Collateral Murder

[dallas1125]

Here is a review from the DOD on the subject:

Here is what the soldiers found after they arrived on scene:

Sources: The Jawa Report: Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq (UPDATED & Bumped Yet Again)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/collateral-murder-baghdad-anything

P.S. Im looking up the source for the van driving for a couple of hours. If I cant find it, ill retract that statement. Also, it is well known that the terrorists carry children with them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Plus the fact that there was firefight in the area before? It is suspicious and when it pulls up and stops to help out people that were terrorists...

There was a firefight in the area, that doesn't prove everyone in the area is involved, this is a densely packed urban center in the middle of a civil war, and firefights and bombings happen all the time. There are likely civilians inside every single building in the video. According to the U.S. soldier eyewitness testimony, he took the wounded child into the closest house and he immediately found a man hiding in the kitchen. He probably would have found many civilians hiding in all the nearby buildings. Furthermore, how did they know they were helping a terrorist, not the victim of a terrorist bombing? The guy they helped was wounded and unarmed, it's the natural response of any human being to help others when you arrive on the scene of a shooting/bombing. I would be surprised if explosions killed a bunch of people in an urban street in Iraq, and no one came to investigate, or help the victims.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Thanks for the info, dallas. The stuff you posted doesn't justify shooting the van, however.

 

[dallas1125]

Thanks for the info, dallas. The stuff you posted doesn't justify shooting the van, however.

Yes, none of that justifies shooting the van. Although I think it is debatable whether they should or should not have shot the van.

As of now, I cannot find the source so I retract the statement that the van was driving in circles for a couple hours.

 

[dallas1125]

There was a firefight in the area, that doesn't prove everyone in the area is involved, this is a densely packed urban center in the middle of a civil war, and firefights and bombings happen all the time. There are likely civilians inside every single building in the video. According to the U.S. soldier eyewitness testimony, he took the wounded child into the closest house and he immediately found a man hiding in the kitchen. He probably would have found many civilians hiding in all the nearby buildings. Furthermore, how did they know they were helping a terrorist, not the victim of a terrorist bombing? The guy they helped was wounded and unarmed, it's the natural response of any human being to help others when you arrive on the scene of a shooting/bombing. I would be surprised if explosions killed a bunch of people in an urban street in Iraq, and no one came to investigate, or help the victims.

They engaged the target, so they should continue as if they were terrorists. So in there eyes, a van pulled up and started picking up weapons and helping terrorists.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They engaged the target, so they should continue as if they were terrorists. So in there eyes, a van pulled up and started picking up weapons and helping terrorists.

They were not picking up weapons. The men in the van came up and helped in precisely the same way that the Red Cross helps battlefield wounded, they were not assisting a hostile act. They helped in precisely the way you would expect people to help the victims when they arrive on the scene of a shooting or bombing. It's unimaginable to me that this is not a violation of the rules of war.

For example, in WWII after a German battleship was sunk, the sailors struggling in the water were not treated by the British as "terrorists" who could be shot like fish in a barrel, despite the undoubted fact that some of them were assisting the wounded. The unarmed and wounded Germans were rescued and offered help by the British in accordance with the rules of war.

 

[dallas1125]

They were not picking up weapons. The men in the van came up and helped in precisely the same way that the Red Cross helps battlefield wounded, they were not assisting a hostile act. They helped in precisely the way you would expect people to help the victims when they arrive on the scene of a shooting or bombing. It's unimaginable to me that this is not a violation of the rules of war.

Ya know how funny it sounds when you hear "rules of war?"

Anyways, If I remember correctly (I have a terrible memory) the soldiers said in the video, that they did not want the people in the van to pick up the weapons.

For example, in WWII after a German battleship was sunk, the sailors struggling in the water were not treated by the British as "terrorists" who could be shot like fish in a barrel, despite the undoubted fact that some of them were assisting the wounded. The unarmed and wounded Germans were rescued and offered help by the British in accordance with the rules of war.

Yes, and IMO the rules of war are one of mans funniest creations. I dont disagree with all of the rules but I do have some issues with it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ya know how funny it sounds when you hear "rules of war?"

Anyways, If I remember correctly (I have a terrible memory) the soldiers said in the video, that they did not want the people in the van to pick up the weapons.

No, they wanted the wounded guy to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him. Then they shot him and those who were helping him anyway.

Yes, and IMO the rules of war are one of mans funniest creations. I dont disagree with all of the rules but I do have some issues with it.

I can see that our views are very different and we're not going to agree on this ...

 

[dallas1125]

No, they wanted the wounded guy to pick up a weapon so they could shoot him. Then they shot him and those who were helping him anyway.
I can see that our views are very different and we're not going to agree on this ...

Yes, it does look like we have different views. Thanks for the discussion, it was great! :clap

 

[kai]

They were not picking up weapons. The men in the van came up and helped in precisely the same way that the Red Cross helps battlefield wounded, they were not assisting a hostile act. They helped in precisely the way you would expect people to help the victims when they arrive on the scene of a shooting or bombing. It's unimaginable to me that this is not a violation of the rules of war. Your second guessing, if the van had contained insurgents we wouldnt be having a discussion on whether the van should have been fired on or not would we. or would we? if the van had contained insurgents would you be of the same opinion? I mean if the film showed armed men being taken out of the van, would you still be outraged? or think good call?

For example, in WWII after a German battleship was sunk, the sailors struggling in the water were not treated by the British as "terrorists" who could be shot like fish in a barrel, despite the undoubted fact that some of them were assisting the wounded. The unarmed and wounded Germans were rescued and offered help by the British in accordance with the rules of war.

You know Spinks the thing was, it wasnt a red cross van and it wasn't red cross people, if it was it would have been clearly marked and wouldn't have been shot at. Once they decided the men were the enemy the die was cast.

The survivors of this incident were rescued and offered help

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your second guessing, if the van had contained insurgents we wouldnt be having a discussion on whether the van should have been fired on or not would we. or would we? if the van had contained insurgents would you be of the same opinion? I mean if the film showed armed men being taken out of the van, would you still be outraged? or think good call?

If the film showed armed men coming out of the van, that might change things. But they were not armed so I simply cannot imagine how it was justifiable to kill them. The pilot's own actions indicate he knew it was unjustifiable to shoot unarmed people who show no hostile intentions -- that's why the gunner hoped out loud the wounded guy would grab a weapon, that's why both pilots falsely claimed they were picking up weapons, and that's why they did not shoot a suspicious vehicle later in the mission. If they were not deliberately lying in order to satisfy their bloodlust, then at least, they got trigger-happy and lost their heads, imagining weapons where there were none. If they lost their heads and accidentally killed two Americans and wounded their children, I don't think we would be seeing these shameless apologetics.

You know Spinks the thing was, it wasnt a red cross van and it wasn't red cross people, if it was it would have been clearly marked and wouldn't have been shot at. Once they decided the men were the enemy the die was cast.

How many millions of people live in that city? How many vans do people drive in that city? It is absolutely insane to consider every unmarked person or vehicle a "target", for Christ's sake, no wonder they hate us. Wouldn't it be shocking in such a densely populated area if no passersby came to help? For all they knew, a suicide bomber just blew himself up and the wounded guy was an innocent victim and a fellow Iraqi in need of medical aid. They did the right thing by coming over to help him. I would be shocked if every time an Apache wounded a guy in a street, no one came out to help. It should be common sense, therefore, that you don't shoot unarmed people who come over to assist an unarmed wounded guy in a dense city. You shouldn't shoot people when there is zero evidence they are hostile, and every reason to assume they are not hostile.

 

[dallas1125]

If the film showed armed men coming out of the van, that might change things. But they were not armed so I simply cannot imagine how it was justifiable to kill them. The pilot's own actions indicate he knew it was unjustifiable to shoot unarmed people who show no hostile intentions -- that's why the gunner hoped out loud the wounded guy would grab a weapon, that's why both pilots falsely claimed they were picking up weapons, and that's why they did not shoot a suspicious vehicle later in the mission. If they were not deliberately lying in order to satisfy their bloodlust, then at least, they got trigger-happy and lost their heads, imagining weapons where there were none. If they lost their heads and accidentally killed two Americans and wounded their children, I don't think we would be seeing these shameless apologetics.

How many millions of people live in that city? How many vans do people drive in that city? It is absolutely insane to consider every unmarked person or vehicle a "target", for Christ's sake, no wonder they hate us.

It really isnt bloodlust. Its self preservation. They found RPG's on site proving there was a threat to the soldiers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It really isnt bloodlust. Its self preservation. They found RPG's on site proving there was a threat to the soldiers.

There were weapons on the first group of people. But the people who drove up in the van were unarmed and posed zero threat. If a few people on the street have weapons are you entitled to massacre every living thing in Baghdad? For goodness' sake! Maybe the NYPD should shoot everybody in Brooklyn and the LAPD should shoot everyone in downtown Los Angeles if they see anyone with a gun.

 

[dallas1125]

There were weapons on the first group of people. But the people who drove up in the van were unarmed and posed zero threat. If a few people on the street have weapons are you entitled to massacre every living thing in Baghdad? For goodness' sake!

Are you considering the fact that the soldiers lifes are under threat 24/7 and they are willing to do anything to make it home. Some have even served multiple tours. They are under extreme mental stress.

 

[kai]

If the film showed armed men coming out of the van, that might change things.

But they were not armed so I simply cannot imagine how it was justifiable to kill them. The pilot's own actions indicate he knew it was unjustifiable to shoot unarmed people who show no hostile intentions -- that's why the gunner hoped out loud the wounded guy would grab a weapon, that's why both pilots falsely claimed they were picking up weapons, and that's why they did not shoot a suspicious vehicle later in the mission. If they were not deliberately lying in order to satisfy their bloodlust, then at least, they got trigger-happy and lost their heads, imagining weapons where there were none. If they lost their heads and accidentally killed two Americans and wounded their children, I don't think we would be seeing these shameless apologetics.


Why would it change things? and i didnt say coming out of the van but in the van.

How many millions of people live in that city? How many vans do people drive in that city? It is absolutely insane to consider every unmarked person or vehicle a "target", for Christ's sake,

no wonder they hate us. Wouldn't it be shocking in such a densely populated area if no passersby came to help? For all they knew, a suicide bomber just blew himself up and the wounded guy was an innocent victim and a fellow Iraqi in need of medical aid. They did the right thing by coming over to help him. I would be shocked if every time an Apache wounded a guy in a street, no one came out to help. It should be common sense, therefore, that you don't shoot unarmed people who come over to assist an unarmed wounded guy in a dense city. You shouldn't shoot people when there is zero evidence they are hostile, and every reason to assume they are not hostile.

Indeed! if that were true it would be insane but thats not what happened is it ? Lets just talk about the particular van that entered the middle of a combat operation that particular day. your generalising a lot when this is a specific incident that happened during a combat operation on a specific day.

 

[kai]

There were weapons on the first group of people. But the people who drove up in the van were unarmed and posed zero threat. If a few people on the street have weapons are you entitled to massacre every living thing in Baghdad? For goodness' sake! Maybe the NYPD should shoot everybody in Brooklyn and the LAPD should shoot everyone in downtown Los Angeles if they see anyone with a gun.

You have the benefit of actually knowing they were two sets of people,and proof positive that there were photographers amongst the armed men and that there were children in the van, you have much much more information available to you to enable you to take all the time in the world in a very comfortable environment to come to that conclusion, and none of your peers is likely to die because your conclusions.All i would ask is that you at least try and put yourself in the weapons teams position which was worlds away from yours.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are you considering the fact that the soldiers lifes are under threat 24/7 and they are willing to do anything to make it home. Some have even served multiple tours. They are under extreme mental stress.

I completely agree many soldiers are under extreme mental stress. So, what should we do when a soldier is under so much mental stress that he cannot perform his duties without endangering American lives?

How does this calculation change, when Iraqi lives are endangered instead of American lives?

There's such a double standard going on here. There is harsh military discipline and an honor code which does not tolerate the soldier who ducks in cowardice without shooting back at the enemy, even though he is understandably just trying to make it home alive. This harsh military discipline, which compels soldiers to risk their lives as part of their duty, turns into excessive leniency when a soldier shoots everything in sight. When this happens, all of a sudden it's understandable that he just wants to get home alive. All of a sudden, the dereliction of duty simply in order to protect yourself, which is usually never tolerated in the military, becomes acceptable.

This double-standard, I think, is due to the fact that in the latter case the risk to all soldiers is reduced at the expense of increased risk to foreign citizens, whose lives do not have great worth in American eyes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You have the benefit of actually knowing they were two sets of people,and proof positive that there were photographers amongst the armed men and that there were children in the van, you have much much more information available to you to enable you to take all the time in the world in a very comfortable environment to come to that conclusion, and none of your peers is likely to die because your conclusions.All i would ask is that you at least try and put yourself in the weapons teams position which was worlds away from yours.

My conclusion that their actions were wrong is not based on the privileged information that wasn't available to the pilots. My conclusions are based on trying as best I can to put myself in their shoes, and the evidence and circumstances they were in.

They failed in their job to identify weapons before opening fire. This failure resulted in innocent deaths. I am not saying soldiers can't ever make mistakes. Maybe some leniency is warranted, I'm not sure. What I am sure of, though, is that the same amount of leniency should be granted as if their mistake had resulted in American deaths. If Iraqi deaths are an unfortunate price we must pay to root out insurgents, then the calculation should be exactly the same as if the price had been paid in American soldiers, or American civilian blood. I suspect this issue would have been handled differently if that were the case. That's the problem with occupation, the occupying forces will always be lenient on crimes committed by their troops on foreign civilians, just like in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre by British forces in India, 1912. And furthermore, I am sure that Iraqis should be the judge of what the ROE should be in their own country. They should get to decide how to balance the task of rooting out insurgency, vs. protecting their own civilians. I doubt they would permit the shooting of the van in the video (I could be wrong). And if we are concerned about the safety of our troops due to excessively strict Iraqi ROE, there's a simple solution: withdraw.

 

[kai]

I completely agree many soldiers are under extreme mental stress. So, what should we do when a soldier is under so much mental stress that he cannot perform his duties without endangering American lives?

How does this calculation change, when Iraqi lives are endangered instead of American lives?

There's such a double standard going on here. There is harsh military discipline and an honor code which does not tolerate the soldier who ducks in cowardice without shooting back at the enemy, even though he is understandably just trying to make it home alive. This harsh military discipline, which compels soldiers to risk their lives as part of their duty, turns into excessive leniency when a soldier shoots everything in sight. When this happens, all of a sudden it's understandable that he just wants to get home alive. All of a sudden, the dereliction of duty simply in order to protect yourself, which is usually never tolerated in the military, becomes acceptable.

This double-standard, I think, is due to the fact that in the latter case the risk to all soldiers is reduced at the expense of increased risk to foreign citizens, whose lives do not have great worth in American eyes.

The guy didnt shoot "everything in sight".

What the Military "understands" is the decision making process in the heat of contact. It is extraordinary circumstances.

I still hold the view this was a tragic mistake several in fact, made by several different people that put themselves and others in harms way and yes with the benefit of hindsight the air weapons teams decision had a regrettable outcome.

.

 

[kai]

My conclusion that their actions were wrong is not based on the privileged information that wasn't available to the pilots. My conclusions are based on trying as best I can to put myself in their shoes, and the evidence and circumstances they were in.

Take my word it for However you hard you try ,you wont come close but at least your trying

They failed in their job to identify weapons before opening fire. This failure resulted in innocent deaths. I am not saying soldiers can't ever make mistakes. Maybe some leniency is warranted, I'm not sure. What I am sure of, though, is that the same amount of leniency should be granted as if their mistake had resulted in American deaths. And furthermore, I am sure that Iraqis should be the judge of what the ROE should be in their own country. I doubt they would permit what appeared in the video (I could be wrong) and if we are concerned about the safety of our troops, there's a simple solution: withdraw.

The same amount of leniency is shown with Blue on blue deaths. I would feel much safer with a British helicopter air weapons team than a US one but i would also feel safer with a US one than an iraqi one.

and your solution is at hand they are withdrawing. A real solution would be non deployment anywhere any time because wherever there's a war this kind of thing will inevitably occur.