Collateral Murder

[Kathryn]

Some of us are trying to discuss the actual topic. Thread topics are traditionally established by the OP. In this case, the topic is the Wikileaks video / the incident of the Apache pilots shooting Reuters photographers and other civilians.

Right. And as you should know, when discussing a topic, it helps tremendously to put things into context and to also discuss the bigger picture, and the ideas and concepts surrounding the topic.

People on the thread were discussing civilian deaths and throwing a lot of numbers around - insinuating that the civilian deaths since 9/11 were mostly the fault of the coalition forces, which is distinctly NOT true. Most civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 have been caused by native Iraqis and Afghans and are the direct result of terror attacks by Muslim extremists and warring factions that are acting independently from coalition forces.

So - I'm expounding on the topic. If you don't care to discuss it with me, that's fine.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way Kathryn you agreed with me that shooting unarmed civilians based on a hunch/suspicion that they are insurgents is wrong. kai says the rules of engagement (ROE) allow soldiers to do that. So you agree with me that the ROE should be changed. Your objection earlier was that the Wikileaks video doesn't represent reality, but the fact is the Apache pilots did open fire on clearly unarmed people (the van) according to the military's own report, so you agree with me that what those Apache pilots did was wrong.

So we agree on the important points.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Right. And as you should know, when discussing a topic, it helps tremendously to put things into context and to also discuss the bigger picture, and the ideas and concepts surrounding the topic.

People on the thread were discussing civilian deaths and throwing a lot of numbers around - insinuating that the civilian deaths since 9/11 were mostly the fault of the coalition forces, which is distinctly NOT true. Most civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan since 9/11 have been caused by native Iraqis and Afghans and are the direct result of terror attacks by Muslim extremists and warring factions that are acting independently from coalition forces.

So - I'm expounding on the topic. If you don't care to discuss it with me, that's fine.

Fair enough. You were responding to others and I agree it's all related.

I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about the "big picture" but I think we should also look at the small picture sometimes. It's a lot easier to establish facts and come to a consensus on a specific case. For example, in this specific case, you and I are in agreement, what the Apache pilots did was wrong and the ROE that allowed them to do it (according to kai) are wrong and should be changed.

 

[Kathryn]

You're really stretching but if it makes you feel better, that's fine by me.

There's often some ambiguity in military actions. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You're really stretching but if it makes you feel better, that's fine by me.

There's often some ambiguity in military actions. It's the nature of the beast.

How am I stretching it? I didn't say it because it makes me feel better I said it because you answered my question:

Kathryn, simple question: do you think occupation forces -- in general, not just U.S. forces -- should be encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight, who arrive on the scene after a shooting/bombing and are helping a wounded man?

...
But GENERALLY SPEAKING - no, I don't think any troops should be "encouraged to shoot down unarmed people, in broad daylight." That would be a ridiculous position to take. And that's not my position. Nor is it a US military training standard.

Could you clarify how I misunderstood you? Are you saying troops SHOULD be allowed to shoot unarmed people, who arrive on the scene, who are helping an unarmed wounded person? Yes or no?

 

[McBell]

Are you saying troops SHOULD be allowed to shoot unarmed people, who arrive on the scene, who are helping an unarmed wounded person? Yes or no?

Interesting how you are so desperate to make it a "black or white" scenario.

 

[dust1n]

this anti-American forces thread.

Can someone explain to me what 'anti-American forces' necessarily entails?

 

[McBell]

Can someone explain to me what 'anti-American forces' necessarily entails?

For a few example:

I watched it. Infuriating. Makes me wish I believed in hell so I could be reassured that the entire US military will be going there to roast for all eternity.

My advice is if you already know that war is about armed men slaughtering vast numbers of civilians you don't need to watch this. It'll only give you nightmares.

If, on the other hand, you think war is actually about teams of armed men fighting one another for noble causes, you do need to watch this. It'll help rectify your ignorance.

please believe. because this is what hell was created for and awaits them with eager..

Yeah, wishing the "entire US military" to roast in hell...

But hey...
whatever.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Interesting how you are so desperate to make it a "black or white" scenario.

What's the gray part that I am missing?

There are extenuating circumstances to every rule, of course. What are the extenuating circumstances that would make it acceptable to shoot them?

I am sure such circumstances exist, but I didn't notice any in this situation. The pilots themselves said they held their fire when they saw a suspected insurgent vehicle later in the day, because they could not ID any weapons. Was that the wrong decision? Should troops whose judgment is impaired by the adrenaline of the moment open fire on any vehicle/civilians that they "feel" in their gut is suspicious? Or should they use actual, objective indications, like the visual identification of weapons/threats?

They also said "they are possibly collecting weapons" when they asked permission to engage the van.

They also told the JAG officer who investigated that they were collecting weapons.

The officer pointed out there were no weapons. He asked why they chose to engage, how were the unarmed people in the van a threat? The pilot responded that they had been hearing reports of a vehicle .... he wasn't sure if it was a red truck, or a blue car, or a van ... but some vehicle was going around dropping off insurgents. He saw this van and assumed that was the vehicle, even though they saw no weapons. Should soldiers be making such assumptions or should they only engage threats? Did they make the wrong decision when they decided not to engage the unarmed red SUV later on?

 

[Aquitaine]

Dust1n, I'm sorry - I owe you an apology. Yes, I confused your posts on the pictures with the one that Paul Rusco EDITED which then implied that I said that Iraqis killed US civilians on 9/11.

Which is absolutely NOT what I said or implied in that post. But if one edits a post before quoting it, it's like any other quote taken out of context - it can be spun however one wants to spin it.

Once again, I'm sorry Dust1n, I didn't mean to call you out on that. My comments were about Paul's misleading post.

Oh right, fair enough. I just imagined since the purpose of your thread was to show examples of Civilians being killed by Iraqis, that the two photos of the WTC were also grouped under the same heading - otherwise why did you post them? I thought the idea of your response was to show Iraqis killing Civilians so can you not see why I misunderstood your post?

Trust me, I wasn't trying to put a spin on anything. Although now I'm curious - why did you put in those photos of the WTC attacks?

EDIT: Actually no, nevermind. It was a misunderstanding and I don't really wanna derail this thread.

 

[dust1n]

For a few example:Yeah, wishing the "entire US military" to roast in hell...

But hey...
whatever.

Touche'.

 

[JMorris]

I think your worries are unfounded.

i think your naive

 

[kai]

There are many people who join the military because they believe it is an honorable profession. They are willing to put their lives on the line, not simply for money, and not because they feel powerful wielding a weapon, but because they believe in the ideals of military service.

For these men and women, military service means a lot more than just a paycheck.

indeed ,the military becomes a way of life, there are a lot of people who just cant hack civilian life too, so they end up working for PMCs.

but i am digressing i will make another thread on this subject.

 

[kai]

By the way Kathryn you agreed with me that shooting unarmed civilians based on a hunch/suspicion that they are insurgents is wrong. kai says the rules of engagement (ROE) allow soldiers to do that. So you agree with me that the ROE should be changed. Your objection earlier was that the Wikileaks video doesn't represent reality, but the fact is the Apache pilots did open fire on clearly unarmed people (the van) according to the military's own report, so you agree with me that what those Apache pilots did was wrong.

So we agree on the important points.

whoooaaa!!!! we all agree it was wrong, but why was it wrong is the stickler, you are saying its wrong because they men in the van were unarmed,period.

i have to ask you again Spinks ,do you think the Air weapons team were lying in their statements and murdered those men. or can i put it to you that maybe they, in the heat of the moment, came to a wrong conclusion, based on the information they had at the time, being perceived wrongly ,due to the nature of the situation they were in.

 

[dust1n]

in the heat of the moment, came to a wrong conclusion, based on the information they had at the time, being perceived wrongly ,due to the nature of the situation they were in.

"C'mon, pick up a weapon. Just pick up a weapon."

 

[kai]

"C'mon, pick up a weapon. Just pick up a weapon."

your adding your own dialogue now?

 

[dust1n]

your adding your own dialogue now?

Sorry, I didn't rewatch it, so that quote is most definitely off, but he said something along those lines. The gunner was egging on an injured man to pick up a weapon.

 

[kai]

Sorry, I didn't rewatch it, so that quote is most definitely off, but he said something along those lines. The gunner was egging on an injured man to pick up a weapon.

you cant incite or provoke someone who cannot hear you dust1n.

 

[dust1n]

you cant incite or provoke someone who cannot hear you dust1n.

No, but you can incite yourself to pull the trigger despite lack of necessity.

 

[kai]

No, but you can incite yourself to pull the trigger despite lack of necessity.

of course you, can but he didn't did he, i suggest he was thinking out loud when he said " all you have to do is pick up a weapon" now you can say that's wishful thinking on his part and i could say its reasoning it out. now us creating little debates amongst ourselves doesn't solve anything so lets get to the crux of the matter i have asked Mr Spinkles so i will ask you the same question. Do you think the AWT were lying in their statements and wilfully murdered those people?