Collateral Murder

[kai]

The weapons (available for pick up) were 100, or so, metres distant from the van. Weapons could not be picked up from anywhere near the van. It was explicitly stated that 'I haven't seen one (weapon)' near the van and none are evident in the video.
What makes you think that the presence or perception of weapons did govern this incident?

where do you get the 100 metres from? and without the presence of weapons there wouldnt have been any incident
　
I did not use 'hindsight' to conclude that they were 'good Samaritans' their actions clearly indicate that was the case. They carried no weapons, they stopped to render assistance to a wounded man, isn't that what the original 'good Samaritan' did? Isn't that what made him a 'Good' Samaritan?
What makes you think that they were insurgents bringing their children to a battle?
　
When we deem 'good Samaritans' to be enemies because they are being a 'friend' to the wounded there is something devilishly wrong with our perceptions.
Are Red Cross or Green Cresent or Medicins sans Frontieres our enemies too?

you know i can agree to disagree with Mr Spinkles he has meticulously read through the facts in this and came to his own conclusion .


But its really disappointing when people post judgements based on inaccurate details.


why dont you start at the beginning and read through all the evidence then post your opinion with out referring to mistakes made by not reading all the evidence.

 

[dallas1125]

The weapons (available for pick up) were 100, or so, metres distant from the van. Weapons could not be picked up from anywhere near the van. It was explicitly stated that 'I haven't seen one (weapon)' near the van and none are evident in the video.

What Kai said.

What makes you think that the presence or perception of weapons did govern this incident?

The fact that the people stopping to help could have picked up the weapons.
　

I did not use 'hindsight' to conclude that they were 'good Samaritans' their actions clearly indicate that was the case. They carried no weapons, they stopped to render assistance to a wounded man, isn't that what the original 'good Samaritan' did? Isn't that what made him a 'Good' Samaritan?

For all the soldiers could know is that the weapons were in the van.

What makes you think that they were insurgents bringing their children to a battle?

1. You cant tell they are children in the video
2. Insurgents are known to carry children with them.
　

When we deem 'good Samaritans' to be enemies because they are being a 'friend' to the wounded there is something devilishly wrong with our perceptions.
Are Red Cross or Green Cresent or Medicins sans Frontieres our enemies too?

The difference here is that these guys were uniforms and you know they are medics. In war they do not shoot medics, usually. For all these soldiers knew, the van was more insurgents, grabbing weapons and saving their comrades.

 

[dmgdnooc]

you know i can agree to disagree with Mr Spinkles he has meticulously read through the facts in this and came to his own conclusion .


But its really disappointing when people post judgements based on inaccurate details.


why dont you start at the beginning and read through all the evidence then post your opinion with out referring to mistakes made by not reading all the evidence.

The 100 metres is an estimate, or an approximation (as indicated by the 'or so'), the square appears to be about that distance across, comparative sizes of parked vehicles, human beings etc inform the estimate.
The initial action took place near the corner of one side of the square, any weapons were dropped there as the bodies fell.
The van pulled up near the middle of the opposite side of the square far distant from the dropped weapons.
What dimensions has the thread established for the square?
What accurate detail have I missed?
　
It is clear from the video that the second fire order was given without the identification of weapons being made.
The fire order was withheld while a search for weapons was made, none were identified.
An attempt to associate weapons with an incident where no weapons are identified appears disingenuous.
　
Why not just admit that a terrible and tragic error was made?
And acknowledge that the error was compounded by denying compensation to the wounded.
Any reasonable person, not tied to the incident by blood, can understand that these sorts of errors of judgement litter the streets of the worlds conflicts.
The servicemen are not at fault, in the ultimate, it is those who put them there armed to the back teeth with inappropriate weaponry and frame the rules that govern them that bear the guilt. imo anyway.
　
I have skimmed the thread, as previously stated, and I have read much from elsewhere and studied the video. I do not need to do more than that to have a valid opinion nor to express that opinion. You flatter yourself by assuming that this thread (up until the time you left it) is the definitive last word on the incident.
If you have no answer to my post, and you have not answered, then why chime in?

 

[kai]

The 100 metres is an estimate, or an approximation (as indicated by the 'or so'), the square appears to be about that distance across, comparative sizes of parked vehicles, human beings etc inform the estimate.
The initial action took place near the corner of one side of the square, any weapons were dropped there as the bodies fell.
The van pulled up near the middle of the opposite side of the square far distant from the dropped weapons.wrong again!! are trying to tell me the injured man crawled to the opposite side of the square, he is on the same side and near the corner. please watch again.
What dimensions has the thread established for the square? None as all the action takes place near one corner
What accurate detail have I missed?
　lots take a look again
It is clear from the video that the second fire order was given without the identification of weapons being made.
The fire order was withheld while a search for weapons was made, none were identified. what search? the ground troops hadnt got there yet
An attempt to associate weapons with an incident where no weapons are identified appears disingenuous. AK 47s and RPGs were identified and thats what brought on the incident
　
Why not just admit that a terrible and tragic error was made? I do!!
And acknowledge that the error was compounded by denying compensation to the wounded. who is responsible for paying that compensation and do you have any links to that information
Any reasonable person, not tied to the incident by blood, can understand that these sorts of errors of judgement litter the streets of the worlds conflicts.
The servicemen are not at fault, in the ultimate, it is those who put them there armed to the back teeth with inappropriate weaponry and frame the rules that govern them that bear the guilt. imo anyway. what innapropriate weaponry?
　
I have skimmed the thread, as previously stated, and I have read much from elsewhere and studied the video. I do not need to do more than that to have a valid opinion nor to express that opinion. You flatter yourself by assuming that this thread (up until the time you left it) is the definitive last word on the incident.
If you have no answer to my post, and you have not answered, then why chime in?

because your lack of information or ignoring the facts to replace them with your own interpretation is rather puzzling and kind of draws me to entice you to read the facts.

This was a mistake no doubt about it and i admit that but theres no need to fabricate or embellish, the mistake is there for all to see.

you are entitled to your opinion of course you are, but how much more validity would that opinion carry if you actually knew what you were talking about?

 

[dmgdnooc]

What Kai said.

The fact that the people stopping to help could have picked up the weapons.
　

For all the soldiers could know is that the weapons were in the van.

1. You cant tell they are children in the video
2. Insurgents are known to carry children with them.
　

The difference here is that these guys were uniforms and you know they are medics. In war they do not shoot medics, usually. For all these soldiers knew, the van was more insurgents, grabbing weapons and saving their comrades.

They could not have picked up the weapons that were not there. To pick up the weapons that initiated the first fire order they would have had to cross the square.
　
The soldiers are not permitted to fire if they imagine weapons might be hidden near by, the suspicion of weapons is not enough. If suspicion was enough then looking for real weapons is a redundant activity.
　
Persons were identified as being in the van.
From the position of the heads they were either children sitting on the seat or adults sitting on the floor.
Fact is that the servicemen did not notice that they were children although there was clear indication that they could be children.
　
Are you for real?
1. the soldiers are OK because they were not certain of the presence of children.
2. the soldiers are OK because even if they had identified children they could safely assume that they were there as meat shields.
This sort of rationalisation reveals more about you than it does about the incident.
Fact is the observer was too busy looking for weapons that were not there to notice the children that were there.
　
The Geneva Convention establishes protection for wounded and unarmed combatants, for civilians and religious personnel as well as for uniformed medics.
But you have missed the point that those organisations, Red Cross, Green Crescent and Medicens sans Frontieres render aid to all combatants - which according to the maxim you quoted should make them enemies of the coalition in your eyes.

 

[dallas1125]

They could not have picked up the weapons that were not there. To pick up the weapons that initiated the first fire order they would have had to cross the square.

So the wounded guys crawled across to the van? Or did the van drive to them?
　

The soldiers are not permitted to fire if they imagine weapons might be hidden near by, the suspicion of weapons is not enough. If suspicion was enough then looking for real weapons is a redundant activity.

An argument, but weapons were there.
　

Persons were identified as being in the van.
From the position of the heads they were either children sitting on the seat or adults sitting on the floor.
Fact is that the servicemen did not notice that they were children although there was clear indication that they could be children.

Did you make this inference as the video points there and says these are children? In all honesty it seemed obvious they were children to you cause it was pointed out. The soldiers probably didnt notice that tiny little movement in the van.
　

1. the soldiers are OK because they were not certain of the presence of children.
2. the soldiers are OK because even if they had identified children they could safely assume that they were there as meat shields.

This sort of rationalisation reveals more about you than it does about the incident.

Im not rationalizing anything, it was a tragic incident. I just stated a fact and you made inferences about what I think.

Fact is the observer was too busy looking for weapons that were not there to notice the children that were there.

Fact is that anyone would be too busy doing anything to notice those children.
　

The Geneva Convention establishes protection for wounded and unarmed combatants, for civilians and religious personnel as well as for uniformed medics.
But you have missed the point that those organisations, Red Cross, Green Crescent and Medicens sans Frontieres render aid to all combatants - which according to the maxim you quoted should make them enemies of the coalition in your eyes.

I think you missed the point actually.

 

[dallas1125]

Child Recruited By Insurgents

Insurgents Use Children And Corpses

Insurgents Using Teenagers

Exploitation of Children

Teen Guns Down Iraqi Lawmaker

 

[McBell]

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.

Source?
　

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.

Since this whole post is nothing more than your emotional reaction to the statistics you claim, I shall await for you to present your source.

 

[MSI64]

Shock and awe was used to supress the Iraqi army as quickly as possible and also a Demonstration to deter the Iraqi Army from considering anything stupid (Chemical/Bio Warfare)
The civilian population were not targetted, thats why Smart bombs were used and we didnt just carpet bomb the entire place.
The civilain population were not cowed into supression, I saw the population within days of the campaign starting. These same people were shaking hands with soldiers and talking to us.
I was on the streets in soft cap and no body armour at times.
As stated before I have read and worked under ROE. I also know how to work the civilian population side of warfare so I understand the principle of security and the Return to Life. Hearts and Minds is an integral part of the plan.

 

[dmgdnooc]

because your lack of information or ignoring the facts to replace them with your own interpretation is rather puzzling and kind of draws me to entice you to read the facts.

This was a mistake no doubt about it and i admit that but theres no need to fabricate or embellish, the mistake is there for all to see.

you are entitled to your opinion of course you are, but how much more validity would that opinion carry if you actually knew what you were talking about?

We both need to watch the video more carefully; the man, Saeed, was not injured in the first burst of cannon fire. He bolted up the street and fell to what appears to be the last burst of fire. He got about 30-35 metres, or so, away - judging by the length of the parked tray top. Thanks for pointing that out, but my point remains, he is far distant from the corner where the guns fell.
　
The search for weapons was made by the aerial observer, the same person who had performed the initial search, by means of eyeball, for weapons.
　
You conflate the 2 incidents together as one. That does not fit the actuality.
No weapons were identified to initiate the second order to fire.
And the weapons that justified the first fire order were laying far distant.
　
The US military is responsible for paying compensation through the Commanders Emergency Response Program, which I understand is principally, or wholly, funded by captured assets. The expenditures are made under the heading 'condolence payments'.
Handbook 09-27: Chapter 4 - Commander's Emergency Response Program
Hasn't the thread discussed this important aspect of the campaign?
　
The important thing is that the children have now been compensated, but it is another unfortunate aspect of the incident that they were not compensated until after the video was released.
Mr Assange mentions this, as part of his commentary, on the version of the video that I have posted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I will take his word for it.
Do you have evidence that contradicts Mr Assange?
　
I believe that area damage weapons are inappropriate to use in residential areas, their use multiplies the number of civilian casualties.
The 30mm cannon used in this instance fires a mix of depleted uranium (high penetration rounds) and exploding rounds that on impact fragment and disperse shrapnel indiscriminately over a wide area.
There were also 2 casualties, both women, in the house behind the wounded man, one dead one wounded. Those casualties resulted not merely out of erratic aim, the power and nature of the weapon being discharged contibuted to the carnage.
In the video that I posted there is a later (20 mins or so) nearby incident where rockets are fired into a building on the basis that a man with an AK47 had been seen walking into the building. Several unarmed men also accessed the building and pedestrians are walking to and fro along the sidewalk but rockets were lauched to take out the gunman regardless of who else might be innocently in the vicinity.
　
It is strange that you do not recognise that 2 separate fire orders require that there were 2 separate incidents.
I have no problem with putting the first into the category of an unfortunate cautionary action against a perceived threat.
The second, the firing on the wounded man and those assisting him, seems unwarranted. Being unarmed they posed no threat to coalition forces and could have safely been left for the ground forces to assess and deal with.
But, it appears, that even the most remote of imagined potential threats to the ground forces had to be dealt with by the cannon. And so the damage to civilian life and limb was multiplied.
　
Your snide ad hominems remind me of a little girl I went to school with, she thought that she had all the answers too, 'If only they would be quiet and listen to me' she would say; thanks for the memory.

 

[dmgdnooc]

So the wounded guys crawled across to the van? Or did the van drive to them?
　

An argument, but weapons were there.
　

Did you make this inference as the video points there and says these are children? In all honesty it seemed obvious they were children to you cause it was pointed out. The soldiers probably didnt notice that tiny little movement in the van.
　



Im not rationalizing anything, it was a tragic incident. I just stated a fact and you made inferences about what I think.

Fact is that anyone would be too busy doing anything to notice those children.
　

I think you missed the point actually.

There is only one wounded man, Saeed, under discussion.
He ran up the road until the last burst of fire felled him.
Later, there appears to be a time lapse, a man can be seen checking Saeed as the van pulls up near him, the driver got out to render assistance, there is another man seen running up in rear of the van who may have come out of a nearby house.
You could see this by watching the video again.
　
Weapons were not there. The weapons were down the road, distant to where the van pulled in and well out of reach. The aerial observer was looking for weapons but did not see any.
　
dallas, you are not acknowledging the fact that suspicions of what might or might not be hidden away from plain sight and out of reach are not reasons to shoot people.
Please, will a 'reputable' poster confirm this so that dallas, and I. can move on.
　
The soldiers did notice that there were other occupants of the van, they remark on the fact.
In all honesty it is obvious, to me, that if an entire head, silhouetted against the back of the seat, can be seen from an elevated position then the person whose head it is is either a child, is sitting on the floor or is a very much vertically challenged adult.
C'mon can't you see that the girl's head (she is wearing a scarf) is on a level with the dashboard?
The driver's head cannot be seen it is obscured by the roof of the van which is what I would expect from that angle and elevation.
OK, I will tell you the truth (having been a driving instructor) when approaching a parked car I always run my eyes underneath and between the wheels looking for little legs about to step onto the road coz I know I might not see a child's head above the body of the car. So maybe I am conditioned to that sort of observation.
The fact remains that the children were in plain sight and seen from the air but not recognised as being children.
　
Any inference I made comes from your words, I don't know what your thinking.
　
Again, the children were noticed but not recognised as being children.
　
If I missed your point then you missed mine first.

 

[kai]

We both need to watch the video more carefully; the man, Saeed, was not injured in the first burst of cannon fire. He bolted up the street and fell to what appears to be the last burst of fire. He got about 30-35 metres, or so, away - judging by the length of the parked tray top. Thanks for pointing that out, but my point remains, he is far distant from the corner where the guns fell.
　
The search for weapons was made by the aerial observer, the same person who had performed the initial search, by means of eyeball, for weapons.
　
You conflate the 2 incidents together as one. That does not fit the actuality.
No weapons were identified to initiate the second order to fire.
And the weapons that justified the first fire order were laying far distant.
　
The US military is responsible for paying compensation through the Commanders Emergency Response Program, which I understand is principally, or wholly, funded by captured assets. The expenditures are made under the heading 'condolence payments'.
Handbook 09-27: Chapter 4 - Commander's Emergency Response Program
Hasn't the thread discussed this important aspect of the campaign?
　
The important thing is that the children have now been compensated, but it is another unfortunate aspect of the incident that they were not compensated until after the video was released.
Mr Assange mentions this, as part of his commentary, on the version of the video that I have posted. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I will take his word for it.
Do you have evidence that contradicts Mr Assange?
　
I believe that area damage weapons are inappropriate to use in residential areas, their use multiplies the number of civilian casualties.
The 30mm cannon used in this instance fires a mix of depleted uranium (high penetration rounds) and exploding rounds that on impact fragment and disperse shrapnel indiscriminately over a wide area.
There were also 2 casualties, both women, in the house behind the wounded man, one dead one wounded. Those casualties resulted not merely out of erratic aim, the power and nature of the weapon being discharged contibuted to the carnage.
In the video that I posted there is a later (20 mins or so) nearby incident where rockets are fired into a building on the basis that a man with an AK47 had been seen walking into the building. Several unarmed men also accessed the building and pedestrians are walking to and fro along the sidewalk but rockets were lauched to take out the gunman regardless of who else might be innocently in the vicinity.
　
It is strange that you do not recognise that 2 separate fire orders require that there were 2 separate incidents.
I have no problem with putting the first into the category of an unfortunate cautionary action against a perceived threat.
The second, the firing on the wounded man and those assisting him, seems unwarranted. Being unarmed they posed no threat to coalition forces and could have safely been left for the ground forces to assess and deal with.
But, it appears, that even the most remote of imagined potential threats to the ground forces had to be dealt with by the cannon. And so the damage to civilian life and limb was multiplied.
　
Your snide ad hominems remind me of a little girl I went to school with, she thought that she had all the answers too, 'If only they would be quiet and listen to me' she would say; thanks for the memory.

I am not making snide ad hominems? i am stating quite clearly that you didn't watch the video properly nor did you read the evidence from the investigations or Reuters statements , and i am glad i did because your getting there, carry on the good work.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Source?
　
[/size]
Since this whole post is nothing more than your emotional reaction to the statistics you claim, I shall await for you to present your source.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
The figure does not go undisputed but comes from a reputable source as a generalisation from all wars 1990-2003.
See 1. The Security Environment: Global Challenges and Key Threats - Global Challenges.
"Since 1990, almost 4 million people have died in wars, 90% of them civilians. Over 18 million
people world-wide have left their homes as a result of conflict."
　
I apply it confidently to the Iraq conflict because of the effects of the sanctions regime which was the warfare we conducted against Iraq between the 2 shooting wars.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Shock and awe was used to supress the Iraqi army as quickly as possible and also a Demonstration to deter the Iraqi Army from considering anything stupid (Chemical/Bio Warfare)
The civilian population were not targetted, thats why Smart bombs were used and we didnt just carpet bomb the entire place.
The civilain population were not cowed into supression, I saw the population within days of the campaign starting. These same people were shaking hands with soldiers and talking to us.
I was on the streets in soft cap and no body armour at times.
As stated before I have read and worked under ROE. I also know how to work the civilian population side of warfare so I understand the principle of security and the Return to Life. Hearts and Minds is an integral part of the plan.

Shock and awe is a military doctrine that seeks to not only dominate an enemies armed forces but is also designed to cow, or intimidate, the civilian population into compliance.
While paying lip service to the minimisation of civilian casualties (acknowledging the domestic political ramifications of high civilian body counts) in practice the strategy is designed to disrupt or destroy - quoting from the Wiki entry - Shock and awe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
'means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure' and in practice, 'the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause .... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society' ... 'akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese'
　
Shock and Awe is the WMD you can drop without anyone, other than its targets, knowing.
From the doctrine itself - http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf -
"The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership .... The Japanese simply could not comprehend the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension produced a state of awe."
　
That is what was brought down upon Iraqi society, not just its military, and it was all according to design.
　
Pretty soon after your hand had been shaken news began to filter through the communications blockade.
Grandma's leg was blown off in an air raid and half her house destroyed, young Nasir had been staying with her but no one knew where he was now. Little Sula had been killed by an unexploded cluster bomb that had lodged in the sand of the playground (precision guided cluster bombs, you're kidding, right?). Mrs Amil had lost her baby because there was no power at the hospital and her husband (a good man) had been 'disappeared' on his way to work. There was no food or clean water and it was virtually impossible to travel anywhere to obtain them. The police were suspended and criminals freely roamed the streets. And then you were dismissed from the army, no pay, no pension, no job. And the Coalition was installing Kurdish and Shia officials in place of all the sacked Baathists, no help, no justice to be expected from them.
You might imagine that if it was you, you would be getting a little p...ed off by this time and ready to turn your military training to good use.
　
Maybe you, MS164, should have been in command.
A good dose of security and return to life might have won the hearts and minds; but I suppose that you were not qualified, didn't have the rank or nationality, for the job.
All you have is practical experience, human compassion and good old fashioned common sense.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The end says it. They gave aid to wounded insurgents. (From the soldiers perspective.)

That's simply not a valid reason to shoot them. Furthermore, it's possible they are innocent civilians who believe they are aiding fellow civilians, not insurgents.

 

[McBell]

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf
The figure does not go undisputed but comes from a reputable source as a generalisation from all wars 1990-2003.
See 1. The Security Environment: Global Challenges and Key Threats - Global Challenges.
"Since 1990, almost 4 million people have died in wars, 90% of them civilians. Over 18 million
people world-wide have left their homes as a result of conflict."
　
I apply it confidently to the Iraq conflict because of the effects of the sanctions regime which was the warfare we conducted against Iraq between the 2 shooting wars.

Wait, so you are telling me that you are basing your whole argument on an arbitrary comment in an article written for security of Europe?
Seriously?
Hells bells, there is absolutely nothing in the article about how or where they got their number.

It is nothing more than a side comment to help bolster the urgency of security.

Surely you have not based your entire emotional rant on that one single off hand comment?

 

[Starsoul]

Actually the thing is that It is the Iraqi Muslims that are dying. If there was one israeli civilian or an american civilian being hit by an invading army ( first of all, that is one thing that is never going happen) All hell would break loose and the invader's country would conveniently get bombed several times over with Nukes. Does anyone have any doubts?

 

[McBell]

Actually the thing is that It is the Iraqi Muslims that are dying. If there was one israeli civilian or an american civilian being hit by an invading army ( first of all, that is one thing that is never going happen) All hell would break loose and the invader's country would conveniently get bombed several times over with Nukes. Does anyone have any doubts?

I have serious doubts about the use of nukes.

 

[MSI64]

Yes yes, we are the bad West and we dont care about the muslims of the World!!

 

[Starsoul]

I have serious doubts about the use of nukes.

After Hiroshima? Super powers dont build Nukes for decoration, I hope there aren't any Nukes used, but who can say that they wont be used If, lets say a third world war breaks loose? The war has actually begun, but Its being done in a way to really rationalize and make it look like 'innocent hurt invaders Vs brutal terrorizing civilians." If US forces still convince some part of the world that what they are doing is justifiable, they can sell Any amount of misery guised as a 'betterment for the world'