Collateral Murder

[dust1n]

of course you, can but he didn't did he, i suggest he was thinking out loud when he said " all you have to do is pick up a weapon" now you can say that's wishful thinking on his part and i could say its reasoning it out. now us creating little debates amongst ourselves doesn't solve anything so lets get to the crux of the matter i have asked Mr Spinkles so i will ask you the same question. Do you think the AWT were lying in their statements and wilfully murdered those people?

Well, I mean.. he obviously willfully killed those people. Murder is a legal term - whether or not he broke the law - I don't know. Do I blame the guy... not really. I doubt the guy KNEW he was killing completely INNOCENT people. I doubt he even second guessed the idea of it. But you know; I am against the entire process which has created such a delicate situation for the event to happen - than I mostly fold the blame into that. I mean.. the guy was a bit trigger happy.. but it's part of being out there. He just shouldn't be out there in the first place.

As far was what other things the AWT implied, I do not know. If you provide the link again, I will look it over and respond.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

of course you, can but he didn't did he, i suggest he was thinking out loud when he said " all you have to do is pick up a weapon" now you can say that's wishful thinking on his part and i could say its reasoning it out. now us creating little debates amongst ourselves doesn't solve anything so lets get to the crux of the matter i have asked Mr Spinkles so i will ask you the same question. Do you think the AWT were lying in their statements and wilfully murdered those people?

I did answer your question correct? I thought I did but I can't remember.

 

[kai]

I did answer your question correct? I thought I did but I can't remember.

no i dont think you did.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I thought I said i.m.o. they made a bad judgment. I don't think they were consciously thinking, "I would like to murder innocent people". I think they wanted to kill the enemy, but this impaired their judgment and their concern to avoid firing on civilians, which should not be acceptable. Like I said if they had killed American soldiers in a friendly-fire incident, they may not have done it on purpose, but there would still be consequences if their poor judgment or if their carelessness was to blame.

 

[kai]

I thought I said i.m.o. they made a bad judgment. I don't think they were consciously thinking, "I would like to murder innocent people". I think they wanted to kill the enemy, but this impaired their judgment and their concern to avoid firing on civilians, which should not be acceptable. Like I said if they had killed American soldiers in a friendly-fire incident, they may not have done it on purpose, but there would still be consequences if their poor judgment or if their carelessness was to blame.

Ok i got you.

In a friendly fire incident they would indeed face an enquiry as they did on this occasion. I would just like to make the point that in such a situation as 2007 Iraq its not that easy to distinguish between insurgents and civilians.This is painfully hard to do at times and the insurgents know it and take full advantage of it. Rules of engagement are fluid and are changed to suit a given situation, very often insurgents will use ROE to suit their operations. I would point out you own observations that they refrained from opening fire later when they were concerned over civilians. As i said i tend to agree with the enquiry. we can beg to differ on this one.

 

[Bismillah]

I thought I said i.m.o. they made a bad judgment. I don't think they were consciously thinking, "I would like to murder innocent people". I think they wanted to kill the enemy, but this impaired their judgment and their concern to avoid firing on civilians, which should not be acceptable. Like I said if they had killed American soldiers in a friendly-fire incident, they may not have done it on purpose, but there would still be consequences if their poor judgment or if their carelessness was to blame.

This wasn't a "bad judgment" call. The pilot routinely lies and exaggerates the situation to gain permission to fire. Then he goads and urges the man to pick up a weapon and the banter back and forth reveals their nonchalant attitude towards the matter. It is disgusting the way these humans are dehumanized.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This wasn't a "bad judgment" call. The pilot routinely lies and exaggerates the situation to gain permission to fire.

He lied/exaggerated once, that I saw, when he said the van was picking up weapons. When else did he lie/exaggerate?

Then he goads and urges the man to pick up a weapon and the banter back and forth reveals their nonchalant attitude towards the matter. It is disgusting the way these humans are dehumanized.

It is disgusting, although I thought dehumanization was part of every war. From the helicopter's point of view, those guys were trying to kill them and/or their comrades. The pilot was able to kill them first, and I'm not surprised he didn't mourn his enemies.

 

[Valjean]

I'm surprised more of you haven't seen this video. It's been on the web for a year or two, along with many similar ones.

So why all the surprise? This is what soldiers do -- kill people and break things. They're taught to dehumanize others and wouldn't be able to function efficiently if they didn't.

All in all, this is a fairly tame video. The soldiers are acting professionally and doing their jobs. I've seen many much more shocking videos, with ground troops wooping and laughing and generally having a great time shooting at whatever moves, playing target games with wounded insurgents and civilians, &c.

This is why they hate us. This is what generates insurgents and terrorists. These people have families -- large, extended families. Shoot someone, destroy a car or a house and you've just generated more terrorists.

 

[Danmac]

I don't know if any of you have been following the wikileaks twitter feed recently, but there was a lot of chatter about releasing a video of US soldiers gunning down civilians and journalists. Welp, it got released.

Fair warning: I was thrown into a full-on panic attack after just watching a few seconds of video. It's not particularly gory or anything, but fair warning if you're sensitive to violence. Hell, parts are probably against the rules to show, but it's really gotta be seen.
[youtube]5rXPrfnU3G0[/youtube]

It's a good thing I have a counselor appointment in an hour, because this is ******* sick. They're like a couple of dumb teenagers playing xbox live, but with more killing innocent people.

Yeah, no real point here other than to say this is real ****** up and I kind of wish I hadn't watched it.

I guess if you hang out with people carrying ak's and rpg's, your takin a deadly risk. My advice would be, don't carry ak's, and rpg's and you wont get shot. Sorry bout their luck. Good job to any soldiers reading this.

 

[Bismillah]

He lied/exaggerated once, that I saw, when he said the van was picking up weapons. When else did he lie/exaggerate?

He says "we have 5-6 individuals with ak-47s request permission to engage". Both times he lies to get permission to fire, both times he gets permission.

It is disgusting, although I thought dehumanization was part of every war. From the helicopter's point of view, those guys were trying to kill them and/or their comrades. The pilot was able to kill them first, and I'm not surprised he didn't mourn his enemies.

Really they were trying to kill them? You would think that people who were fighting against Americans with weapons would not be ambling down the street talking to each other and paying no mind to the Apache copter hovering above their heads. These were not combatants and they were not engaged in any activities that put any allied troops or others in danger. Thus, the ROE does not support their actions. The Army knew this and officially released that they had killed insurgents "engaged in hostile action".

A blatant lie to cover up a blatant murder. A murder of people who were minding their business and then again a murder of two people who come to the assistance of the dying man.

There was no need to lie but the pilot was clearly looking for blood. There replies like "look at those dead ********", "nice", "come on buddy pick up the gun", and "come one let us shoot them" when the van stopped to help was disgusting. These men should be by all accounts thrown in jail.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He says "we have 5-6 individuals with ak-47s request permission to engage". Both times he lies to get permission to fire, both times he gets permission.

It looks to me from the video there are 5-6 individuals with ak-47s. Apparently the long-shaped things slung around their shoulders are large cameras. Wikileaks even wrote "their camera was mistaken for a weapon" on one of their versions of the video.

Really they were trying to kill them? You would think that people who were fighting against Americans with weapons would not be ambling down the street talking to each other and paying no mind to the Apache copter hovering above their heads.

They didn't know the Apache was there, these helicopters can fire at targets from far enough away that you don't even see or hear them. Watch any Apache helicopter gunner video, no one ever realizes the chopper is there until it starts firing.

These were not combatants and they were not engaged in any activities that put any allied troops or others in danger. Thus, the ROE does not support their actions. The Army knew this and officially released that they had killed insurgents "engaged in hostile action".

Well I certainly agree with you that this is a crime and the ROE either does not, or should not, support their actions.

A blatant lie to cover up a blatant murder. A murder of people who were minding their business and then again a murder of two people who come to the assistance of the dying man.

I essentially agree with you. I think there are somewhat mitigating circumstances with the first murders, because they looked like they had weapons, the U.S. units on the ground were taking fire, and it looked like they were sneaking and aiming an RPG at the U.S. units (they set up a tripod camera straight at a U.S. humvee down the street, a photo of the humvee was found in the camera). And they continued to take fire later in the day, at one point there was another suspicious van and the helicopter did not fire because they could not ID any weapons. Clearly their shooting of the van was murder and I have stressed this point throughout this thread.

There was no need to lie but the pilot was clearly looking for blood. There replies like "look at those dead ********", "nice", "come on buddy pick up the gun", and "come one let us shoot them" when the van stopped to help was disgusting. These men should be by all accounts thrown in jail.

I agree they should go to jail and these kinds of investigations should be carried out by, and prosecuted by, the local Iraqi government. That's the evil of occupation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And in fact the eyewitness testimony of a U.S. soldier, posted by wikileaks, confirms that there was an RPG and AK-47 among the group of men who were shot. Nevertheless, this soldier laments the horrible crime and tragedy that is the occupation of Iraq, which just proves my point that there is no reason to distort the truth about this when the undistorted truth is terrible enough.

Collateral Murder
(third video down, see 7:30 - 7:45).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And the other thing I wanted to say about their walking around in the street, is that while they are unaware of the Apache, they are acting suspiciously towards the U.S. troops on the ground. The guy with the camera tripod, which looks like an RPG, peers around the corner of the building and looks down the street at a U.S. humvee, he even took a photo which you can see in the full report. And of course there WAS an RPG among that group of men so.... maybe the two reporters were trying to document an insurgent attack? At first I thought the guys with AK-47s were pulling security for the reporters, but why an RPG?

 

[DallasApple]

I think they think they are playing a video game.

Love

Dalllas

 

[kai]

I think they think they are playing a video game.

Love

Dalllas

They are indeed detached , imagine how easier it is with no screen from tens of miles away and just pushing a button. Thats modern warfare for you. i am sure if we had video footage of medieval warfare it would be just as disturbing. thats what war is disturbing.

 

[kai]

And the other thing I wanted to say about their walking around in the street, is that while they are unaware of the Apache, they are acting suspiciously towards the U.S. troops on the ground. The guy with the camera tripod, which looks like an RPG, peers around the corner of the building and looks down the street at a U.S. humvee, he even took a photo which you can see in the full report. And of course there WAS an RPG among that group of men so.... maybe the two reporters were trying to document an insurgent attack? At first I thought the guys with AK-47s were pulling security for the reporters, but why an RPG?

It brought the question to my mind---- who was accompanying who here? The whole tragic incident could well have been instigated by the journalists.

 

[Sententia]

Oh, so what you really mean is that you are simply opposed to military action - because military action endangers the lives of soldiers.

No. Not what I mean.

In fact, it's apparent to me that many on this thread are simply this - opposed to any military action.

Sigh. So there is military actions and actions that result because of military action because of numerous reasons. Not seeing the forest while staring at a particular grove of trees was my implication.

Let's not be ridiculous. The debate on this thread is not about whether or not military action is ever necessary, or whether or not we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan. The debate is about whether or not the actions of the military in this particular video are criminal actions.

Were they? Should there be a trial? Should we examine what happened? Are people of other countries less human then americans if their country is at war with america and thus they do not deserve our respect?

You may be opposed to our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan, but our troops are there legally and many Americans, and others internationally, believe they should be there. So that's a fact that we have to deal with.

Lots of people believed the earth was flat and thats the way it should be and they were still wrong. Your appeal is a rationalization and not an argument. Perhaps a necessary one for you but meaningless.

There are rules of engagement which should protect civilian lives. That is exactly WHY the actions of those on the video were thoroughly investigated - to see if any rules of engagement had been breached.

Unfortunately, even with rules, and laws, and policies in place, sometimes these guidelines and laws are broken. Then the situation is investigated. So we have a process in place.

See we can agree sometimes.

US policy is to do all possible to protect the lives of our soldiers, AND civilians. Usually those policies work. Sometimes they don't.

When they work, my kids get to come home over the holidays in a seat rather than a body bag. When they don't work, people are hurt or killed - and then the incident and the policy are reviewed and hopefully improved upon in the future. This process may result in a change in policy or discipline of those involved, or both.

Lets go back to what I said:

The US military's first priority SHOULD be the protection of US citizens.
So lets get our of Iraq and Afghanistan. (And Germany?!?!?!?!?!) Sometimes I wonder if people see the forest or the trees. (Or our troops in Pakistan)

Iraq and Afghanistan did not attack america. The countries did not attack us yet we are spending and hurting the american citizens and its military in effort to attack the countries back for what a few hardcore religious freaks did... It is not protecting the US.

I am opposed to both wars and think there are much bigger things we should be focused on both in technology and politically and not among them are fighting about gay marriage, gay soliders, war in iraq, war in afghanistan or abortion rights.... In fact, imo, to focus and commit our countries focus on this crap is criminally negligent to the welfare of the country.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He says "we have 5-6 individuals with ak-47s request permission to engage". Both times he lies to get permission to fire, both times he gets permission.

Based on what happened earlier in the video, I don't think he lied.

I think he mistook the equipment the men were carrying for weapons. He was probably too quick to do this, and maybe should have tried harder to confirm, but I think he was sincere.

... but even then, I'm not sure. Say the pilot's supposition was correct: they really were insurgents and they really did have AK-47s. An AK-47 is powerful enough to take down a helicopter. How long did they have before they were noticed and came under fire, or until the men just took cover, ran off, and didn't surface again until some other battle?

In their mind, it's a matter of life or death either way: if they treat them as insurgents and they're wrong, then innocent civilians die. If they treat them as innocent civilians and they're wrong, then their comrades will die.

Really they were trying to kill them? You would think that people who were fighting against Americans with weapons would not be ambling down the street talking to each other and paying no mind to the Apache copter hovering above their heads.

How close does an Apache have to be before you can hear it over the noise of a city?

These were not combatants and they were not engaged in any activities that put any allied troops or others in danger. Thus, the ROE does not support their actions.

The Apache was specifically hunting for the combatants that had been involved in a skirmish earlier in the day and had fled into that neighbourhood. In that context, their mission wasn't about determining whether a group of people was a direct threat to them; it was about determining whether a group of people had been a threat to other American troops earlier.

The Army knew this and officially released that they had killed insurgents "engaged in hostile action".

A blatant lie to cover up a blatant murder. A murder of people who were minding their business and then again a murder of two people who come to the assistance of the dying man.

Or... rather than a lie, it was a hasty conclusion based on the facts at hand. And rather than a murder, it was an unfortunate consequence of the nature of war.

There was no need to lie but the pilot was clearly looking for blood. There replies like "look at those dead ********", "nice", "come on buddy pick up the gun", and "come one let us shoot them" when the van stopped to help was disgusting. These men should be by all accounts thrown in jail.

So... you think that it's unreasonable to feel even a bit satisfied when you've killed someone who you think has murdered before and would have murdered again?

 

[touggstore]

Clearly the answer is to shoot the hell out of it while cracking jokes with your buddies

edit: Still agreein with ya though. The first act was horrible but could be justified if you assume our troops to be idiots, but the second was just overboard entirely.

 

[Bismillah]

It looks to me from the video there are 5-6 individuals with ak-47s. Apparently the long-shaped things slung around their shoulders are large cameras. Wikileaks even wrote "their camera was mistaken for a weapon" on one of their versions of the video.

It is astounding that a government that has the ability to read license plates from space cannot distinguish between a machine gun and a nikon. Also including the gunman, that would bring it within 4 individuals with possible weapons. In an group of 12? And they all are killed? You agree that even if the minority posses weapons it is ok to engage these people on a street?

Well I certainly agree with you that this is a crime and the ROE either does not, or should not, support their actions.

Exactly, their actions are not supported by the RoE. Clearly there should be severe punishment to prevent this from happening again. Of course, we all know how much of a priority Iraqi lives are given.

I essentially agree with you. I think there are somewhat mitigating circumstances with the first murders, because they looked like they had weapons, the U.S. units on the ground were taking fire, and it looked like they were sneaking and aiming an RPG at the U.S. units (they set up a tripod camera straight at a U.S. humvee down the street, a photo of the humvee was found in the camera). And they continued to take fire later in the day, at one point there was another suspicious van and the helicopter did not fire because they could not ID any weapons. Clearly their shooting of the van was murder and I have stressed this point throughout this thread.

Do you have any links that states that the camera was pointed towards a humvee?