Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Your opinion please. Wikileaks vid of U.S. Soldiers gunning down civ/children/photogs

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - Your opinion please. Wikileaks vid of U.S. Soldiers gunning down civ/children/photogs (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/153989-your-opinion-please-wikileaks-vid-u-s-soldiers-gunning-down-civ-children-photogs.html)

there is a question of the degree to which one's interpretation of this clip is a repetition of one's position on the iraq war in general. it can become an allegory in which case one is not looking at it except for confirmation. this runs in any number of directions.

I don't find the attitude of wanting to kill that terrible. It's a fucking war.

I don't like the fact that we as a country are engaged in any of these wars but if I was thrust into the mist of the war I would want to kill anyone who was trying to kill me. I understand the side of the argument about the apparent bloodthirst of these guys in the video and how it seems terrible. Like I said before, I'm really desensitized to it because of the military friends that I have that talk about the people they killed and they often say they can't wait to go back and kill some more. I don't think it's because they necessarily enjoy killing, but it's what they are trained to do and they like the accolades that come down when they do the job well. It's not really something that civilians can understand.. I've been around the military my entire life (thanks dad) and I don't quite understand it, so I doubt a casual bystander can understand it either.

:shrug:

There's a difference between wanting to do something and doing something without hesitation.

Consider it like one of those "stupid human tricks" from a Late Night TeeVee Show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr (Post 2775481)

That argument may be true but it's out of the context of this video. The people they shot were not trying to kill them, they were walking down a road. But they wanted to kill them anyway. Wanting to kill a human just to kill them...sorry but war or no war, that's fucked up. Wanting to kill Nazis or wanting to drop a nuke after Pearl Harbor is different than wanting to kill people walking down a road that are just...walking down a road.

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2775483)

There's a difference between wanting to do something and doing something without hesitation.

If you're referring to the video, there's no getting around their want for death. Just listen to them and their tone of voice and their exaggeration to the COs to try and get the fire order approved. They want to kill them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth (Post 2775486)

The comment is exactly within the context of the video. There were ground troops taking small arms fire in the area. The people in the aircraft may not have been in danger but that doesn't mean nobody else was in danger either.

I mean, what were they supposed to wait for? Actual fire from the suspected RPG, confirmation from the troops on the ground for each individual or group firing at them? Doesn't seem like a very good way to keep your friends from dying.

Quote:

God, I can't understand why trained soldiers would want to engage people that look like the enemy.

I think this is one of the most critical points. What do you suppose actual insurgents look like before they open fire? I have more than a hunch it's exactly like those folks who were shot in the video.

I'm not saying it's not a tragic situation, it most certainly is. I'm also not saying they shouldn't be subject to some sort of legal action for what occurred, but I don't think their actions were unreasonable under the circumstances.

So, let me get this straight.. it's ok to drop a nuke on a country after pearl harbor killing massive numbers of children, women and civilians but it's not ok for an apache or ac130 to give air support to soldiers on the ground who are engaged in a fire fight, keeping the casualties to a much lower number?

interesting.

so one new and improved direction for rationalizing what's in the clip that has made an appearance is: hey, what you are watching is killing and that's what war is that's what soldiers who are in war situations do.

so the emphasis has been moved from the object of the sentence (the who is being killed) to the verb (the killing) and from there problems to do with who is being killed (journalists, civilians, children) go away.

a better question would be: Is it possible for civilians to not be killed in war?

I don't see how it is.

and the correlate: does the fact that civilians are often killed in war mean that no problems attend the deaths of any?

is this a "shit happens" defense?

There are always problems associated with war and the actions that are created by the acts that are involved in war.

I don't think anyone is saying that it isn't a tragic thing that civilians are killed in war or that it's merely "shit happens", but that it's impossible to get everything exactly right when you have a split second to react in order to maintain the objective and to keep your side safe. There is no such thing as a safe war or a war that doesn't have massive consequences.

isn't that also part of the point of war, that it's a matter of not just resources of men, food, etc, but also the ability to stomach all the things that are within it. This goes from torture to civilian casualties, to soldier deaths to soldier health after the war.

I don't understand how either side of this conversation makes it any more palatable or understandable.

I honestly think it's impossible to understand it unless you're actually in that situation.

Even then, it's probably a hard thing to understand at times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr (Post 2775500)

I honestly think it's impossible to understand it unless you're actually in that situation.

Even then, it's probably a hard thing to understand at times.

exactly gucci. I'm currently reading a family tome about the eldest son of my great grandfather who was killed in the Japanese occupation of Manila. It's a fascinating recounting, and the family didn't speak of it for almost a whole generation. It took one family member writing a book about his oldest brother to get the family talking about it again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr (Post 2775494)

The point is that the nuke was a response. This gunfire was not a response to anything.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:24 AM ----------

This is an interesting perspective that helped me understand the video:

Quote:

" I'm going to try not to get into a semantic debate about the realities of war versus civilian perception of war, but I do want to clarify a little of what's happening in a technical sense so that the viewer understands what is and is not allowed in these situations. And I'm sure that, despite my best abilities, my personal bias as an Active Duty US Soldier will ultimately show through in the end. I'm currently deployed to a region in southeast Baghdad, near where this incident took place, and the Rules of Engagement that dictate the use of lethal force state 51% certainty that the individual represent a threat to you or another US Soldier. (To my knowledge, it always has been.)

First off, I would be interested in knowing whether or not Reuters reported the presence of journalists to the US Forces who were responsible for operating the battlespace they were located in.

That fact that the Bradley unit's ground commander clears the Apaches to engage without further target description implies that this was not the case, and if so it means that these journalists were operating completely independent of any ability of the US to track them, or even know they were present somewhere. This is incredibly dangerous, even now in 2010. Back in 2007, that sort of thing would have been damn near suicidal.

Despite the video's hesitancy in acknowledging that several of the men 'appear' to have weapons, it is clear to me that several of them are carrying AK-47s. If you look at graphics representing the positioning of these journalists from a Bradley convoy only a few blocks away, I think that it is entirely reasonable that the pilots would consider them a threat - particularly after mistaking a massive zoom lens peaking out from behind cover on the very street that an American patrol was taking place for an RPG. Complex ambushes with 8-12 men with AK-47s and RPGs were very common back in early 2007. I can't speak as to why the two Reuters journalists were walking around with men carrying AK-47s trying to sneak pictures of an unaware American combat patrol, and I certainly do not assume that the reason was nefarious.

My real problem with this video, as media, is that it takes conclusions drawn after careful and repeated analysis and includes those conclusions in the videos for others who are seeing it for the first time. Try to imagine watching the video WITHOUT the giant textual labels stating who each of the men are, or without the prior knowledge that two of the men are journalists and they're carrying massive camera equipment, or without the selectively enlarged segments near the end of the video that the pilots never had access to.

It is by no means obvious, without those labels, that the giant cylindrical object that Namir Noor-Eldeen is peeking out from behind the wall with is not an RPG, especially for an Apache gunner whose mind is immediately directed to the US troops down the street he believes this man is probably preparing to fire at. Saeed Chmagh had the misfortune of being on his cellular phone on top of all of these other circumstantial misfortunes, and the cell phone detonation is a classic element of a complex attack involving small arms, RPGs and radio-controlled IEDs.

Keep in mind also that an Apache cockpit has two Soldiers - a pilot and a gunner, and while you are seeing the gunner's IR footage, it is not necessarily conveying what the pilot saw on his monitors or with his own eyes.

I won't speak as to why they fired on the van after the initial attack. They were cleared by the ground commander after accurately conveying what was going on over the radio, and I don't have a comprehensive enough understanding of the Law of Land Warfare. I must say that my stomach turned watching the video at the tragic misunderstanding of it all, and the residual questions about what I would have done have kept me awake for hours now. If there is one act that this video validates an investigation beyond what's already been conducted, firing on the van would be it.

As far as the language of the pilots, the emotional status of the guys pulling the trigger... more than anything else, the outrage surrounding that is what I find the most absurd. Who are you to tell men at war how to react to being in a position that demands they take human life? Do civilians truly believe that Soldiers would be capable of performing their duties in any capacity if they were forced to confront the sheer wretched magnitude of their most prolific duty in the very instances that people are depending on them to perform it? Is the romanticized image of the reluctant warrior really so ingrained in the psyche of the general public that they honestly think that shock and melodrama is the only way remorse can manifest itself? Just hearing the pilot towards the end try and justify (to himself, more than anyone) why the children he had no idea were present were present is more heartbreaking than all the "Oh God, no's" in the world to me.

If the previous commenter is somehow shocked by the words of this incident, I would be willing to bet that his time in the military did not include placement on a line unit. Or if it did, he must have had shit jammed in his ears the entire time. The comparison of al-Amin al-Thaniyah to My Lai, where hundreds of unarmed women and children were systematically raped and executed point blank is a little bit ridiculous, regardless. The fact that his comparison somehow elevates the latter as a sign that we have declined since then is insulting.

There is no script for how one is supposed to react to systematically killing another person. Many laugh, many make macabre jokes during and after the fact and, in general, line troops revel in the death an destruction of their enemy. It's how they deal with the enormity of what they're doing. And if you or any of your readers assume for even a moment that things like that mean that they or the other hundreds of thousands of Soldiers who embrace dark humor and excess to cope with what they're doing are somehow depraved, then you need to be re-introduced to the reality.

Better yet, you can just look at the rising suicide statistics of Soldiers over the past few years. The number of PTSD cases. I'm here to let you know that the dialogue that took place in that cockpit was neither uncommon or, to me, even all that appalling. It was quite restrained, compared to what usually comes out of the mouths of Soldiers here when radio etiquette is not an issue. The video editor who included the George Orwell quote at the beginning was laughably misinformed. They were speaking in sterile terms for the purpose of observing radio protocols and clarity on their ASIPs; nothing more. Soldiers are intimately familiar with the unsanitary horrors of war, and are not for lack of a thousand unseemly two and three-syllable ways to described it. People needn't worry.

Instead of being outraged about the words or tone of the pilot willing the man to pick up a weapon, to give him an excuse, why not think about the discipline necessary to remember his Rules of Engagement? To recognize, as much hate as he may feel towards the enemy, he was not allowed to fire on the enemy unless he picked up a weapon?

This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened to Pat Tillman. When it happened to any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by fratricide in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists.

War is a disgusting, horrible thing. As cliche as that excuse has become, for people to look at the natural heartbreaking nature of it and say that they're somehow anomalous just shows how far people who have not experienced war have to go to understanding it. That doesn't justify failing to take every reasonable precaution necessary to avoid incidents like these. However, a little humility, or a little desire to have a broader contextual understanding of why these pilots did what they did before condemning them as war criminals would be appreciated."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...gon-ctd-3.html

So let me get this straight, we've gone from the "it's war, it happens" position to the extreme relativistic position that not only the military have a different set of morals to live by, but that the whole morality thing is so contingent that those outside the military can't even pass judgment on it?

Regarding the whole "should they have waited until they were being fired on" comment, there is an incongruency that has been precisely the point of most of the anti-war movement: yes, if this war is anything like it is claimed to be, they should wait until being fired upon. You see, even other wars don't have the same civilian to military casualty ratio, even assuming the lowest possible estimates. People have talked about the nuclear bomb, but even the war in the pacific didn't have these numbers (the only WW2 engagement that might come close is the invasion of the USSR). So, again, either we admit that this is some sort of neo colonial war were the civilians are an afterthought and we are ok with massive civilian casualties, or we change the rules of engagement and prosecute the hell of those who break them.

Of course, though it should, that won't happen. Instead, a few years from now people will talk about "liberating" Iran, or Pakistan, or North Korea, and when someone points out the dirtiness of war, they'll hear back "how dare you say that about the American military?."

i think this is an interesting perspective as well, one quite removed from the military-relativist complex position reproduced by andrew sullivan...

Quote:

Grim truths of Wikileaks Iraq video

Collateral Murder forces us to confront the deplorable unreality of US aggression and the grim fate of those caught in its scope

On Monday Wikileaks, a Sweden based non-profit website that publishes leaked documents pertaining to government and corporate misconduct, released a classified US military video from 2007 that shows an Apache helicopter attacking and killing a group of Iraqi civilians. The incident rose to prominence because two of those who died were Reuters personnel – photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saeed Chmagh. The video, entitled Collateral Murder, is already being heralded by some as the most important revelation since Abu Ghraib, and challenges not only the effectiveness of the US military's rules of engagement policy, but also the integrity of the mainstream media's coverage of similar incidents.

Like many of the millions who have viewed, re-viewed and analysed the video, it instantly reminded me of a videogame, specifically the game that currently sits inside my Wii – Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. If you're unfamiliar, or prefer not to spend your spare time sniping imaginary terrorists, Modern Warfare offers a very simple and entertaining first-person narrative: as a member of the marines or the SAS, your job is to kill everything that moves. These types of first-person shoot 'em ups, which have long been utilised by the US military for training purposes, demand a simplistic rendition of warfare in order to achieve their rapid pace. There is little room for ambiguity or social realism, because if the player is required to discern the character of those who fall within their line of fire, it would interrupt the action, and make for a less thrilling gaming experience.

One of the most alarming aspects of Collateral Murder is that it demonstrates how similar the logic of the Apache pilots is to that of the average gamer. The video allows us to examine the entire process of how a rationale for attack is reached. We see exactly what the Apache pilots saw, the black-and-white gun-cam footage underscored by their darkly cynical colour-commentary of the ensuing carnage. As the helicopter approaches the men, we hear a pilot say: "See all those people standing down there?" The camera zooms in on the group and we see Saeed with a camera bag slung on his right shoulder. "That's a weapon," a pilot says. "Fucking prick," comes the reply.

And with that, a few unarmed, relaxed civilians hanging around a courtyard are transformed into a contingent of dangerous insurgents that must be destroyed. Within seconds the pilots have described the situation to their superiors, received approval to engage and are gunning down the crowd. After the smoke clears from the initial attack, we see a wounded Saeed attempting to crawl to safety, the pilots vocalising their desire that he pick up a weapon, even though there is clearly no weaponry anywhere near his person. A van then pulls up and some men arrive to help Saeed. The pilots request permission to re-engage, quickly becoming impatient as they wait for approval. "Come on let us shoot!" a pilot says. Permission is granted, and they fire on the van, killing Saeed along with the good samaritans. And it is soon revealed that rather than armed insurgents, there were actually two children sitting inside the mini-van, both of whom have sustained serious injuries.

Of course, our ability to deconstruct the footage down to the second allows for a level of hindsight not afforded to the pilots, and so the video doesn't necessarily condemn, in criminal terms, those directly responsible for the deaths, but rather US engagement protocol as a whole.

The video has already provoked a huge amount of praise and criticism within the American media. Many commentators are calling for an official investigation while others are defending the actions of the pilots and pleading for context. One of the most bizarre apologias has come from Gawker, a Manhattan media-gossip blog, who went out of their way to lament the civilian deaths in detail, only to go on defend the actions of the pilots under the premise that "innocent civilians get killed in wars".

Regardless of how many pundits attempt to frame this tragedy within the vagaries of a "war is hell" narrative, Collateral Murder will prove to be a landmark event in the reportage of the Iraq war, as it forces the viewer, in the most visceral way possible, to simultaneously confront both the deplorable unreality of American aggression and the grim fate of those caught within its scope.

Grim truths of Wikileaks Iraq video | Douglas Haddow | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasereth (Post 2775486)

Quote:

Originally Posted by This Thread

God, I can't understand why helicopter gunships would want to engage people that look like the enemy in the midst of a ground-based firefight.

Of course they wanted to kill them. They thought they were bad guys based on the situation.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is the standard here, not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Of course they sounded excited. Should they be laid back and apathetic as they pull the trigger?

What most disturbed me was that the guys in the helicopter sounded very much like they were playing a video game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern? (Post 2775575)

What most disturbed me was that the guys in the helicopter sounded very much like they were playing a video game.

Please. Video games have far better graphics and sound. The electronics in an Apache?

Its probably like playing Afterburner at the mall sometime in the early '90s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2775569)

"Oh. look. another bad guy. guess I'll pull this trigger again. man, this war shit is boring and easy"

Sorry, Gucci... chronic-pumping facemasks are not standard equipment on the AH64.

my dreams are now officially crushed.

I think the media is the only real enemy the US military has anymore. If public opinion isn't for the war, then it is hard to get anything done. Never mind that a lot of innocent people were killed by the extremists a few days ago in the market and apartments in Baghdad...

I think this movie quote sums up my thoughts:

Quote:

Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*
Kaffee: *I want the truth!*
Col. Jessep: *You can’t handle the truth!*
[pauses]
Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

Hell, I was waiting for that Full Metal Jacket quote... ya know, the one with the Huey M60 gunner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2775619)

Hell, I was waiting for that Full Metal Jacket quote... ya know, the one with the Huey M60 gunner.

One Full Metal Jacket quote, coming right up.
"How can you shoot women and children?"
"Easy, just don't lead them as much."

I don't think the video is all that bad. I mean, what happened is fucked up looking back on it. Hindsight is always 20/20. But in that time and place, I believe the situation called for action. They obviously took the wrong action, or went about it wrong, but they had to do something.

Have you ever read any books about soldier's accounts of war? They admit to actually wanting to kill the enemy. "Jarhead" is a great example. "Soft Spots" by Clint Van Winkle is another one. What do you think the military does? They kill, it comes with the occupation. I'd be damn excited if I was in an Apache popping off rounds like that. With the happiness and overall approval of killing: they need to say something to "get them through" the fact they just killed another human. I'm having a hard time trying to put that into better words, which is a problem because this is the internet.

If this wasn't on video, people wouldn't be flipping shit like they are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003 (Post 2775618)

hey, if you think that the US military should be held to the same standards as the extremists, then there is not much to discuss here.

Of course, the issue here is less whether the US military is made up of "bad people" as is the complete disconnect between the way the war is waged and how it was and is described. It's been the case for at least 60 years, and in all likelihood, in near future another one of these wars will be contemplated. And then someone will point out that lots of nasty things happen in wars. But the usual suspects will again reply that the US troops are all "nice people," and that this war will indeed be clean and without "collateral damage," and how dare anyone suggest that civilians would be killed by the thousands. And then when the shit hits the fan again, we'll hear about how "war is hell," and that if only we didn't know about what goes on we'd be happy and all that, only to repeat everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2775623)

Of course, the issue here is less whether the US military is made up of "bad people" as is the complete disconnect between the way the war is waged and how it was and is described. It's been the case for at least 60 years, and in all likelihood, in near future another one of these wars will be contemplated. And then someone will point out that lots of nasty things happen in wars. But the usual suspects will again reply that the US troops are all "nice people," and that this war will indeed be clean and without "collateral damage," and how dare anyone suggest that civilians would be killed by the thousands. And then when the shit hits the fan again, we'll hear about how "war is hell," and that if only we didn't know about what goes on we'd be happy and all that, only to repeat everything.

So... you're here for the circle jerk?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2775623)

War will always be hell. Collateral damage and loss of civilian life will always take place. Both have and always will happen. Especially in a war, like this one and Vietnam, where the enemy has no distinctive uniform. Don't you think that there would be less civilian casualties if we could clearly distinguish between what a civvy looks like compared to a soldier?

I don't know whether to be horrified or ecstatic that I'm now fully entrenched in 9er's sig. :lol:

what does a civilian look like? This is a good point considering the types of war that the US is engaged in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9 (Post 2775626)

So... you're here for the circle jerk?

there's more than one going on.

I like this thread a lot and have read all the responses eagerly because it really cool to see the varied opinions. I especially enjoy the cognitive dissonance of being ready to dismiss some of the opinions as wrong out of hand, but coming from people I agree with on other things. WAit a minute... you have no problem with them being right when they agree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn (Post 2775638)

I like this thread a lot and have read all the responses eagerly because it really cool to see the varied opinions. I especially enjoy the cognitive dissonance of being ready to dismiss some of the opinions as wrong out of hand, but coming from people I agree with on other things. Wait a minute... you have no problem with them being right when they agree with you.

I hear this site has that problem, too.

...

Lasereth's quoted post is useful.

Hmm, a case of mistaken identities on the battlefield. I'm surprised it's never happened before.

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone to hear these guys act like they "WANT" to kill them. I mean they did enlist, after all. You've got to want it, or at least be ambivalent about ending a human life if you're willing to become a pawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk (Post 2775651)

Yeah, our "clique is dumb." Incredibly ironic quip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk (Post 2775651)

"Pawn"

...

You know, I'd hate to violate any board rules, but seeing as how I was one of those enlisted men at one time, I'm going to count the above quote as a violation itself, and tell you to fuck yourself, dickwad.

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+-
Let's get this discussion back on track please, before the thread ends up closed.

I wonder what would happen if there were no pawns and no desire to put the pawn training into action.

Oh. right. we'd be speaking a different language.

the thread seems still be to stuck with a basic division between folk whose experience led them through the military (directly or indirectly) and who tend to see in the clip something well inside the realm of ordinary experience and those who do not see killing unarmed civilians and a couple children as being part of the realm of ordinary experience, not even in a combat situation.
what's curious about this is the extent to which this division then feeds into a strange inside/outside game. the relativist position argues in the end that no-one but themselves could possibly understand so no-one but themselves is in a position to pass judgment about what you see as a technical glitch, a mistake.
others, looking at the same footage, see unarmed civilians being mowed down and a heap of rationalizations piled up for that---most of which read to me like "ooops" or, better, "it's the civilians fault."

from there it is possible to have discussions about rules of war and whether there really are any---from the relativist viewpoint in this thread, it almost seems like there is only one rule and that is dont end up like the civilians and children do in this clip so that the fact that you're alive indicates no rules could be violated in this or any other situation. but that's fucked up, i think.

if you back away from this level, it seems to me that if this "war is hell" line is the case--and i do not doubt it for a second as making the world into an approximation of hell seems a project that nation-states devote special creativity to, which makes you wonder about nation-states and the capitalism for which they stand, but that's another matter----if this it is case that once war starts there are no rules, anything goes anything at all (which is a very bush administration line)----then it should fucking well be the case that the machinery that is war is put into motion for the right reasons. and in iraq, the machinery was not put into motion for the right reasons.

this kind of killing of civilians has been alarming routine in the colonial adventure in iraq. of course it's the other guy's fault (i learned that in this thread).
but if the reasons for the unfolding of the war-is-hell machine in the first place are not correct, then it seems to me that every last one of those deaths is murder and that responsibility for those deaths rebounds back onto the people who put the machinery into motion in iraq in the first place.

and it seems like this is the kind of position that all sides could agree on in this thread...

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk (Post 2775651)

Isn't this like saying lawyers want lawlessness; doctors want people to be sick and injured; firefighters want fires to break out; paramedics want horrific accidents; coroners want people to die...?

You know, so they can practice "what they signed up for".... Can you imagine the twisted desires of those who work for Doctors without Borders? Not only do they want people to be sick and injured, they also want it in a backdrop of poverty, war, and/or endemic disease.

I don't think it helps to further dehumanize an already dehumanizing aspect of our world.

For the record, I was surprised to hear what I deemed an eagerness to shoot without having adequate information.