Collateral Murder

[dallas1125]

I'm not comparing coalition forces to Nazis. I'm objecting to your argument, which is "terrorists wear civilian clothes". That's not a valid reason for shooting unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. It's unbelievable to me that anyone could object to such a mild, reasonable, rational idea, like we shouldn't shoot unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. Really? Can we really not agree on this basic principle?

Its not a reason to shoot civillians, its a problem. I agree, the problem is that as said above, terrorists shoot a couple hundred bullets at us then throws away the weapon and acts normal. Or he throws a grenade and jumps into a crowd of civllians.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Its not a reason to shoot civillians, its a problem. I agree, the problem is that as said above, terrorists shoot a couple hundred bullets at us then throws away the weapon and acts normal. Or he throws a grenade and jumps into a crowd of civllians.

Absolutely that's a problem, when it happens. But that's not what happened in the 'Collateral Murder' video. Since you agree that shooting unarmed civilians is unacceptable, in any case, then you must agree with me that the pilots did not use "all possible means" to avoid civilian casualties, as Kathryn advocates.

 

[dallas1125]

Absolutely that's a problem, when it happens. But that's not what happened in the 'Collateral Murder' video. Since you agree that shooting unarmed civilians is unacceptable, in any case, then you must agree with me that the pilots did not use "all possible means" to avoid civilian casualties, as Kathryn advocates.

They did there job and I agree that they used all possible means to avoid civillian deaths.

 

[TJ73]

They did there job and I agree that they used all possible means to avoid civillian deaths.

But they sure did sound pleased with themselves during and after they did their best to avoid killing civilians. I know they can't stand around crying for innocent people they accidentally kill, but do they have to sound like they're playing a video game?

 

[Kathryn]

Doctors in emergency rooms call their burn patients "crispy critters." It's a normal coping response to an extreme situation. Would they want the family to hear them use that term? No - and they would feel awful if they were recorded using that term. But that sort of "field talk" is reserved for their comrades - as was the "field talk" on the video.

 

[dallas1125]

But they sure did sound pleased with themselves during and after they did their best to avoid killing civilians. I know they can't stand around crying for innocent people they accidentally kill, but do they have to sound like they're playing a video game?

Like Kathryn said, its a mental thing people do. Helps soldiers stay calm under extreme situations.

 

[TJ73]

Doctors in emergency rooms call their burn patients "crispy critters." It's a normal coping response to an extreme situation. Would they want the family to hear them use that term? No - and they would feel awful if they were recorded using that term. But that sort of "field talk" is reserved for their comrades - as was the "field talk" on the video.

I know, but the ER doc's are trying to save those people and cope with the normal emotions associated with the possibility of failing. These guys were celebrating loss of life. It is hard for me to identify, I have never even been in a fist fight and I am not a man in combat and I am not a trained soldier. I just don't like what I see and I'm commenting from that perspective.

 

[dallas1125]

I know, but the ER doc's are trying to save those people and cope with the normal emotions associated with the possibility of failing. These guys were celebrating loss of life. It is hard for me to identify, I have never even been in a fist fight and I am not a man in combat and I am not a trained soldier. I just don't like what I see and I'm commenting from that perspective.

Thats the problem is that its not from the perspective of a soldier. If you had that perspective and understanding you would probably understand. Im not claiming that I understand, cause I dont.

Eminem wrote a song that came to mind...here is a verse:
In my shoes, just to see
What it's like, to be me
I'll be you, let's trade shoes
Just to see what it'd be like

To feel your pain, you feel mine
Go inside each others' minds
Just to see what we'd find
Look at **** through each others' eyes.

 

[Kathryn]

I was going to get philosophical but dallas and eminem said it better than I could.

 

[dallas1125]

I was going to get philosophical but dallas and eminem said it better than I could.

Sorry...

 

[TJ73]

I agree and that is why I said it, I really don't know. I don't know what the real motives behind the whole situation are either, but I remain skeptical and that is from being in my shoes and having had my experiences. I don't trust the motives and inturn I don't trust how it is being carried out. However I do not indiscriminantly place blame on the members of the military, because it is all individulas. I don't know what 100 of them think let alone the majority.

 

[Kathryn]

You can say that soldiers are trained to kill, or you can say that soldiers are trained to protect.

Both statements would be correct.

 

[kai]

I'm not comparing coalition forces to Nazis. I'm objecting to your argument, which is "terrorists wear civilian clothes". That's not a valid reason for shooting unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. It's unbelievable to me that anyone could object to such a mild, reasonable, rational idea, like we shouldn't shoot unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. Really? Can we really not agree on this basic principle?

Hold on Spinks! who is advocating a policy of shooting unarmed civilians? when the enemy has no uniform its very hard to distinguish who actually is the enemy, when a person can change from being an enemy to a civilian in the time it takes to throw their weapon down, it makes for a very dangerous place for everyone which is why journalists are supposed to wear certain things to identify themselves, now if that were the case here ( and i don't know whether the journos were with the armed men or vice versa) maybe no one would have died. There still would have been some intervention to found out what they were doing and who those armed men were.

Journalists are as aware as everyone else the difficulties in identify insurgents so i am puzzled by their attempt to not be identified as journalists was it on purpose or what?

 

[dmgdnooc]

Hold on kai!
The wounded man trying to, but so badly wounded that he was unable to, crawl away, who had been clearly identified as being unarmed and no longer a threat was deliberately targeted when passersby stopped to render him assistance.
No weapons were identified as being in the possession of those rendering that assistance and children are visible through the open window of the van but go unnoticed.
It appears that unarmed assistance to the wounded is a crime punishable by death according to the rules of engagement that governed this action.
　
It is this part of the engagement that caused the video to be titled collateral 'murder'. And the title is not without merit.
　
Embeded journalists are issued a uniform that permits their identification as being in service with the coalition forces. The fact that other, not-embeded, journalists wear civilian clothes does not identify them as being in service with the insurgency.
Or do you advocate that only embeded journalists have the right to report the news?
　
That they were journalists is clear from the cameras that they carried.
The cameras were mis-identified as being weapons, which was the cause of the engagement.
This again points to a fault in the rules of engagement, positive identification is not required before shots are fired.
This fault in the rules also contributed to the 'murder' episode; though the children are clearly visible they were not noticed. Positive identification, a good and thourough look, is not required before unleashing all hell.
　
Now the fact is that positive identification should be a requirement before engaging.
The unarmed and wounded should not be re-engaged and the unarmed passersby renderering assistance to the wounded should not be engaged.
　
Your 'spin', expressed in questioning the journalist's motives 'their attempt to not be identified as journalists was it on purpose or what?' is unwarranted.
Their cameras were clear enough identification that they were journalists, the problem was that the identification was never made, was not even required to be made.

 

[kai]

Hold on kai!
The wounded man trying to, but so badly wounded that he was unable to, crawl away, who had been clearly identified as being unarmed and no longer a threat was deliberately targeted when passersby stopped to render him assistance.
No weapons were identified as being in the possession of those rendering that assistance and children are visible through the open window of the van but go unnoticed.
It appears that unarmed assistance to the wounded is a crime punishable by death according to the rules of engagement that governed this action.
　
It is this part of the engagement that caused the video to be titled collateral 'murder'. And the title is not without merit.
　
Embeded journalists are issued a uniform that permits their identification as being in service with the coalition forces. The fact that other, not-embeded, journalists wear civilian clothes does not identify them as being in service with the insurgency.
Or do you advocate that only embeded journalists have the right to report the news?
　
That they were journalists is clear from the cameras that they carried.
The cameras were mis-identified as being weapons, which was the cause of the engagement.
This again points to a fault in the rules of engagement, positive identification is not required before shots are fired.
This fault in the rules also contributed to the 'murder' episode; though the children are clearly visible they were not noticed. Positive identification, a good and thourough look, is not required before unleashing all hell.
　
Now the fact is that positive identification should be a requirement before engaging.
The unarmed and wounded should not be re-engaged and the unarmed passersby renderering assistance to the wounded should not be engaged.
　
Your 'spin', expressed in questioning the journalist's motives 'their attempt to not be identified as journalists was it on purpose or what?' is unwarranted.
Their cameras were clear enough identification that they were journalists, the problem was that the identification was never made, was not even required to be made.

with respect i just cant go through this all over agian. i am not being ignorant or anything but i and others have been over these issues time and time again.
within this thread are links to the Army investigation,Rueters statements ,etc etc .

I apologise for the fact that I cant start from the beginning every 20 or so pages ,I really have to get the hell out of here before my brain melts. stay with it though.

 

[Kathryn]

I agree, Kai - we've studied and dissected and discussed this video ad nauseum. That's the only reason why I haven't jumped back into this fray at this point. I'll go crazy if I have to repeat myself again!

 

[kai]

I agree, Kai - we've studied and dissected and discussed this video ad nauseum. That's the only reason why I haven't jumped back into this fray at this point. I'll go crazy if I have to repeat myself again!

yep Spinkles has gone overboard and i am joing him--follow me kathryn------geronimoooooo

 

[Kathryn]

God save the Queen! Vive le France! Remember the Alamooooooo!

 

[dmgdnooc]

My reading of the preceding pages, while admittedly it is a skimming (there is so much), reveals that many arguments, made for and against, are emotion dirven. They seek to condemn or justify the servicemen involved.
I do neither. My concern is with the rules of engagement that governed the action.
　
I hold that rules of engagement that do not require positive identification of combatants are at fault.
I hold that rules of engagement that make targets of unarmed wounded persons are at fault.
I hold that rules of engagement that make targets of unarmed passersby rendering assistace to the unarmed wounded are at fault.
　
My contention is that the faulty rules of engagement are the major reason for the high civilian death toll.
And my strong suspicion is that the framers of those rules deliberately framed them in that manner in order to increase the psychological impact of the campaign on the civilian population.
　
Frankly, I do not see a fault in my logic.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They did there job and I agree that they used all possible means to avoid civillian deaths.

It's their job to fire on unarmed civilians? I thought it was their job to protect innocent civilians.

The pilots testified that at another time, they were tracking a suspicious vehicle, but they did not fire on the vehicle. The reason they did not fire is because they could not positively identify any weapons. Was that instance a failure to do their job?