like a weapon, and if I'm an American soldier fighting for hearts and minds I'd better be able to identify a friggin' camera when I see one. But the worst thing about this isn't the gross misconduct, if not on the soldiers themselves (stressful job, for sure) then definitely on their superiors, but on the massive cover-up that blamed this whole incident on a reporter with a camera walking into a live firefight, which was clearly not the case. Heads should be rolling.

Did you watch the video? Perhaps try it with your eyes open.

Which parts of his analysis do you think were wrong?

[jefjef]

Several most definitely appeared to be armed.

For those who cry I know what an AK47 looks like blah blah blah. Are you aware how many variations of that weapon there are? Several. Sure looked like rifles to me.

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

Dude at the corner of the building. He sure wasn't holding his dick.

They asked for and received authorization based on what they perceived upon the scene.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

It's a war zone.

READ THIS.

[the.killing.44]

3:42



Tell me the one on the left doesn't look like he has a gun.

It was a sickening video, but we do have to take it with a grain of salt. Iraq '07 was hell.

[Symmetry]

The real issue isn't about intentionality, but whether the troops involved were grossly negligent. I don't see too many people arguing that the soldiers intended to kill journalists, but it's still a crime if they didn't act in a way that would normally prevent civilian deaths.

Good post on the legal issues, and I guess you can make up your own minds if the soldiers did there jobs well:

Here

I'd just add that I think it's a tough job, and a stressful situation, but that's mitigation, not an excuse.

Sure, but read this too.

[snufkin]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

[the.killing.44]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

[jefjef]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

Several most definitely appeared to be armed. Read the whole thing snuffy.

You couldn't tell those bags were cameras. Not HONESTLY.

Yes I saw at least 2 with rifles. The guy at the corner. That was not his dick he was holding.

The wounded guy was still considered a threat. That van may very well have been combatants also.

[Symmetry]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

Several most definitely appeared to be armed. Read the whole thing snuffy.

You couldn't tell those bags were cameras. Not HONESTLY.

Yes I saw at least 2 with rifles. The guy at the corner. That was not his dick he was holding.

Two with rifles, but it seems the crew reported 5-6. And continually misrepresented the situation. That's a problem.

[jefjef]

Two with what definitely appears to be rifles. Another two with bags that possibly contained weapons. Several others with loose fitting clothing. The guy peering around the corner with what looked to be rpg/law/bazooka type weapon.

Thats what I saw. Not cameras. Not people out for a peaceful stroll.

[Frigidus]

Two with what definitely appears to be rifles. Another two with bags that possibly contained weapons. Several others with loose fitting clothing. The guy peering around the corner with what looked to be rpg/law/bazooka type weapon.

Thats what I saw. Not cameras. Not people out for a peaceful stroll.

Two guys with rifles, two with bags (GASP), other with loose fitting clothing?!?! CALL IN AN AIR STRIKE!!!

[snufkin]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

Are you guys only watching blurry photographs of the movie? ..also I don´t remember anything like that from when the van came.. jefe implied that it was ok to fire at the van with the kids because they couldn´t tell what was inside. Once again - no firefight, only two unarmed people picking up a wounded.
Have fun with your video games kids!

just nuke them all! you never know!

[jefjef]

None of you can honestly say that those camera bags were cameras either. Explosives come in bags too. And cameras.

The van. No way to tell what all was inside of it or who those two adults were that stopped to pick up a wounded combat target.

wow! So it´s ok to shoot everyone with a camera because they may contain explosives..
..and ok to shoot at anything or anyone when there is no actual firefight because "you never know" and soldiers are under stress so it´s automatically right? Amazing!

Are you guys only watching blurry photographs of the movie? ..also I don´t remember anything like that from when the van came.. jefe implied that it was ok to fire at the van with the kids because they couldn´t tell what was inside. Once again - no firefight, only two unarmed people picking up a wounded.
Have fun with your video games kids!

just nuke them all! you never know!

I could not see kids inside the van or what was in the back of it. Troops were on the way to clear it and at least one person was still very much alive when that van showed up.

Here's a fact about about the enemies of our country you piece of work.

Many of those assholes use kids as human bombs and shields and to plant explosives. Sick shit.

Yes. I would have nuked the fucking place. Iran too.

[snufkin]

Yes. I would have nuked the fucking place. Iran too.

I´m not surprised anymore.

Here is the "rpg".
Approximately 15-16 inches/ 40 cm. He is holding it with one hand in front of his stomach.
Gunner has already made his mind up.


you need to watch the movie (not blurry stills) and you will see that it is way too small..

[Army of GOD]

I had pretty mixed feelings when I saw this.

First off, any video showing someone dying doesn't sit well with me, but there are so many things going on here, it's just too difficult to attempt to assume you know what's going through everybody's mind.

I've never been in war, nor killed anyone, but Hell, if I believed my life to be in danger, I'm going to try my best to keep it. And if I was in that chopper, THIS

is where I'd fear for my life. A guy trying to hide himself around a corner, with a long object. And who knows how fast their blood was pumping, or what was going on in their minds, but they made the decision, and who are we to judge it?

But the firing on the van was COMPLETELY uncalled for. They had no reason to believe the people in the van were dangerous. They were only taking their wounded to the safety, which almost anyone with a heart in that situation would do.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Yes I saw at least 2 with rifles. The guy at the corner. That was not his dick he was holding.

while your fixation on a guy holding his dick is cute, the guy at the corner was one of the cameramen. he was holding a camera and taking pictures.

the soldiers were not watching in blurry black and white through a gunsight, they were watching in broad daylight with their own fucking eyes, and they should have been able to tell that there was no threat. and even allowing that they made an honest mistake, firing on van rescuing the wounded was a violation of rules of engagement and qualifies as a war crime of the worst kind. jesus christ you are stupid.

[jefjef]

Yes I saw at least 2 with rifles. The guy at the corner. That was not his dick he was holding.

while your fixation on a guy holding his dick is cute, the guy at the corner was one of the cameramen. he was holding a camera and taking pictures.

the soldiers were not watching in blurry black and white through a gunsight, they were watching in broad daylight with their own fucking eyes, and they should have been able to tell that there was no threat. and even allowing that they made an honest mistake, firing on van rescuing the wounded was a violation of rules of engagement and qualifies as a war crime of the worst kind. jesus christ you are stupid.

Even Terrorist assholes rescue their own sewage. It's a war zone. You and the other waste of skin seem to ignore the weapons. Simply pathetic.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Even Terrorist assholes rescue their own sewage. It's a war zone.

I'm glad you consider reporters -- from free democracies who are allies of the US, no less -- "sewage," but the fact remains that even enemy combatants are allowed medical treatment. it is unlawful to fire on disabled/fleeing enemies, and the same goes for people trying to aid them.

also it was only a "war zone" because the soldiers in the helicopter made it one. not a single shot was fired by the men on the ground and none of them even had weapons.

good job trying your darndest to defend the wanton and unprovoked murder of civilians though. now all you have to do is work on your goosetep and you're set

[jefjef]

Even Terrorist assholes rescue their own sewage. It's a war zone.

I'm glad you consider reporters -- from free democracies who are allies of the US, no less -- "sewage," but the fact remains that even enemy combatants are allowed medical treatment. also it was only a "war zone" because the soldiers in the helicopter made it one. not a single shot was fired by the men on the ground and none of them even had weapons.

good job trying your darndest to defend the wanton and unprovoked murder of civilians though. now all you have to do is work on your goosetep and you're set

Nice but sad twist. I do not defend wanton and unprovoked murder of civilians. But you know that. As per who you are you twist things to feel good about your self.

At the time of that incident they were not identified as reporters. They were identified as armed threats. Civilians were not targeted. Perceived Threats were.

And yet you deny seeing armed individuals.

[TheProwler]

I count 5 possible rifles in that photo...

The closest guy with his back turned...muzzle is visible hanging to right of his body...

The guy in the centre...but that might be a camera...

The guy second from the right looks like he has a rifle hanging from his left shoulder...

The guy immediately left of him has something hanging from his right shoulder...

The guy to the furthest left seems to be holding a dark object in his right arm that hangs to around his knee...

The guy in the striped shirt in the photo is definitely holding a rifle...



I do not think they were aware of the helicopters.

I don't know what proper protocol is, but when the van arrived, did they gather weapons? I couldn't see...but if they did, I think that would be reason to open fire.

The callous remarks by the gunner just demonstrates the mental state that most people would have to enter to do the job of killing other people. If he said "Shit, I think I just killed some kids. I'm an evil bastard." then he wouldn't be able to do his job. They have to become a little detached (maybe they started out that way) to be able to kill other human beings on a regular basis. The situation sucks, but it is what it is. There is no easy answer to the bigger problem and because of that, innocent lives will be lost.

[SultanOfSurreal]

And yet you deny seeing armed individuals.

that's because there weren't any bro

[SultanOfSurreal]

The situation sucks, but it is what it is.

what a charmingly shitty opinion.

There is no easy answer to the bigger problem and because of that, innocent lives will be lost.

there is a very easy answer, america needs to exit iraq immediately, and every other country we illegally occupy too