Collateral Murder

[Mr Spinkles]

According to a video posted at Salon.com, the men in the van were indeed good Samaritans, who happened to pass by the wounded Reuters photographer while they were taking their children to "special classes".

[youtube]BflAj2txMVQ[/youtube]
YouTube - New background material from Iraq

So, again, either the policy is idiotic OR the Apache pilots grossly violated their duty leading to the deaths of innocent people and the wounding of children. And, lest we forget, the gunner did NOT report the truth when he asked permission to fire, he said "they are collecting weapons and wounded". There is absolutely nothing in the video indicating they were collecting weapons. Before anyone comes back with the excuse "war is hell" let me just say that I agree, war is hell and that's why either the Apache gunner or his superiors should be subject to criminal and/or military punishment. The entire US military should be held accountable for this kind of thing, which sucks, but war is hell, after all.

 

[kai]

The Army carried out an investigation into the civilian casualties that resulted from the events of July 12, 2007, and the final AR 15–6 report with, supporting documentation, some of it redacted, is up at the Central Command web site.

Read more: CENTCOM Releases Report on Apache Gun Camera Video From Iraq | Defense Tech

Agreement

The van:

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation.pdf

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can't access the PDF about the van.

Nothing the US military says should be accepted at face value without skepticism and corroborating evidence. We learned that decades ago with the leak of the Pentagon papers. Part of the Pentagon's job, tragically and outrageously, is to win over domestic and international opinion, and the propaganda campaign continues to this moment, as a recently leaked CIA report shows.

And let's not forget very recent Pentagon PR tricks like Jessica Lynch fighting heroically when she was captured and the filmed battle to rescue her, or Pat Tillman being killed by enemy fire, the US military knowingly misled the nation about that because it was useful PR. Also recently, NATO and the U.S. Pentagon apparently lied and tried to cover up an incident involving civilian deaths in Afghanistan, according to the Times of London

 

[ericoh2]

I can't access the PDF about the van.

Nothing the US military says should be accepted at face value without skepticism and corroborating evidence. We learned that decades ago with the leak of the Pentagon papers. Part of the Pentagon's job, tragically and outrageously, is to win over domestic and international opinion, and the propaganda campaign continues to this moment, as a recently leaked CIA report shows.

And let's not forget very recent Pentagon PR tricks like Jessica Lynch fighting heroically when she was captured and the filmed battle to rescue her, or Pat Tillman being killed by enemy fire, the US military knowingly misled the nation about that because it was useful PR. Also recently, NATO and the U.S. Pentagon apparently lied and tried to cover up an incident involving civilian deaths in Afghanistan, according to the Times of London

Good post. A couple more are the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods and Cointel Pro. It seems that honesty is the exception and not the rule when it comes to any information we get from those in power and their talking heads. It's very dangerous to simply accept anything that the "powers that be" put forth without independent corroborating support.

 

[Aquitaine]

a willingness to kill in exchange for a monetary reward. such an excuse dosent impress me.

Killing for money is for the most part, immoral in my eyes yes. However, I'm sure a lot of people who join the army do it because they believe all the propaganda they see in their countries. The whole red white & blue, "defending the American homeland" "spreading freedom & democracy" "liberating the middle-east" "protecting the free world" blah blah blah etc. Also let's not forget how the sentiments of 9/11 were also blatently manipulated to help drive up support for the two wars, I'd imagine a lot of people who join the Army seriously do it out of good intention - as if to protect their country etc.

Again, I can't speak for the soldiers, but I don't think they're all "OMG let's go kill foreigners LOL". Isn't it the case in America atleast, that young people get thier College funds paid for if they serve in the Army? And let's not forget all the number of cases where Army recruiters have been caught telling pure lies about the military service.

 

[kai]

I can't access the PDF about the van.

Nothing the US military says should be accepted at face value without skepticism and corroborating evidence. We learned that decades ago with the leak of the Pentagon papers. Part of the Pentagon's job, tragically and outrageously, is to win over domestic and international opinion, and the propaganda campaign continues to this moment, as a recently leaked CIA report shows.

And let's not forget very recent Pentagon PR tricks like Jessica Lynch fighting heroically when she was captured and the filmed battle to rescue her, or Pat Tillman being killed by enemy fire, the US military knowingly misled the nation about that because it was useful PR. Also recently, NATO and the U.S. Pentagon apparently lied and tried to cover up an incident involving civilian deaths in Afghanistan, according to the Times of London

It works fine for me but you should be able to access it from the other link.


Ok I go along with you Spinks we dont trust anyone, we form our own judgements based on what we have the tendency to lean to whether its the military,Nato, wikileaks,utube, BBC,CNN,Aljazeera. In other words all our conclusions and opinions are completely useless speculation.

My acceptance of the military explanation remains now that i have read the report and the fact that reuters viewed this in 2007and seem to have accepted the incident as tragic but indicative of the dangers of journalists in war zones.

I have to take the stance that the Photographers were pivotal in the whole affair by accompanyimg or having armed men accompany them into a fire zone, without clear identification that would have made them protected personnel ,to take pictures of US military vehicles etc involved in the ground operation, which is born out by the pictures from the camera found at the scene.

The van incident i have to say i am a little more uneasy about , it arrives during the incident and is targeted I think hindsight is what makes me uneasy though , i cant take the van targetting as a seperate incident but part and parcel of "mission completion", insurgents would not be allowed to escape after what was perceived to be an attempted attack on US forces and i note that the military files show the ground troops taking small arms fire after the evacuation of the children and were unable to carry out a detailed site investigation.

Of course this may all be bollocks i dont know.

 

[Kathryn]

I believe that Salon, Wiki, MSNBC, CNN, the London Times, Pravda, AND the Pentagon all focus more on spinning from their perspective rather than honestly looking for the truth of the matter.

Everyone's got an agenda. And soldiers, civilians, and yes - you and I - are caught in the crossfires of those agendas.

And even the widow with two children has her own spin and her own biases, and is being used by forces with agendas.

That's why, in my military family, we've reached this conclusion: National defense is necessary. Countries need a strong military. Serving in the military is an honorable profession. Leave the politics to the politicians and the spin to the media and do your job. And do your best to do that job honorably and with integrity.

 

[JMorris]

Countries need a strong military.

indeed they do, if they plan on building an empire.

Serving in the military is an honorable profession. Leave the politics to the politicians and the spin to the media and do your job. And do your best to do that job honorably and with integrity.

how can a tool do a job honorably when the master of that tool is dishonorable, and when the job of that tool is of itself dishonorable? and to the point, how can a person claim to be honorable, when they choose to be a tool of dishonorable people, and used for a dishonorable task?

 

[JMorris]

Killing for money is for the most part, immoral in my eyes yes. However, I'm sure a lot of people who join the army do it because they believe all the propaganda they see in their countries. The whole red white & blue, "defending the American homeland" "spreading freedom & democracy" "liberating the middle-east" "protecting the free world" blah blah blah etc. Also let's not forget how the sentiments of 9/11 were also blatently manipulated to help drive up support for the two wars, I'd imagine a lot of people who join the Army seriously do it out of good intention - as if to protect their country etc.

Again, I can't speak for the soldiers, but I don't think they're all "OMG let's go kill foreigners LOL". Isn't it the case in America atleast, that young people get thier College funds paid for if they serve in the Army? And let's not forget all the number of cases where Army recruiters have been caught telling pure lies about the military service.

i wont accept ignorance or irrationality as an excuse either. the only just reason to engage in an military action is to defend your citizens and or territory. no military action taken by america since the end of ww2 (with the exception of afgahnistan in the short time in which it was relevant) has been in the defense of american citizenry or territory. so if i join the military, what is it that i can expect to be doing? you can say disaster relief, but there are plenty of organizations you can join that fill that role. and in those organizations, you dont have to run the risk of having to kill people who would otherwise threaten neither yourself, nor america.

do we need a military? of course, every country does. but america's military for much of its history has been imperial & aggressive. and a willingness to join such a military does nothing to change it, it only empowers it.

 

[Aquitaine]

i wont accept ignorance or irrationality as an excuse either. the only just reason to engage in an military action is to defend your citizens and or territory. no military action taken by america since the end of ww2 (with the exception of afgahnistan in the short time in which it was relevant) has been in the defense of american citizenry or territory. so if i join the military, what is it that i can expect to be doing? you can say disaster relief, but there are plenty of organizations you can join that fill that role. and in those organizations, you dont have to run the risk of having to kill people who would otherwise threaten neither yourself, nor america.

do we need a military? of course, every country does. but america's military for much of its history has been imperial & aggressive. and a willingness to join such a military does nothing to change it, it only empowers it.

I think you'll have to accept ignorance for being an excuse for joining, because at the end of the day, arn't all people guilty of doing something or joining some "cause" out of ignorance, regardless of their intentions?

Even the people with the best ideals, the people who want to make the world a better place, do things out of ignorance, and Humanity itself lives out it's life in pure ignorance. So at the end of the day I think you should pardon people joining out of ignorance - so long as their intentions are "good". There are much better alternatives yes, but given the amount of pure propaganda civilians are exposed to, I can't blame people nor condemn them for signing up for the military thinking that they're going to be defending the homeland/way of life.

That's my 2 Cents anyways, or Pence rather.

 

[JMorris]

I think you'll have to accept ignorance for being an excuse for joining, because at the end of the day, arn't all people guilty of doing something or joining some "cause" out of ignorance, regardless of their intentions?

Even the people with the best ideals, the people who want to make the world a better place, do things out of ignorance, and Humanity itself lives out it's life in pure ignorance. So at the end of the day I think you should pardon people joining out of ignorance - so long as their intentions are "good". There are much better alternatives yes, but given the amount of pure propaganda civilians are exposed to, I can't blame people nor condemn them for signing up for the military thinking that they're going to be defending the homeland/way of life.

That's my 2 Cents anyways, or Pence rather.

of course we all make mistakes based on otherwise good intentions. the difference being, that for most of us, our misguided intentions dont lead to us killing people. if your going to put yourself in a situation where you may be called on to kill another human being, ignorance dosent absolve you of the responsibility of that choice. in no other example would that be an acceptable excuse, so why should it be here? my opinion on this would be completely different if the american military was a purely defensive force. but its not, its an almost purely aggressive force.

The road to hell is littered with good intentions.

 

[kai]

indeed they do, if they plan on building an empire.

Or resist one

how can a tool do a job honorably when the master of that tool is dishonorable, and when the job of that tool is of itself dishonorable? and to the point, how can a person claim to be honorable, when they choose to be a tool of dishonorable people, and used for a dishonorable task?

Good questions do you have an example?

 

[JMorris]

Good questions do you have an example?

uhhh..... how about the military....... since that is what we're talking about after all.

Or resist one

that would explain why countries threatened by the US seek a stronger military & nuclear capabilities.

 

[dust1n]

National defense is necessary. Countries need a strong military.

List of countries by number of troops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if national defense is necessary, why is over half our military active.. about 1.5 million overseas, not defending, while our enemies have larger reserves than our entire force? What sense does it make to allow ourselves to be vulnerable?

Serving in the military is an honorable profession. Leave the politics to the politicians and the spin to the media and do your job. And do your best to do that job honorably and with integrity.

I'm sure that's a universal sentiment.

 

[JMorris]

I'm sure that's a universal sentiment.

it will be if the militarists get their way. which they seem to be doing, if they havent already. the military = purely honorable. military service = purely honorable. military engagements = purely honorable. no debate and no dissenting view point. simply supposed to be taken as a truism.

 

[dust1n]

it will be if the militarists get their way. which they seem to be doing, if they havent already. the military = purely honorable. military service = purely honorable. military engagements = purely honorable. no debate and no dissenting view point. simply supposed to be taken as a truism.

I guess Vietnam was all about honor too. :sarcastic

 

[kai]

uhhh..... how about the military....... since that is what we're talking about after all.

how is the Obama administration dishonourable?

that would explain why countries threatened by the US seek a stronger military & nuclear capabilities.

really , who?

 

[kai]

it will be if the militarists get their way. which they seem to be doing, if they havent already. the military = purely honorable. military service = purely honorable. military engagements = purely honorable. no debate and no dissenting view point. simply supposed to be taken as a truism.

you are aware that the military dont start wars. and how does the military get its way, i see lots of dissenting viewpoints ,your for example, no debate ? really? theres no debate in the US about military operations? we have plenty

 

[JMorris]

really , who?

:sarcastic iran, venezuela, & north korea to name just a few.

how is the Obama administration dishonourable?

i see little difference between obama's willingness to use the military, and that of past administrations. while certainly being more reserved in its attitude than the bush admin, america's history goes back further than that. and simply being more reserved than bush does not make one reserved. and given even the democrats history of military use, and obamas actions thus far; ive no reason to believe he is going to be any different.

you are aware that the military dont start wars.

then who does? congress hasnt made a declaration of war since ww2. and if im not mistaken, isnt "commander in chief" at the top of the military hierarchy?

and how does the military get its way,

i couldnt possibly begin to imagine how their certainly not the highest priority in budget concerns to detriment of social services.

i see lots of dissenting viewpoints ,your for example, no debate ? really?

depends on what it is your talking about. wars? yes, plenty of debate there. the supposed honor coming from military service? no, there is none. it is accepted as a truism in american society that anyone who is or has spent time in the military is deserving of the uttermost respect & adoration. to even consider otherwise is taken as blasphemy. that may not be the case here on RF (we tend to be more open minded to different ideas in general) but its certainly the case in the real world.

theres no debate in the US about military operations? we have plenty

yes, we have plenty of debate about military operations. but once the gov has decided that a military operation is going to take place, no amount of protest has or is ever going to stop them from following through with it. protest, for all of its theoretical and moral advantages, has never stopped a military operation from occurring (in america anyway). those at the top dont care about a bunch of "dirty tree hugging hippies", even when theres millions of them, as in the case of the Iraq War protests.

 

[Kathryn]

Sheeze, we're arguing with someone who doesn't realize that the military doesn't start wars.

That alone tells me I'm talking with a person of very limited understanding.