US attack on Iraqis, intentional?

[AAFitz]

The important thing is that while clearly in a situation they felt was immediate danger, they followed protocol to the letter. .

they ask permission to shoot people trying to pick up the injured to take to the hospital!!! What danger where they in at this point??!

check the video starting at around 9.28

ok big balls, i moved this one for you. Please explain me where the rules of engagement state you should shoot at people picking up the wounded.

Again, they were not picking up wounded. They were jumping out of a van in the proximity of inferred weapons and a combatant. It was the removal of the weapons they were stopping, not just the removal of the soldier they believed just moments before was setting up to shoot at them. They were removing the new men with possibly new weapons, and immediate actions to the ones they thought they saw in the first place, namely the RPG and AK47 both capbable of killing them or their other helo or arriving squad immediately. They acted to stop this threat.

There is no question that it was a mistaken identity, but there is also no question they were doing their job, which was protecting their helo, the other helo, and the other men who were very close to arriving on the scene. They were eliminating the threat, not killing the wounded or humanitarian aid and children. Unfortunately, the threat was in fact humanitarian aid and children, but unfortunately the threat seemed very real, and not until the cameras could be inspected in person, and not from a video on a helo, could that be determined.

If in a situation where a helo thought they saw weapons and a group of men were setting up to shoot at them, they did not fire, there is no doubt that many more helos would be taken out, and soldiers killed.

These men were asked to fight for us, defend us, and kill for us. They were not asked to be infallible, and they were certainly asked to make sure their fellow soldiers stayed safe above all else.

They did their jobs as they were trained to do. They will no doubt suffer the consequences in many ways, and it is probable they will get little support from us in that challenge.

As far as support of their actions, they will get much, because anyone can see this situation for what it clearly, and only was, which was an unfortunate and expected case of mistaken identity in a war.

[Woodruff]

That statement is irrelevant to mine, as well as irrelevant to the statement I was responding to. Try again, coward.

i'm not sure exactly what it is you're waiting for, but rest assured, you are certainly wrong about whatever the f*ck it is you're talking about

Yeah, I figured you'd see how utterly ignorant your assertion was once you looked at it closely. Thanks for admitting it.

i'm serious dude, i don't know what you're looking for from me
the military is nothing more than a global murder syndicate and everyone who takes part in it is filth who, while they will never be able to truly repent, should at least put forth a nominal token of remorse and abandon their post. any soldier who doesn't is willfully taking part in countless atrocities.
you think this is untrue because i'm too cowardly to join the military
that's retarded
what else is there to be said

What's retarded is that you believe anything you said there to be accurate.

[Woodruff]

The most shocking thing about this is the reaction of the people involved. The laughing through the speakers and the apparent indifference when they found out they where shooting at children.
Though they look at their actions ligheartedly at the moment, most of these people involved will probably suffer from phycological problems for large parts of their lives.

You sort of answered your own "shock" with the second sentence. Much of what they were saying there falls under "defense mechanism" for most people, and probably for them.

[Woodruff]

The important thing is that while clearly in a situation they felt was immediate danger, they followed protocol to the letter. .

they ask permission to shoot people trying to pick up the injured to take to the hospital!!! What danger where they in at this point??!

You don't know much about terrorism, do you? Let me put it this way...a ROUTINE method that terrorists use is to set off a bomb (say, in a building) so that when workers and others come to rescue those people, another bomb will go off...and often followed by a third.

You claim they are "no danger" and yet, a terrorist would seriously have no qualms at all about using an ambulance as cover to try to get a better shot at opposing troops.

In fact, that's precisely a problem we run into...we try to follow the Geneva Conventions for how a battle is supposed to be waged, but it's almost impossible due to the enemy not being willing to follow them themselves.

[THORNHEART]

When so people like THORNHEART Woodruff Aafitz big ballin stallin and several other "always controversial" posters all agree on something...it stands to reason we would be right....


Has this kinda by partisanship ever happened? oh forgot to mention jefjef....

[TheProwler]

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.

No, that's simply not true. Do they have to become detached? Of course. But if they're so detached that they're reveling in having killed children that were not a threat (some children ARE a threat, sadly), then they MUST be removed from the situation.

You are exaggerating what actually happened. They didn't see that there were children there until after the children were dead. And they were not "reveling" in it. So they did not display that they are "so detached" as you described.

You should really think before you spout off "No, that's simply not true." What I said is very true and you just tried to twist it with exaggeration.

[TheProwler]

i only chose a picture from world war ii because you're a mealy-mouthed fascist willing to defend every imaginable war crime up to an including genocide to avoid facing the fact that america's military is the single worst purveyor of violence in the world today

Your choice of WWII is a good one. It's the best example I know that there are just and appropriate uses for military action. It was the American military, along with others, that stopped the people in your picture from committing more acts like the one in your picture.

I read somewhere that Saddam Hussein was a bit of a mass murdering psychopath too...it was probably just American propaganda...never mind.

[TheProwler]

The most shocking thing about this is the reaction of the people involved. The laughing through the speakers and the apparent indifference when they found out they where shooting at children.

Though they look at their actions ligheartedly at the moment, most of these people involved will probably suffer from phycological problems for large parts of their lives.

It may be shocking, but it is necessary in that type of warfare where civilian casualties are nearly impossible to avoid.

I agree with your thoughts in second paragraph, but not your spelling.

[jefjef]

The important thing is that while clearly in a situation they felt was immediate danger, they followed protocol to the letter. .

they ask permission to shoot people trying to pick up the injured to take to the hospital!!! What danger where they in at this point??!

You don't know much about terrorism, do you? Let me put it this way...a ROUTINE method that terrorists use is to set off a bomb (say, in a building) so that when workers and others come to rescue those people, another bomb will go off...and often followed by a third.

You claim they are "no danger" and yet, a terrorist would seriously have no qualms at all about using an ambulance as cover to try to get a better shot at opposing troops.

In fact, that's precisely a problem we run into...we try to follow the Geneva Conventions for how a battle is supposed to be waged, but it's almost impossible due to the enemy not being willing to follow them themselves.

Also Geneva convention rules only apply to recognized uniformed military combatants. NOT TERRORIST ASSHOLES.

As for the van. Who could have known what and who they were. What was known was some one was trying to assist a wounded individual who was identified to be part of an armed contingent who was in a combat zone and that US ground forces were near by on their way to secure the area against a threat not totally neutralized.

[PLAYER57832]

I'll amend my statement - The disturbing part of this whole thing is that the US military hasn't released the video or apologized (to my knowledge) for the activities.

I really don't think they should apologize for this. The soldiers made the right decision on the information they perceived at that time. Had the US government had to apologize for every time that certain things came to light aftewards, then they'd be apologizing almost every day.

As for giving those reporter's families money, then that would be a nice gesture, but it's not really necessary for the US government to do so.

The US government's actions regarding this video are completely reasonable.

As for not realeasing it, that makes sense since the public at large would be outraged but also wouldn't understand the legality of the situation from the US soldiers' point of view, which I addressed in full in that long ass post above this one.[/quote]
EEEP... I am agreeing with Stallin here.

You have to compare today with the past few wars to get some perspective here. The real truth is that war is and always has been brutal. I don't care how you slice it, how much justification, it is just not "nice" to see people being killed. PERIOD. Up until WWII, "civilians" were largely removed, because it took such a long time for people and information to travel. Sure, it was a pain for soldiers to ride an overcrowded Queen Mary for over a month before they got home, but it did give them time to "process" the information and put some distance between the battlefield and home.

Beginning in Vietnahm, that went away. I can remember being a small child and watching Walter Cronkite talking about the Vietnahm war and even presenting fairly graphic video. Fairly graphic video at a time when even seeing a woman in pants shocked the nation, things were so subscribed. More than a few sociologists say this had a lot to do with the violant opposition to Vietnahm.

You can say "good, we don't need war". And yes, you are correct. HOWEVER, the real truth is that we do go to war, frequently. We do ask young men and now women to put their lives at stake for various cuases, to live and fight under conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with civilian life. When video like this is put out, does it really and truly "educate" or does it sensationalize?

I know greek, that you argue it was suppression of evidence. In the civilian world, I would agree. To the extent that this ware is turning from a true war into a civilian type "police action", even a very difficult to control only borderline "peacetime" action, you are correct. However, that is the real question. Was this during war or peace? The decision was it was wartime. The decision was that it was not the most wonderful of incidents by any stretch, but it was within the realm of sane actions given the rules of engagement (note I am not even addressing those rules directly, I am repeating the assessment that was made). It was not something we should brag about, but it was not something "actionable".

In fact, there is very good reason NOT to have released this video, assuming (and I do NOT know this is the case at all!) that people harmed were compensated in the manner considered "reasonable" for this war (not that anything is truly "reasonable" in war). Specifically, because it can be used to show how "evil" US forces are, without anyone bothering to look at the full context. This very thread is evidence of that. People who want to see the US army as a bunch of "bad guys" do so, those who don't.. don't. Nothing has been gained by its release.

Now, this is all without even talking about the actual rules. I agree that rules of engagement, rules of war versus "peacetime" type actions need to be evaluted and evaluated constantly for each situation. I do believe plain civilians, "average" citizens" should be considered, that their reaction should be taken into account, BUT the decisions, the standards belong primarily with those who have experience. Saying that you and I should decide the rules of engagement is little different than saying you or I should set the standards for a mining company. Sure, we can say "keep people as safe as possible", but we really and truly do not have the expertise to know what is and is not "possible.

[PLAYER57832]

Also Geneva convention rules only apply to recognized uniformed military combatants. NOT TERRORIST ASSHOLES.

This was what the Bush administration argued. It is not what many military legal experts believe should be true.. but that is a debate apart from this video.

Let me put it this way -- a country is judged not so much by how it treats the best of people, but by how it treats the worst. The route to tyranny ALWAYS starts with "fully justified" setting aside of rules becuase "the guilty don't deserve decent treatment".

As for the van. Who could have known what and who they were. What was known was some one was trying to assist a wounded individual who was identified to be part of an armed contingent who was in a combat zone and that US ground forces were near by on their way to secure the area against a threat not totally neutralized.

This was the assessment of experts. I would rather trust their judgement than claim that video shows enough to allow me to decide on my own.

[Frigidus]

Can we all agree that, regardless of the culpability of the soldiers, the fact that this video was buried by the government is a Very Bad Thing? I mean, I know some of us have said as much, but I'd like to make sure the nationalists among us agree as well.

[THORNHEART]

Can we all agree that, regardless of the culpability of the soldiers, the fact that this video was buried by the government is a Very Bad Thing? I mean, I know some of us have said as much, but I'd like to make sure the nationalists among us agree as well.

A bad thing? So what you want to see video footage of every operation now? You want to watch people being killed like its som sick video game for yout to annaylise and see if that was appropriate force used? Your also getting off topic...so far we have gone in and shown that the only real problem (could have been) was when we shot up the van...that was a bit excessive but we have shown that this a group of terrorists and terrorist helpers we shoot NOT just innocent civilians having lunch so why are we still saying the government should have released videos of its mistakes?

Thats just ignorant. LMFAO what makes you think the government is gonna say...damn we screwed it up...hmm lets go public and make ourselves look BAD all over the news and then world...umm yeah...

[Frigidus]

Can we all agree that, regardless of the culpability of the soldiers, the fact that this video was buried by the government is a Very Bad Thing? I mean, I know some of us have said as much, but I'd like to make sure the nationalists among us agree as well.

A bad thing? So what you want to see video footage of every operation now? You want to watch people being killed like its som sick video game for yout to annaylise and see if that was appropriate force used? Your also getting off topic...so far we have gone in and shown that the only real problem (could have been) was when we shot up the van...that was a bit excessive but we have shown that this a group of terrorists and terrorist helpers we shoot NOT just innocent civilians having lunch so why are we still saying the government should have released videos of its mistakes?

Thats just ignorant. LMFAO what makes you think the government is gonna say...damn we screwed it up...hmm lets go public and make ourselves look BAD all over the news and then world...umm yeah...

OK, just making sure. Good to know you're still an ignorant prick.

[THORNHEART]

Once again...I point out the stunning bypartisanship... shown in this thread...why atleast4 posters who never agree agree that this is obviously not what the media is trying to make it ...you gotta wonder...

[THORNHEART]

Can we all agree that, regardless of the culpability of the soldiers, the fact that this video was buried by the government is a Very Bad Thing? I mean, I know some of us have said as much, but I'd like to make sure the nationalists among us agree as well.

A bad thing? So what you want to see video footage of every operation now? You want to watch people being killed like its som sick video game for yout to annaylise and see if that was appropriate force used? Your also getting off topic...so far we have gone in and shown that the only real problem (could have been) was when we shot up the van...that was a bit excessive but we have shown that this a group of terrorists and terrorist helpers we shoot NOT just innocent civilians having lunch so why are we still saying the government should have released videos of its mistakes?

Thats just ignorant. LMFAO what makes you think the government is gonna say...damn we screwed it up...hmm lets go public and make ourselves look BAD all over the news and then world...umm yeah...

OK, just making sure. Good to know you're still an ignorant prick.

and you still just try an fish for laughs by insulting me...but you dont provide relevant facts or even respond to my post? Do you feel entitled to watch video footage of all our operations we should put it in the public domain maybe?

[PLAYER57832]

Can we all agree that, regardless of the culpability of the soldiers, the fact that this video was buried by the government is a Very Bad Thing? I mean, I know some of us have said as much, but I'd like to make sure the nationalists among us agree as well.

A bad thing? So what you want to see video footage of every operation now? You want to watch people being killed like its som sick video game for yout to annaylise and see if that was appropriate force used? Your also getting off topic...so far we have gone in and shown that the only real problem (could have been) was when we shot up the van...that was a bit excessive but we have shown that this a group of terrorists and terrorist helpers we shoot NOT just innocent civilians having lunch so why are we still saying the government should have released videos of its mistakes?

Thats just ignorant. LMFAO what makes you think the government is gonna say...damn we screwed it up...hmm lets go public and make ourselves look BAD all over the news and then world...umm yeah...

OK, just making sure. Good to know you're still an ignorant prick.

Frigidus, I generally respect you, but in this, I gotta agree with Thornheart and the rest. I answered why above, in a rather lengthy response to greekdog.

[PLAYER57832]

Once again...I point out the stunning bypartisanship... shown in this thread...why atleast4 posters who never agree agree that this is obviously not what the media is trying to make it ...you gotta wonder...

Actually, I think the media is quite clear (at least what I have seen). It's just that some people don't want to do more than just watch a bit of video. They ignore the commentary and therefore miss a lot of pertinent information. Oh, yes, and let's not confuse those "shock jock" shows with real media, either!

[Gypsys Kiss]

Thornheart, is there anything the military could do that you would find abhorrent?

JefJef, why are you using the twin towers as an excuse for what goes on in Iraq. If al qaeda has a presence in Iraq it is the fault of Bush/Blair and the search for oi.....sorry WMDs.

As for the rules of engagement a soldier can feel threatened(at least by JefJefs standards) by anyone with a bag, wearing loose fitting clothing and carrying anything longer than his dick, yes?

[jefjef]

Thornheart, is there anything the military could do that you would find abhorrent?

JefJef, why are you using the twin towers as an excuse for what goes on in Iraq. If al qaeda has a presence in Iraq it is the fault of Bush/Blair and the search for oi.....sorry WMDs.

As for the rules of engagement a soldier can feel threatened(at least by JefJefs standards) by anyone with a bag, wearing loose fitting clothing and carrying anything longer than his dick, yes?

Yes Gyp. Their were armed peeps in that group. Yes gyp. Weapons and explosives are carried in bags. Yes gyp. When with a armed group it is logical to believe the bags contain something to harm others ESPECIALLY in a war zone.

Yes Gyp. Al Qaeda did and does still have a presence in Iraq.

[BigBallinStalin]

Edited follow-up story from Al-Jazeera, mostly from the view of the victims' relatives,

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 26667.html

Iraq outrage over US killing video

The Pentagon said it had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the tape, but that two investigations into the incident cleared the aircrew of any wrongdoing.

But victims' relatives have told Al Jazeera they want the military personnel responsible for the deaths to be taken to court.

Two young children whose father was killed in the attack could not understand why they were targeted.


The US army says it has authorised payments to the family.

A statement from the two inquiries said the aircrew had acted appropriately and followed the rules of engagement.

According to Pentagon investigations into the affair, the aircrew had reason to believe the people seen in the video were anti-government fighters.

But Mark Taylor an international law expert and a director at the Fafo Institute for International Studies in Norway, told Al Jazeera the evidence so far "indicated that there's a case to be made that a war crime may have been committed".

'Case for war crimes'

Taylor said the US authorities, especially the US military, has to take a closer look at this investigation.

"There are questions about the way the investigation was conducted and whether or not it was done in a proper manner," he said.

Taylor said the Iraqi families may be able to get monetary compensation, but that there could be a much larger case to be had.

"There are precedents of US soldiers being prosecuted for crimes in Iraq, for crimes of murder, rape and manslaughter. So it's not unprecedented that this could go forward both in military courts as well as in civilian criminal courts in the US.

"The case also raises larger questions about the laws of war. I think what this video shows is really a case that challenges whether the laws of war are strict enough."

Taylor's case is most likely going to get shut down, and the current laws regarding these kind of incidents are fine enough and shouldn't be changed. As was said in the long-ass post, these rules become flexible depending on the circumstances for any given time.

[Gypsys Kiss]

Thornheart, is there anything the military could do that you would find abhorrent?

JefJef, why are you using the twin towers as an excuse for what goes on in Iraq. If al qaeda has a presence in Iraq it is the fault of Bush/Blair and the search for oi.....sorry WMDs.

As for the rules of engagement a soldier can feel threatened(at least by JefJefs standards) by anyone with a bag, wearing loose fitting clothing and carrying anything longer than his dick, yes?

Yes Gyp. Their were armed peeps in that group. Yes gyp. Weapons and explosives are carried in bags. Yes gyp. When with a armed group it is logical to believe the bags contain something to harm others ESPECIALLY in a war zone.

Yes Gyp. Al Qaeda did and does still have a presence in Iraq.

So what you are saying is 'find an Arab and pull the trigger', because by your standards anyone is fair game.

Prior to 2004 al qaeda didnt any meaningful presence in Iraq. Only after the coalition invasion did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledge his group to bin Laden and even then was only interested in ridding Iraq of the US and UK troops.

It matters little what I think about this incident, I cant tell from the video what they were carrying and if they saw weapons or felt threatened, fair enough. What does bother me though is some peoples blind faith that the military can do no wrong because of the circumstances

[thegreekdog]

If the war was about "find the Arab and attack," well, there wouldn't be too many Iraqis left. Some of you guys really do have a warped view of the world, whether because you hate everyone who doesn't look like you (Thorney) or because you parrot anti-war sentiments that have nothing to do with real life (Sultan). Same group.

The title of this thread includes the word intentional. This was not an intentional attack on unarmed civilians. This was an accident. I do not appreciate the US playing this down, but I understand why (given the current backlash). What I can have an appreciation for (although I have not served) is the stress, pressure, and conditions that are military is under (whether the war is just or not).

[jefjef]

Thornheart, is there anything the military could do that you would find abhorrent?

JefJef, why are you using the twin towers as an excuse for what goes on in Iraq. If al qaeda has a presence in Iraq it is the fault of Bush/Blair and the search for oi.....sorry WMDs.

As for the rules of engagement a soldier can feel threatened(at least by JefJefs standards) by anyone with a bag, wearing loose fitting clothing and carrying anything longer than his dick, yes?

Yes Gyp. Their were armed peeps in that group. Yes gyp. Weapons and explosives are carried in bags. Yes gyp. When with a armed group it is logical to believe the bags contain something to harm others ESPECIALLY in a war zone.

Yes Gyp. Al Qaeda did and does still have a presence in Iraq.

So what you are saying is 'find an Arab and pull the trigger', because by your standards anyone is fair game.

Prior to 2004 al qaeda didnt any meaningful presence in Iraq. Only after the coalition invasion did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi pledge his group to bin Laden and even then was only interested in ridding Iraq of the US and UK troops.

It matters little what I think about this incident, I cant tell from the video what they were carrying and if they saw weapons or felt threatened, fair enough. What does bother me though is some peoples blind faith that the military can do no wrong because of the circumstances

Clear your head Gyp. You really have to twist and add to even come up with what you think I said.

I never said the military does no wrong. Every military in the world does wrongs. I never said every Arab is a fair target.

This thread is specifically about the actions in this video.

I see no intentional targeting of civilians. I see a neutralization of armed individuals in a combat zone. Some of them HAD WEAPONS!

[spurgistan]

If the war was about "find the Arab and attack," well, there wouldn't be too many Iraqis left. Some of you guys really do have a warped view of the world, whether because you hate everyone who doesn't look like you (Thorney) or because you parrot anti-war sentiments that have nothing to do with real life (Sultan). Same group.

The title of this thread includes the word intentional. This was not an intentional attack on unarmed civilians. This was an accident. I do not appreciate the US playing this down, but I understand why (given the current backlash). What I can have an appreciation for (although I have not served) is the stress, pressure, and conditions that are military is under (whether the war is just or not).

A lot of the backlash stems from the fact that this unveils a concerted coverup effort, you know, the whole "the military expressly denied the events herein for over two years" thing. Like with Pat Tillman. I can understand friendly fire incidents, if I can't excuse them and demand some form of accountability. What I think this shows is a failure of accountability more than anything else.