Collateral Murder

[Mr Spinkles]

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?

I was talking about the van that pulled up after the journalists were killed.

 

[dallas1125]

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?

Their job during this mission was to support and protect the ground troups. As has been said also, there were weapons identified also.

 

[kai]

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?

Different context,different decision.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Different context,different decision.

The differences in circumstances are not significant i.m.o. There's no extenuating circumstance in one situation that made it okay to fire.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Their job during this mission was to support and protect the ground troups. As has been said also, there were weapons identified also.

(1) The purpose of U.S. soldiers in Iraq cannot POSSIBLY be simply to protect themselves at all costs. If that was their sole objective, they would all leave Iraq and come back to the U.S. Theoretically, their purpose in Iraq is to provide security. Security for civilians. Civilians aren't secure if you shoot them.
(2) They did not identify weapons on the guys in the van.

 

[dallas1125]

(1) The purpose of U.S. soldiers in Iraq cannot POSSIBLY be simply to protect themselves at all costs. If that was their sole objective, they would all leave Iraq and come back to the U.S. Theoretically, their purpose in Iraq is to provide security. Security for civilians. Civilians aren't secure if you shoot them.

The mission for the soldiers in the apache was to protect and support the ground troops. The people in the video were identified as having guns and rpg's. They were also in the vicinity of U.S. soldiers. The guy looks around the corner in a suspicous way. This guys were deemed a threat to the ground troops, plus the small threat from the RPG to the gunship. Yes, we are trying to protect the civillians. Thats why they engage threats. Sometimes though these things happen and it is a terrible thing.

(2) They did not identify weapons on the guys in the van.

You cannot look at one part of the engagement. You have to take the whole picture.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The mission for the soldiers in the apache was to protect and support the ground troops. The people in the video were identified as having guns and rpg's. They were also in the vicinity of U.S. soldiers. The guy looks around the corner in a suspicous way. This guys were deemed a threat to the ground troops, plus the small threat from the RPG to the gunship. Yes, we are trying to protect the civillians. Thats why they engage threats. Sometimes though these things happen and it is a terrible thing.

But the people in the van clearly did not have weapons. It's barbaric and senseless to say that if you identify any group of people in a city with weapons, you are entitled to shoot them as well as every unarmed person in the vicinity. That's the mentality of a Hitler or a Stalin, it shouldn't be the mentality of Americans, or anyone.

You cannot look at one part of the engagement. You have to take the whole picture.

I am looking at the whole picture. Nothing about the whole picture justifies shooting unarmed civilians who are giving aid to a wounded insurgent.

 

[dallas1125]

But the people in the van clearly did not have weapons. It's barbaric and senseless to say that if you identify any group of people in a city with weapons, you are entitled to shoot them as well as every unarmed person in the vicinity. That's the mentality of a Hitler or a Stalin, it shouldn't be the mentality of Americans, or anyone.

Yes

I am looking at the whole picture. Nothing about the whole picture justifies shooting unarmed civilians who are giving aid to a wounded insurgent.

The end says it. They gave aid to wounded insurgents. (From the soldiers perspective.) They had no way of knowing they were unarmed insurgents. Common sense would probably be not to help wounded people when their enemy is right by.

Would you run up and help rescue a Nazi in front of a bunch of American troops during WWII? No, they are gonna shoot you.

 

[dmgdnooc]

There are 2 separate 'pictures' presented in the video.
The initial action, taken on the basis of a mistaken identity, and the subsequent attack on the van.
To excuse the attack on the van on the basis of the first 'fire' order is disingenuous, to say the least, because the Military authorities deem it a separate incident, a second 'fire' order was required.
　
The second 'fire' order was solicited by means of feeding false information to the Commanding Officer 'looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons' and pleading 'let me engage', 'can I shoot?', 'we're trying to get permission to engage'.
No weapons were seen (and the wounded man had previously been identified as being unarmed) no weapons are evident in the video, all that can be seen (except for the unnoticed children in the front seat of the van) and all that is recorded is that the passersby were 'Picking up the wounded', 'c'mon let us shoot', 'they're taking him', 'roger, engage'.
　
Why fire upon the 'good Samaritans' who stop to render assistance?
Because they are 'picking up the wounded', 'they're taking him'.
　
IMHO, that is not reason enough to fire.
　
Common sense might have dictated that the 'good Samaritans' turn tail and run (it appears that many would have done just that) human compassion, brotherly love and common decency dictated otherwise for those in the van.
I suppose the world to be a lesser, meaner place because of their loss.

 

[dallas1125]

There are 2 separate 'pictures' presented in the video.
The initial action, taken on the basis of a mistaken identity, and the subsequent attack on the van.
To excuse the attack on the van on the basis of the first 'fire' order is disingenuous, to say the least, because the Military authorities deem it a separate incident, a second 'fire' order was required.

Ok, but some of the circumstances still carried over to it.
　

The second 'fire' order was solicited by means of feeding false information to the Commanding Officer 'looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons' and pleading 'let me engage', 'can I shoot?', 'we're trying to get permission to engage'.

This was not false information. They were picking up bodies and possibly picking up weapons.

No weapons were seen (and the wounded man had previously been identified as being unarmed) no weapons are evident in the video, all that can be seen (except for the unnoticed children in the front seat of the van) and all that is recorded is that the passersby were 'Picking up the wounded', 'c'mon let us shoot', 'they're taking him', 'roger, engage'.

Is this the whole video or the second part? Before the van they identified weapons.
　

Why fire upon the 'good Samaritans' who stop to render assistance?
Because they are 'picking up the wounded', 'they're taking him'.

How did they know they were good samaritans?

 

[dmgdnooc]

Of course 'some' of the circumstances of the first incident carried over to the second.
The principle circumstance that did not carry over was any identification of weapons. No weapons were identified in the second incident
'Maybe he has a weapon down in his hand?', 'No, I haven't seen one yet'.
　
'We have one individual moving, we're looking for weapons, if we see a weapon we're gonna engage'. A full 360 degree sweep of the area was made and still no weapons were seen.
It is impossible to pick up weapons in an area where there are no weapons.
It was false information to introduce the possibility of weapons being picked up in an area known to be weaponless. But, unfortunately, it appears entirely consistent with the constant urging to 'let me engage'.
　
I am discussing, and Mr Spinkles was previously discussing, the 'van' incident, which occured some 100 metres, or so, distant from the initial engagement.
The presence or perception of weapons did not govern this incident.
　
I do not know if these people from the van were 'good Samaritans' or not. My reasonable assumption, based on what I can see of their actions, leads me to the conclusion that they were, indeed, 'good Samaritans'.
The servicemen could see, through the camera, just what I can. And I have difficulty understanding how any observer could come to the conclusion that they were not 'good Samaritans' - let alone how any could come to the conclusion that they were a threat to coalition forces.
How is rendering assistance to the wounded and picking up bodies a threat to the extent that 'we need to stop that'?

 

[Twiglet04]

I think everything I have to say has already been said by other people. I just want to state my agreement. I've never been fond of America or their gung-ho attitude to war, but America and American servicepeople have just lost what little respect I had for them. Disgusting!

On a related note, free Julian Assange!

 

[MSI64]

I have also looked at the Clip in full and also find the clip to be unnerving. However this is one snippet taken out of context from the full event.
We do not know what happened prior to or after the event? Wehave no idea what the area was like whether it was a hot spot for insurgents or just a normal civilian area.What was the Intel on the ground. The comments and the sound of elation in the gunners voice could be put down to stress and nerves, I myself and found myself laughing whilst Mortars came whistling in.
I do not condone killing of innocent civilians but am open minded and have the experience to know a single piece of info taken in the wrong context is a very dangerous thing

 

[dmgdnooc]

I do not seek to lay blame on the serviemen involved, I do not believe that they had any desire to kill innocent civilians, they were put into a situation where they conducted themselves as their superiors expected. The rules of engagement that governed this action are to blame.
　
The rules of engagement and the ubiquitous use of 'area damage' weapons, like the 30mm cannon used here, are to blame for the high civilian casualty rate. And also, in large part, for creating and fuelling the insurgency.
The rules of engagement were cold-bloodedly framed with the explicit goal of causing injury to civilians in order that they might be shocked and awed into compliant submission.
And imho only the most cowardly of scumbags could frame those rules and expect any outcome other than a bitter insurgency.
　
We might, in the larger context, also consider that the claims for compensation made on behalf of the wounded children were denied until after the video was released.
That too appears to be consistent with the overall picture.

 

[MSI64]

The rules of engagement were cold-bloodedly framed with the explicit goal of causing injury to civilians in order that they might be shocked and awed into compliant submission.

Can I see these rules please?

 

[dmgdnooc]

The rules, my access to them, have been removed with the removal of the WikiLeaks site.
Now who would do such a thing?

 

[MSI64]

I have read the rules of engagement and served under the rules of engagement and not once is the phrase, the explicit goal of causing injury to civilians in order that they might be shocked and awed into compliant submission has been used!

 

[dallas1125]

Of course 'some' of the circumstances of the first incident carried over to the second.
The principle circumstance that did not carry over was any identification of weapons. No weapons were identified in the second incident

Agreed

It is impossible to pick up weapons in an area where there are no weapons.

There were weapons to pick up.

The presence or perception of weapons did not govern this incident.

On the contrary, I think it had a lot to do with the van.

I do not know if these people from the van were 'good Samaritans' or not. My reasonable assumption, based on what I can see of their actions, leads me to the conclusion that they were, indeed, 'good Samaritans'.

Without using our power of hindsight, what actions did they take to showing they are good samaritans?

The servicemen could see, through the camera, just what I can. And I have difficulty understanding how any observer could come to the conclusion that they were not 'good Samaritans' - let alone how any could come to the conclusion that they were a threat to coalition forces.

Please explain what made you think that.

How is rendering assistance to the wounded and picking up bodies a threat to the extent that 'we need to stop that'?

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I have read the rules of engagement and served under the rules of engagement and not once is the phrase, the explicit goal of causing injury to civilians in order that they might be shocked and awed into compliant submission has been used!

My views on the incident have been shaped by many inputs.
My familiarity is with the 'extended' Al Jazeera version which carries joint commentary by Julian Assange and Dr Ivan Eland (former director of defence Policy Studies for the Cato Institute).
[youtube]Zok8yMxXEwk[/youtube]
YouTube - Collateral Murder?
　
In that version Dr Eland remarks -
'You could criticise the people in the helicopters, but of course they've been put in this situation and that's where the fault may umh lie.'
'They did respect the chain of command, because they were requesting (permission) to fire in every instance.'
'If you put the safety of your troops over civilians all the time then you're going to end up losing the war because the civilian population is the centre of gravity in any counter-insurgency.'
'The United States made some pretty serious mistakes in Iraq and in Afghanistan early on, and I think that part of the problem that we are seeing with the people in the helicopter is they may be blamed for rules of engagement that were, you know, too, too loose.'
'2007 was a more violent time, in this case (another incident 20 minutes later in the same general area) back in Iraq the rules of engagement were, ah, less restricted than they are in Afghanistan now.'
　
Dr Eland's expert opinion is that serious mistakes have been made in the initial campaign, the ROE were too loose and have been changed to correct the original faults.
　
Those original faults in the ROE contributed to the growth of the insurgency and extended the hostilities by always putting the lives of soldiers above civilians (which resulted in many civilian deaths), The civilian deaths caused the ranks of the insurgency to swell with a great many ****** off Iraqis which brought about (by collateral means) many more civilian deaths; a positive feedback loop to the detriment of all was created.
　
The explicit aim of the initial action was to destroy civilian infrastructure, power, water supplies etc, in conjunction with an aerial bombing campaign over many major civilian centers.
You are British. How did the bombing of British civilian populations and infrastructure impact on your ancestors, were they shocked and awed into a cowering submission or galvanised to work harder and risk all for victory?
　
I have referred to the ROE with these things in mind.
Your taking no exception to the other things that I have said I read as tacit agreement.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Agreed


There were weapons to pick up.
On the contrary, I think it had a lot to do with the van.


Without using our power of hindsight, what actions did they take to showing they are good samaritans?

Please explain what made you think that.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

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?
　
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?