-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Collateral Murder
- Thread starter KatNotKathy
- Start date
kai
ragamuffin
Hi Abibi in fact Its a crucial factor ! the other crucial factor is that the Apaches are in a support role for ground troops yards way from the men.
i think you need to watch it again try the un edited version the Apaches watched the armed group of men for several minutes before engaging. They only engaged when they thought the cameras were weapons being pointed at the ground troops around that corner.
kai
ragamuffin
I dont blame them honestly...I didnt....
Also, I hope your not being sarcastic cause I missed something...:cover:
No i am not being sarcastic just pointing out that some of us have put a lot of work putting info into this thread to try and get the facts out there instead of the version in the OP which is edited, annotated and Titled for impact and to make a point.
Also i am amazed at the amount of people who dont watch the video properly or gain the wrong information from it , I am though somewhat glad of that effect because it just goes to show how human beings can misinterpret information.
Those that have made mistakes ( like not seeing weapons!! or not knowing the Apaches were in support of ground troops around the corner!!!) should well understand how easy it is to misinterpret information and maybe just realise how the air weapons team thought those cameras were weapons.
dallas1125
Covert Operative
kai
ragamuffin
Whats this :faint: meant to mean?
The video is shocking and yea its easy to jump straight up and say "collateral murder" If people are interested in the truth of what happened and want to make an attempt to understand what happened its all out there in the public domain.
Its shocking enough without the editing and annotation i dont think theres any need for it but they are obviously trying to make a political point.
Last edited:
dallas1125
Covert Operative
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Has the point been missed here that this is not an isolated incident.
+90% of the casualties in this war have been civilians, many of them children.
　
To me, it is not a matter of was this particular incident a targeting of civilians; that is a matter for the justice system of courts, judges, lawyers and rules of admissable evidence; but does the conduct of modern warfare target civilians as a matter of routine.
And my answer is, based on the statistics, a resounding YES.
　
The Iraqi army was never going to be a credible threat, the campaign was designed from the outset to 'shock and awe' the civilian population into submission.
The campaign was aimed at the civilians, these servicemen; if not following specific orders on the day; were obeying the overarching premise of the campaign's plan which was to leave the surviving civilians cowering and tearfully pleading for mercy.
　
Seems to me that reams of discussion about this, or any, particular incident serve to divert attention away from the factors that really governed the action and caused the deaths.
Which is not to say that I think that the servicemen have no case to answer before a judge and jury.
+90% of the casualties in this war have been civilians, many of them children.
　
To me, it is not a matter of was this particular incident a targeting of civilians; that is a matter for the justice system of courts, judges, lawyers and rules of admissable evidence; but does the conduct of modern warfare target civilians as a matter of routine.
And my answer is, based on the statistics, a resounding YES.
　
The Iraqi army was never going to be a credible threat, the campaign was designed from the outset to 'shock and awe' the civilian population into submission.
The campaign was aimed at the civilians, these servicemen; if not following specific orders on the day; were obeying the overarching premise of the campaign's plan which was to leave the surviving civilians cowering and tearfully pleading for mercy.
　
Seems to me that reams of discussion about this, or any, particular incident serve to divert attention away from the factors that really governed the action and caused the deaths.
Which is not to say that I think that the servicemen have no case to answer before a judge and jury.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And in Iraq and Afghanistan and a number of other countries dominted by sectarian violence by radical fundamentalists and corrupt leadership, if you're Muslim you stand a much higher chance of being killed by another Muslim than you do by an American soldier.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...interesting-documentary-war-you-dont-see.html
It's long, but a very interesting watch. I have not seen much eveidence to support our behavior in the Middle East. According to this documentary and other sources I've seen we are in fact kiilling a huge amount of civilians, people , their families and children. Part of Collatoral Murder is in this film, but what is saddest is what was said by a member of our military, who was a first responder on the scene. How he was advised to , basicly ,to lose his concern for those PEOPLE.
I have, perhaps, a naive outlook, but I just can't get my head around these things. How can we destroy peoples homes and kill people that have done nothing wrong and just happen to live in an area we want to destroy? I mean we have all suffered loss and so know what it is like to have someone die, or have a house burn in a fire. I was freaked out because it looks like someone may have tried to break in my house recently. COuld you even begin to imagine tough strangers with heavy artillery busting into your home and forcing you to the ground and threatening your family and life? How do people so easily lose their humanity, their empathy, their concern for other PEoPLE ?
I am ranting but I just can not believe how callus we are. But I know we ar not the only ones and people want to hurt us as well, I just don't get it.
It's long, but a very interesting watch. I have not seen much eveidence to support our behavior in the Middle East. According to this documentary and other sources I've seen we are in fact kiilling a huge amount of civilians, people , their families and children. Part of Collatoral Murder is in this film, but what is saddest is what was said by a member of our military, who was a first responder on the scene. How he was advised to , basicly ,to lose his concern for those PEOPLE.
I have, perhaps, a naive outlook, but I just can't get my head around these things. How can we destroy peoples homes and kill people that have done nothing wrong and just happen to live in an area we want to destroy? I mean we have all suffered loss and so know what it is like to have someone die, or have a house burn in a fire. I was freaked out because it looks like someone may have tried to break in my house recently. COuld you even begin to imagine tough strangers with heavy artillery busting into your home and forcing you to the ground and threatening your family and life? How do people so easily lose their humanity, their empathy, their concern for other PEoPLE ?
I am ranting but I just can not believe how callus we are. But I know we ar not the only ones and people want to hurt us as well, I just don't get it.
MSI64
Member
May I add my experience to this?
Soldiers bursting into homes looks good on TV however it is a very very rare thing.
Before an operation like this goes on hUndreds of avenues of Intelligence are covered Humint/UAV/radio Int and many many days of checking and rechecking.
Rules of engagement are very very strict.
I agree some times soldiers can go too far even some are downright dangerous.
Collaterel Damage is an unfortunate point of war, however the difference is we take all precautions to reduce it whilst it is SOP for the Terrorist.
To go into a house with the Intel it is a Terrorist bolt hole is bloody frightening force is used to supress that danger.
Do not think for one minute that all we do is go round harrassing the local populace and raping and pillaging.
Soldiers bursting into homes looks good on TV however it is a very very rare thing.
Before an operation like this goes on hUndreds of avenues of Intelligence are covered Humint/UAV/radio Int and many many days of checking and rechecking.
Rules of engagement are very very strict.
I agree some times soldiers can go too far even some are downright dangerous.
Collaterel Damage is an unfortunate point of war, however the difference is we take all precautions to reduce it whilst it is SOP for the Terrorist.
To go into a house with the Intel it is a Terrorist bolt hole is bloody frightening force is used to supress that danger.
Do not think for one minute that all we do is go round harrassing the local populace and raping and pillaging.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
If I may ask: who is 'we' MSI64? Are you in the British armed forces?
I don;t think that is the norm, please don't get me wrong. My father served in every branch of military, except the Airforce. I was NJROTC all of HS and wanted to be a Marine at one time. I have complete respect for people in the military and would not judge the actions of some as representative of the whole.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
As the daughter, granddaughter,(ex)wife, sister, and mother of active duty military personnel, I can attest that the vast majority of military personnel I've known throughout my entire life have an attitude much more like MS164 than the stereotypes we see in movies - or in the highly edited video in question.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
The wounded man (previously identified as being unarmed and barely able to rise to his knees) and those passersby assisting him were deliberately targeted.
The footage shows the presence of children in the van.
The body count was 12 dead with 2 badly wounded; that is 14 casualties when only 2 were armed.
　
If the 2 armed men were insurgents, and not the journalist's bodyguards, then that is 86% civilian casualties, a little less than the average.
But if the 2 armed men were the journalist's bodyguards, which seems most likely to me, then that is 100% civilian casualties.
　
Going by the stats, and I have little else to go on, I conclude that this is/was normal operating procedures.
That the servicemen were fully exonerated by the Military investigation supports that conclusion.
　
My point is that if best guess by people in an aircraft a thousand metres distant and pumped up and pleading to fire is the rule of engagement then this can clearly be no isolated incident.
　
Those who dictate the rules of engagement must surely be aware of the logical consequences of the rules they prescribe.
So I reason that the high civilian casualty rate is a product of design not chance.
I further reason that the servicemen and women have been artfully manipulated into a position where the only possible result is 90% civilian casualties.
I do not suppose that they desired to be in that position; that was where they were ordered to be and they did what they were orderd to do, all in strict accordance with proper military discipline.
　
I reject the notion that, in warfare, the majority of casualties, 90%, should be civilians.
A campaign where 90% of the casualties are civilian is, in my book, not worthy to be described as warfare. It seems to me to be nearer to a reign of terror than to a war.
In short, I view this campaign as an abuse of authority; and the abuse has fallen also on the servicemen and women who have been the instruments by which the Iraqi population was to be shocked and awed into tearful and trembling submission.
　
Now here is the challenge, does 90% civilian casualty rate sit well in your mind when you conjure the idea of 'warfare'?
Do the 2 ideas slot comfortably together in anyone's mind?
I ask this seriously because to my mind the 2 ideas are exclusive one to the other.
I think of 'warfare' and first of all images of soldiers engaged on a battlefield come to mind, a contest of strength and will, tactics and strategies; lines from Shakespeare and Wilfred Owen compete and complement each other on my tongue.
That 9 of every 10 dead should be civilians, many of them women and children and compassionate passersby, doesn't enter my head until I think of Iraq.
　
Is Iraq the model upon which wars will now and forever more be fought?.
God save us and forgive us if that be so.
The footage shows the presence of children in the van.
The body count was 12 dead with 2 badly wounded; that is 14 casualties when only 2 were armed.
　
If the 2 armed men were insurgents, and not the journalist's bodyguards, then that is 86% civilian casualties, a little less than the average.
But if the 2 armed men were the journalist's bodyguards, which seems most likely to me, then that is 100% civilian casualties.
　
Going by the stats, and I have little else to go on, I conclude that this is/was normal operating procedures.
That the servicemen were fully exonerated by the Military investigation supports that conclusion.
　
My point is that if best guess by people in an aircraft a thousand metres distant and pumped up and pleading to fire is the rule of engagement then this can clearly be no isolated incident.
　
Those who dictate the rules of engagement must surely be aware of the logical consequences of the rules they prescribe.
So I reason that the high civilian casualty rate is a product of design not chance.
I further reason that the servicemen and women have been artfully manipulated into a position where the only possible result is 90% civilian casualties.
I do not suppose that they desired to be in that position; that was where they were ordered to be and they did what they were orderd to do, all in strict accordance with proper military discipline.
　
I reject the notion that, in warfare, the majority of casualties, 90%, should be civilians.
A campaign where 90% of the casualties are civilian is, in my book, not worthy to be described as warfare. It seems to me to be nearer to a reign of terror than to a war.
In short, I view this campaign as an abuse of authority; and the abuse has fallen also on the servicemen and women who have been the instruments by which the Iraqi population was to be shocked and awed into tearful and trembling submission.
　
Now here is the challenge, does 90% civilian casualty rate sit well in your mind when you conjure the idea of 'warfare'?
Do the 2 ideas slot comfortably together in anyone's mind?
I ask this seriously because to my mind the 2 ideas are exclusive one to the other.
I think of 'warfare' and first of all images of soldiers engaged on a battlefield come to mind, a contest of strength and will, tactics and strategies; lines from Shakespeare and Wilfred Owen compete and complement each other on my tongue.
That 9 of every 10 dead should be civilians, many of them women and children and compassionate passersby, doesn't enter my head until I think of Iraq.
　
Is Iraq the model upon which wars will now and forever more be fought?.
God save us and forgive us if that be so.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
"Civilians." Seems that Saddam Hussein was pretty busy enacting genocide on a bunch of civilians. Seems that civilians are killed every day by religious radicals throughout the Middle East, Southwest Asia and Africa. Seems that when a suicide bomber sets himself off in a market square, it's civilians who get killed.
"Civilians." Please define the term. Is an insurgent a civilian? Is anyone who's not a professional soldier a civilian?
"Civilians." Please define the term. Is an insurgent a civilian? Is anyone who's not a professional soldier a civilian?
True, true. BUT we are supposed to know better. And furthermore, they( suicide bombers) make it clear WHAT they are doing and WHY,our military does not. And I think it is fair to say that, although I find it all sickening, I don't understand why we comment on what "tools" of war they use. We have sophisticated artillery, they have homemade bombs with no means to deploy them, we both kill a lot of innocent people who didn't deserve it. It is the same ugly.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Don't get me wrong - civilian casualties are always, always a tragedy and should be avoided if at all possible. It just seems to me that there's a difference between civilians being caught in the crossfire, and civilians being TARGETED. Not to the person getting killed, of course, but in the hearts of those holding the weapon.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
'Civilians' replace with 'non-combatants' or 'unarmed' as you see fit.
　
Do you really think that Saddam killed more 'non-combatants' than we have?
Or that he tortured more than we have?
Seems to me that Saddam was our poster boy, best friend and ally right up until he stopped warring against Iran, then he began to fall out of favour fairly quickly.
　
Do you really think that Saddam killed more 'non-combatants' than we have?
Or that he tortured more than we have?
Seems to me that Saddam was our poster boy, best friend and ally right up until he stopped warring against Iran, then he began to fall out of favour fairly quickly.