Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oi!http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast I was confused between which 'driver' he was. Thanks for clarifying.
And, yes, wasn't the ethos posited in a compelling manner?
It seems to be impossible to verify because the "unedited" video on the wikileaks site appears to have a break at 31:16. I thought I remembered pretty clearly in an unedited video they spotted another vehicle in the very same mission, but perhaps I'm remembering the recorded transcripts/testimonies from the investigation.
I never said they were shooting anything that moves. I said they wrongfully shot unarmed civilians when they shot the van. You said they made "the best decision given the information they had at the time", how can a mistake also be the best decision?kai said:
No, because a sailor in the water isn't a threat to you whether he's helping the wounded or not. But if a German destroyer had come around to pick up survivors, the British would've considered it fair game.
Depends on the situation. Often, in the middle of a battle or on a convoy mission, ships wouldn't stop to pick up anyone, friend or foe, because if they did, they'd be sunk themselves.
If you want to balance your viewing of the edited wikileaks video with an imbedded journalist's perspective, as well as an overview of that entire morning and the subsequent findings of the investigation, I recommend this excellent book:
Amazon.com: The Good Soldiers (9780374165734): David Finkel: Books
This is the best book I've ever read when it comes to accurately describing the mindset of today's American GI.
I love the book because it's absolutely non-political. It's only "agenda" seems to be giving the general public a look inside the life and mind of a deployed soldier.
The unit the journalist (Washington Post reporter David Finkel) was with is the unit in the wikileaks video and he was with that unit on the day in question. Pages 105-114 describe the incident and the investigation.
What if an unarmed civilian boat came around to pick up survivors? Fair game?
You're missing the point. Yes sometimes they didn't help but here's what they did not (and should not) do: shoot them like fish in a barrel.
If they knew for a fact that it was a civilan boat, no. If they had reason to suspect that it was actually an enemy boat in disguise, maybe.
There's a difference between deliberately shooting at the wounded and deliberately shooting at the enemy despite the fact that wounded are present.
We're not talking about how things turn out in hindsight. We're talking about making the right decision given the information available to you at the time. If you shoot a civilian without PID any weapons, that is the wrong decision given the information available to you at the time. It is not a simple mistake because you find out, in hindsight, that he was a civilian. It's the wrong decision, because the information available to you at the time did not justify shooting.
We're not talking about how things turn out in hindsight. We're talking about making the right decision given the information available to you at the time. If you shoot a civilian without PID any weapons, that is the wrong decision given the information available to you at the time. It is not a simple mistake because you find out, in hindsight, that he was a civilian. It's the wrong decision, because the information available to you at the time did not justify shooting.
Of course we are if the people in the van were armed it wouldn't even have been on wikileaks.
Its the outcome of a decision that renders it right or wrong . just like a US weapons operator firing on a contact that turns out to be a British or another US unit, its the same thing and it happens.
your entitled to you opinion and maybe you wouldn't have opened fire and maybe with a bit of combat experience you would have but i am glad you will probably never be in that position.. i agree with the military investigation
I have to let this go, clearly we are not going to see eye-to-eye. Good discussion though, I agree to disagree with you.
.
What do you mean by "reason to suspect"? You mean, at some point in the past, they have encountered an enemy boat in disguise? One can never know for a fact that a civilian is a civilian. One approach to this dilemma is to protect civilian lives and assume innocence until evidence shows otherwise, at some increased risk of letting some enemies get away, and at some increased risk to soldiers. Another approach is to risk civilian lives, while ensuring fewer enemies escape and ensuring greater safety for soldiers. I believe in approach #1. Hypothetically, when fighting an insurgency protecting innocent lives is the primary objective, killing the enemy and putting your own soldiers at risk is the means to accomplish this. If our primary objective is to protect our own soldiers then this would best be accomplished by not sending them to insurgent-infested Iraq in the first place.
But there's a difference between that, and what we're talking about. We're talking about shooting two unarmed civilians who are helping one wounded enemy. To use the WWII analogy, consider one civilian boat helping a wounded German sailor at sea. Open fire? Come on.
No that wouldn't be the wrong decision, that would be the right decision with a bad outcome. (I'm assuming that it's generally acceptable to fire on a contact. Right?)kai said: