Your opinion please. Wikileaks vid of U.S. Soldiers gunning down civ/children/photogs - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Glory's Sun · 04-06-2010, 10:51 AM

I'll freely admit that if I'm on the front lines and there's known insurgent activity and it appears that people with guns are running around, I would adapt a "me or him" mentality. My flag comment was aimed at a much broader scope.

We all know that innocent casualties are a part of war. It's going to happen no matter the war or the agenda. I think the sticking point for most people in this is how the soldiers seemed so blood thirsty. I'm kind of desensitized to it as most of my military friends freely throw around kill stories and degrading comments about the people that inhabit the countries they've been in. Doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what they say, but I think if we as civilians sit here and think that soldiers should react in a way that they are killed or in danger more than they should be, we are doing everyone a great disservice. The true faults of the actions don't fall on the soldier's shoulders (in most cases) but the people who put the soldiers into the situations to begin with. Granted, there are just some things that happen that are the soldiers fault and responsibility but I can't fault them for trying to follow orders or for keeping themselves and their partners safe.

Walt · 04-06-2010, 11:12 AM

Q&D: If the guys with the camera's were Reuters journalists (3 years later and Reuters hasn't confirmed this) then they knew the risks involved in what they were doing. They decided to go for a stroll down the middle of a street in Iraq, accompanied by a large group of armed men, in an area where US ground forces were engaged in a firefight. They gambled in the hopes of getting what may have been a really cool story/pictures and paid for that gamble with their lives.

The guy in the unmarked civilian van showed up roughly two minutes after a large group of armed men got shot to shit by a 30mm chain gun. A 30mm chain guns are loud and very distinctive sounding. If you are within two city-minutes of drive time away, you will hear it and know what it is.

If the driver was in no way associated with the guys who just got shot and was just a good Samaritan on his way to drop his kids off at school, then he knowingly brought his kids in to a gunfight and proceeded to use the van they were in to collect and aid in the escape of guys the US military was shooting at. He gambled with his kids lives to help bad guys and ended up getting his kids shot.

On the assumption that the driver of the van was deaf: He rounds a corner and finds a bunch of still-smoking guys who have been shot to shit in an area where US ground forces are engaged in a gun fight (again, not a quiet affair). He should have thought of his kids and GTFO.

After the gunship fires on the alleged reporters, they get a call from ground forces stating that they are taking small arms and rocket fire from such-and-such building. The gunship goes to provide support and the camera catches two armed men trying to discretely enter said building. Moments later, two military aged males (unarmed), who are walking at an increased interval, enter the same building. The gunship fires a hellfire and the building goes away.

As the gunship fires the first missile, there is a random dude walking down the sidewalk in front of the targeted building. He and the two kids inside the van are the only innocents I see in all of this. The field of view on the gunships target display is surprisingly narrow at max magnification. The gunner couldn't have anticipated the guy walking in front of the targeted building right at the moment they were about to fire. That said, I would have done a quick sweep with my camera to check the street for bystanders but thats arm chair quarterbacking.

The kids were victims of their fathers negligence. There was no way for the apache gunners to know they were in the van and to suggest that the pilots shouldn't have fired without knowing is idiotic.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I think the sticking point for most people in this is how the soldiers seemed so blood thirsty.

Most people have never put on the uniform. Their knowledge of war is limited to playing Call of Duty. They have made themselves believe that the good guys are always reluctant to go to war and always fight fair. If war become a necessity, they want other people to fight it, but according to their lofty rules and ideals.

Most people avoid confrontation. Most people are repulsed by the thought of taking a life. To them, any person who is willing to do so must be a sociopath.

roachboy · 04-06-2010, 11:19 AM

truth be known, i understand that arguments that the folk are making about one of another version of the "fog of war"...i'm less sure that the folk who argue from that position see the need for rules on the order of it is not ok to mow down children and it is not ok to mow down non-combattants.

actually, a better way of saying that is: i don't doubt that there is a general agreement that there should be some rules of war. if you look back through the history of modern warfare, the reasons for them are self-evident--and if you look at the post 1045 "non-conventional" or assymetrical wars from vietnam/algeria forward, you see over and over that abandoning the rules has done no-one any good. at all. on any side.

the question is who is going to do the judging, yes?

Baraka_Guru · 04-06-2010, 11:23 AM

Well, if Obama can reverse Bush's policies on the use of nuclear weapons, I can imagine he could also reverse Bush's policies on the rule of law.

The_Jazz · 04-06-2010, 11:28 AM

RB, of course it's wrong to intentionally mow down civilians. I don't think anyone here is saying that it is. What many of us are say, though, is that it is impossible for anyone here to whether or not this was intentional. You seem to be operating under the misguided delusion that all soldiers want to kill everything in front of them - that's far from the case, and we've had actual combat veterans tell you otherwise.

If someone who was on patrol (as a duo) with Pat Tillman 3 hours before can mow him down with a SAW from 60M because he didn't recognize him as a friendly and bullets were already flying, what makes you think that these guys are somehow better than normal human beings?

You need to recognize that you're trying to hold these guys to the "way it should be" standard, not the "way it is" standard. Yes, in a perfect world, no civilians would be shot, but when someone is multitasking with armory, folks get hurt. The point is to do it to them before they do it to you.

dippin · 04-06-2010, 11:32 AM

I understand all the empathizing with the gunner's position that goes on here. The problem, of course, is that that is only one position that is being empathized with.

Given all the tough guy talk that goes around here ("they are asking for my ethnicity on the census form? let's revolt") I'd imagine how these people would react to living under the conditions these Iraqis live in (and are apparently guilty of their own deaths whenever someone else gets trigger happy).

Personally, the US casualty-to-civilian-casualty ratio is such that I think more hesitation in these "him or me" scenarios is needed. That or let's drop the "we're the good guys" act.

SecretMethod70 · 04-06-2010, 11:36 AM

This video does not seem intentional to me, but it does seem like the soldiers were unreasonably eager to pull the trigger. The first attack is bothersome, and considering - as MSD points out - it's not illegal to carry an AK-47 in Iraq, nor is it illegal to gather in groups, it worries me that they didn't wait for any indication of hostility before firing. That incident is on the border though; I can see arguments in its defense. Being eager for the injured person to grab a firearm so you can kill him, though, there is no excuse for, nor is there any excuse for firing upon people that are providing medical assistance, even if you think they're treating the bad guys.

In other words, I find this video rather disturbing, but at the same time I think it's being blown a little out of proportion with the idea that this was an intentional killing of civilians. Rather, as dippin says, it's an issue of being trigger happy, which is still clearly a serious issue.

roachboy · 04-06-2010, 11:45 AM

dippin anticipated one of the moves i was about to make.

second is that i cannot imagine a situation in which the rules of war as attributes of some "perfect world" scenario. those scenarios would exclude war altogether i would think. maybe once the Revolution comes and international socialism is the self-generating order of things we can talk in these terms.

the rules of war are what prevent utter barbarism. this is not the same as the distinction walt (for example, because he made the argument explicitly...plan9 alluded to it as well, but via a link to a book synopsis) between people who have killed and those who haven't. the first are to prevent atrocities. the second is a characterization of anyone who has been a combattant and who has fired a weapon--so undergone the conditioning required to break down the social prohibitions on killing. but simply because you've undergone the second doesn't mean that therefore anything--at all--goes, does it? that's an implication of the arguments that are happening in this thread.

the sub-argument seems to be: if you civilian person haven't been subjected to the same conditioning as i, military or ex-military, have been, then you cannot judge my actions or those of anyone else who is in a war theater. but that's absurd. taking that seriously you lead you to argue for jettisoning not only all civilian oversight of the military but also all subordination to the law.

but it's exactly because combat is a sociopathic space that rules are required. and it's because the institutions that surround those sociopathic spaces self-evidently cannot be relied upon to conduct themselves by the rules of non-sociopathic society BECAUSE in order to reproduce the space of combat, of killing, these institutions HAVE TO normalize it.

but maybe you're all making a narrower argument.
i don't think you are. i just dont see you taking your own logic far enough to see how strange it really is.

[[btw in order to back the debate away from simple yes/no, i should say that my own position is more where i started in this thread. i began pushing at the fact that what you're watching in it could well be a war crime as the thread developed, in reaction to those whom i saw as poo-poohing it. but i think there's an interesting question in here about law and war and such. not new, but interesting.]]

The_Jazz · 04-06-2010, 12:02 PM

RB, I have no interest in making a meta-argument. That would simply piss both of us off. I'll simply say that I don't agree with the idea that there's a great social prohibition against killing - the fact that murder/homocide is more prevalent than incest lends itself to my argument. Then again, I think that humanity is fatally flawed, and you probably don't.

As for the incident, let's remembering that the US actors in this are men who have VOLUNTEERED for the training you mentioned. That's important. For infantrymen, pulling the trigger for the first time in combat is the culmination of a life's goal. Well, for the 50% that aren't the slack-jawed yokels Plan9 mentioned.

Now, I'll conceed that it's possible that a "war crime" occurred here. I don't give it much credence, but it's possible. Perhaps our triggerman would admit under oath that pulling that trigger gave him the biggest stiffy of his life and that he had sticky shorts the rest of the day. More likely, he erred and mistook one thing for another. That's not a crime. It's a tragedy, but it's not a crime.

As Walt said, some of these people had no business being anywhere near this scene. Any self-respecting parent drives away from gunfire.

roachboy · 04-06-2010, 12:45 PM

Quote:

The basis of international humanitarian law is the principle of distinction, which applies in all armed conflicts. This principle obliges “Parties to a conflict” (i.e. the warring parties, whether states or non-state armed groups) to target only military objectives and not the civilian population or individual civilians or civilian objects (e.g. homes, schools, and hospitals). Failing to make this distinction in military operations represents an indiscriminate attack and is a war crime.

Similarly, although it is understood that it is not possible for parties to a conflict always to avoid civilian casualties when engaged in military operations, international humanitarian law also requires that parties to a conflict take precautions in any attack to minimise civilian deaths and injuries. Attacks likely to cause deaths or injuries among the civilian population or damage to civilian objects which would be "excessive" compared to the expected military advantage must be cancelled or suspended.
These rules are generally considered to be customary international law, which binds every party to a conflict – government or non-state armed group – whether or not the state on whose territory a conflict occurs has ratified the relevant treaty.

International humanitarian law

i don't see folk saying that this necessarily *was* a war crime, but it sure as hell is actionable.
and it would seem to me that insisting on the requirement of rules of war, and by extension some notion of the rule of law, in a war situation acknowledges a whole lot more "flawedness" about people than its inverse. it does not assume competence or self-control. it does not assume any particular commitment to being in a theater of operations or not. it makes some strictures. you don't kill little kids. you don't kill civilians. you don't rationalize away killing a little kid by blaming the parents for bringing the kid into a situation.

no fine discrimination is required here. you just don't do that. it is not acceptable.

alot of conservative arguments against rules of war come more from political opposition to international law and/or international tribunals--conservatives are obviously tied to nationalism and without the nation-state as central, they've neither anything to say or any tactics. so they've every interest in opposing this, but the fact is that they, too, in the main operate without thinking through the meta-argument, so without thinking out the consequences. alot of the bush period "thinking" about their favorite novel the "war on terror" demonstrates just how wrong this rejection of thinking out consequences can go.

Glory's Sun · 04-06-2010, 12:48 PM

and yet, nobody thinks about the war crimes being committed by the big brass by sending all of these kids into war to die...

mixedmedia · 04-06-2010, 12:48 PM

I don't think it's a meta-argument to consider that maybe some rules were violated and maybe, as such, there should be some accountability.
Very few of us have made calls for any kind of punitive action barring evidence of obvious war crimes, which is not the impression I came away with.

And as for those people on the street and in the van, no one here has a damn idea what they were doing or what they were thinking either. It's kind of funny how easily their motivations and judgement are called to account in a 'war zone.' Give me a break.

The_Jazz · 04-06-2010, 12:57 PM

MM, with all due respect, it's pretty fucking easy to tell what's going through their minds. Rational noncombatants don't run towards gunfire.

mixedmedia · 04-06-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

MM, with all due respect, it's pretty fucking easy to tell what's going through their minds. Rational noncombatants don't run towards gunfire.

Have you ever lived in a 'war zone' with your family, Jazz?

roachboy · 04-06-2010, 01:05 PM

gucci...i think about it quite a bit. i am still bewildered about the fact that there was no investigation of the self-evident concerning the iraq war in the united states as there was in the uk even. you know, the chilcot inquiry. nothing like that here.

most law related to war crimes is geared around being able to hold individuals accountable for the actions of a country. it's pretty obvious to me that there are alot of people in the bush administration who should be prosecuted.

but there's that whole question as to whether there is a war crime apart from losing.

and then there are other questions about the extent to which we in the united states really do live in a single party state with two right wings. it's only under such conditions that it's imaginable that an administratoin can launch a fucking war under self-evidently false pretenses and nothing happens.

not that the chilcot inquiry amounted to anything in terms of sanctions.
but i'd say british democracy is alot healthier than is american democracy.

but that's one of the bigger questions. addressing it by-passes the clip and by-passes alot of other similar information about the conduct of us forces on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, information that's available in non-american media outlets but curiously not so much here.

The_Jazz · 04-06-2010, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Have you ever lived in a 'war zone' with your family, Jazz?

You know the answer to that question. Just like I already know the answer if I ask it of you.

And I have a hard time believing that either of us would run/drive/move towards gunfire if we were with our kids.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. But knowing you as I do, I can't imagine that I am.

mixedmedia · 04-06-2010, 01:43 PM

If I knew who that person on the street was. Or thought I knew who he was. If I were a physician. Or a policeman off duty. If I had been living for years in an atmosphere where there was the constant threat of this kind of event, I might think differently than I do sitting here at my computer in an air-conditioned condo in 'paradise.' It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse to make a point that I find it hard to believe you are truly invested in. Just my impression.

The_Jazz · 04-06-2010, 01:53 PM

I know doctors. I know policemen. I know lots of people. About the only ones that I feel confident in saying would run, unarmed, towards gunfire are the ones who are crazy. I don't know anyone rational who would do so, and I sincerely believe that you don't either.

I also think that the plausibility of my argument is much greater than yours, which is why I'm making it. There are a lot of assumptions going on with both sides of the argument, but I've got to say that I think mine makes fewer and ones that are more logical.

Cynthetiq · 04-06-2010, 02:07 PM

I don't know anyone except those trained in armed combat who would run towards gun fire.

SecretMethod70 · 04-06-2010, 02:20 PM

Is it really that hard to believe that someone might want to help unarmed civilians who have been injured? It's kind of sad that we're so jaded as a society that people can't even give assistance to dying photographers in the middle of the street without having their motives questioned. It's pathetic even.

I can absolutely imagine that were I living in an area where this kind of thing is the norm, I might choose to help those whom I perceive to be innocent victims. Not saying I would, but I can certainly see how I might.

dippin · 04-06-2010, 02:26 PM

So on one hand first hand experience is necessary to comment on what the soldiers did, but first hand experience is not needed to comment on what the civilians did?

Besides, where the hell did either of you get the idea that whatever going on was limited to that exact position and as such easily avoidable?

uncle phil · 04-06-2010, 02:41 PM

i sincerely hope you all are listening to what plan9 has to say...

i wasn't in the exact same situation, but he covers this so much more eloquently than i can...

damn, viet nam was such a long time ago...

Psycho Dad · 04-06-2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

I dread the day they have to cover a story where US soldeirs are involved.

....and people are asking why 'they' hate you??

American soldiers and Marines do not have a monopoly on bad shit that happens in war. 'they' don't need this to hate 'us'. 'Us against them 'them' has been used for centuries to motivate people against others. However I doubt it is going to be the deciding factor to get that guy off the fence to set a roadside bomb.

Even Japanese soldiers and civilians in WWII were conditioned to believe that American soldiers were going to rape the women and kill the children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle phil

damn, viet nam was such a long time ago...

No it wasn't Phil. It is just that the culture of self loathing and hating the soldier instead of the politics that sends young men to war really took hold then IMHO.

mixedmedia · 04-06-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

So on one hand first hand experience is necessary to comment on what the soldiers did, but first hand experience is not needed to comment on what the civilians did?

Besides, where the hell did either of you get the idea that whatever going on was limited to that exact position and as such easily avoidable?

Thank you. This is exactly my point. And I still find it hard to believe that someone would so deliberately insist that soldiers in combat need a 'special understanding' for why they do what they do, but civilians do not. An appalling lack of imagination that I still believe is deliberate and stubborn.

Unsubscribing from this thread. Just don't have the stomach for it anymore. click.

filtherton · 04-06-2010, 05:31 PM

I just hope to god that I never have to live under the rule of an occupational authority.

Walt · 04-06-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

If I knew who that person on the street was. Or thought I knew who he was. If I were a physician. Or a policeman off duty.

You would drive your mini-van full of children in to the middle of a gun fight if you thought you might have seen someone you knew?

Physicians and policemen tend to operate under the same principles: 1) You save the ones you can. 2) You do what you can to keep the situation from getting worse.

Putting yourself and your kids in front of a 30mm chain gun would seem to violate both of those principles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Is it really that hard to believe that someone might want to help unarmed civilians who have been injured? It's kind of sad that we're so jaded as a society that people can't even give assistance to dying photographers in the middle of the street without having their motives questioned. It's pathetic even.

Dude. These "unarmed civilians" weren't accidentally hit by a car in Mayberry, RFD. They were (justifiably) shot to shit by an American gunship in the midst of a larger battle.

Is it really that hard to believe that most rational people would take note of their situation/surroundings and say to themselves "Ok, so we've got US ground forces engaged in a big ass fight the next block over and these guys just got hit by a US attach helicopter....maybe they got shot for a reason. Either way, its not worth my kids lives to find out".

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Besides, where the hell did either of you get the idea that whatever going on was limited to that exact position and as such easily avoidable?

I'm fairly certain the guy could have avoided pulling over, stopping, exiting his vehicle, etc...Just going out on a limb here.

Charlatan · 04-06-2010, 06:06 PM

Second guessing what the civilians did is just as problematic as second guessing what the soldiers did. I really hope people can see this.

roachboy · 04-06-2010, 06:10 PM

so essentially what you're saying walt is that dippin is correct. you speak for the Manly Men of the American Military in a war zone in a way that assumes whatever happens to the civilians and children is their fault.

way to go.

war crime? impossible so long as the Manly Men of the American Military are involved.

that's basically the argument, yes?

Glory's Sun · 04-06-2010, 06:25 PM

If I was in a profession or position that required me to help others, I would do so, but not with my kids in the car. Sorry, that's just fucking stupid.

I think I'm just going to say that more often than not, war is just one huge fucking crime. Killing the king seems like it would be an easier solution to the problem than placing blame on those the king has sent into the fray. The only problem with this is: which king needs to be killed?

Jinn · 04-06-2010, 07:04 PM

I read all the posts, and I'm soundly in the middle. Monday-morning quarterbacking happens far too often with the military, and I'm at least conscious of my own inherent arrogance enough to know that whenever I start by saying "If I were in his position.." I'm totally lying, because I have no fucking idea what I would do in their shoes.

On the other hand, I think a real problem occurs when we aren't allowed to critique something simply for lack of personal experience. Sound judgments about the behavior of others can be made without first experiencing it. We can condemn murder without first murdering. In this case, I think it is a tragic incident (not accident) and I think that the soldiers acted to the best of their ability and training.

What I think lacks is their ability and their training. The approval to fire seemed rather arbitrary (and seemed to be made by someone not even in the field of combat?) and I wonder why the approval is even necessary. Is it a documentation thing? I authorized them to use deadly force because they told me they had AK47s and RPGs? Time, date, personal responsible? If so, I think perhaps additional training needs to go towards soldiers of all stripes that they are being given the authorization to kill based merely on their representation of what is actually happening. Everyone makes mistakes describing what they see, that's OK. I don't even know if it's possible to train someone that because they're at the end of a weapon they need to take additional responsibilty about how they describe the events to those with the authority to authorize firing. But it sure would make me feel better if I knew these things were in place.

Also, I run towards gunfire. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Walt · 04-06-2010, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so essentially what you're saying walt is that dippin is correct.

In what way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you speak for the Manly Men of the American Military in a war zone in a way that assumes whatever happens to the civilians and children is their fault.

way to go.

war crime? impossible so long as the Manly Men of the American Military are involved.

that's basically the argument, yes?

I'm having trouble taking you seriously when you (as a moderator) would use an Ad Hominem attack and a Straw Man fallacy in the same sentence. Way to go.

I will simplify and restate my argument regarding the civilians in the video:

1) The alleged reporters had more than a little experience working in a war zone. They knew they were taking a considerable risk in walking around with armed men in civilian clothes - and then moving down the street, towards a group of US ground forces who were engaged in a gunfight...with armed men in civilian clothes. The reporters took a gamble and it bit them in the ass. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

2) The children getting shot was a tragedy. They got shot because their father put them in a situation/position that would get them shot. The gunship had no way of knowing that there were children in the van.

3) The guy walking in front of the building (from which armed insurgents were actively shooting at US ground forces) as it took a hellfire was an idiot for being there. Still, his death was a tragedy and avoidable.

The guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Were I the gunner, I would have done a sweep of the buildings perimeter with my targeting system. Were I the bystander, I wouldn't have been hanging out in front of a building that bad guys were using as a fighting position. But that is armchair quarterbacking.

I don't see anything in the video that leads me to believe that he was an intended target.

4) Based upon what I understand of ROE, all of the shootings were justified and no war crimes were committed.

Jinn · 04-06-2010, 07:18 PM

An interesting argument I saw advanced in the massive storm of commentary about this video (one I don't particularly agree with) is that this is a side-effect of the way that 'insurgents' are choosing to fight. If they were acting as armed members of a standing army with the appropriate decorations under the Geneva convention, and the van had something like a cross painted on it to indicate it was not a military target, less civilians might die in 'collateral damage'.

Like I said I don't particularly agree with it (seems a bit like rape apologism - she was dressed provactively!) but I do see the general idea as being valid. They're not at fault, but certainly it contributes, as do all of the other factors..

dippin · 04-06-2010, 07:20 PM

First, did all the "yeah, bad civilian" folks actually watch the fucking video? So we have a helicopter with a camera and several times magnification. For the first 3 or 4 minutes there is nothing going on. Then they fire. Then after another 4 or 5 minutes a van comes along and starts to load the wounded into it. Nevermind for a second that it is actually against the Geneva conventions and the military's own rule of engagement to shoot it. You do realize that the helicopter is actually very far and most likely not clearly visible (if it was clearly visible, then the guys not running away from it would clearly not be the enemy).

So basically the attitude is "it is their own fault for standing around within range of weapons that have a range of several hundred meters?" The idea that anyone drove towards a combat zone when the video itself makes it clear that they were very far from the thick of the action is ludicrous.

Now, before I get another round of "war is dirty, it happens, etc., etc." I'd say that that is precisely the fucking point. I mean, that is the reason people opposed the war. You can't, whether as an administration, part of the military, or whatever, at the same time spill some bullshit about "liberation," "fighting for democracy," etc. etc. and claim that things like this are "no big deal."

And it has nothing to do with "hating the soldier" or whatever spin people want to put on it. Whether or not the rules of engagement were followed is beside the point. If they were, they need to be reviewed, because the civilian-to-military casualty ratio, even just looking at the lowest numbers is unacceptable. Or, if you think it is acceptable, then we should call the war what it is, some sort of neo colonial engagement.

You see, I had no illusions about this war when it started. I knew that the civilian body count would be in the hundred of thousands, that there would be torture, and all those other things that we tend to consider war crimes when the losing side does it. Which, not coincidentally, is the reason I was against it. The bottom line is you can't have it both ways. You can't claim a war is a war of liberation and have this number of civilian casualties. You can't claim it is going to be a "clean war" because of the mythical qualities of the super American soldier and it's military and then claim they're "only human."

dlish · 04-06-2010, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

'Us against them 'them' has been used for centuries to motivate people against others. However I doubt it is going to be the deciding factor to get that guy off the fence to set a roadside bomb.

Even Japanese soldiers and civilians in WWII were conditioned to believe that American soldiers were going to rape the women and kill the children.

if you really think that all those peoples' opinions of the american soldiers (and now possibly american people in general) who have been directly affected by this havent turned against the occupying force, then i dont know what will.

no matter how pro american someone was, if their mother, brother, son etc was killed in this incident, you dont think it'd motivate them to get off that fence?

what i do want to point out is that this incident occured in a neighbourhood. you'll see on one of the corners there's a mosque, so we can assume that there were people around, most likely people that knew each other.

so i can fathom someone running towards gunfire to help save the life of someone they knew, or were family. stranger things have happened than someone risking life and limb to save a wounded or dying person . i guess i have to ask myself the same question, whether or not id run into still-smokin battlefield and save the life of somebody if my kids were in the car, id say im not sure.

but what we cant do is assume that the only ones that would do that are hardened terorists or policemen and firemen etc.

Plan9 · 04-06-2010, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by This Thread

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

...

I retract my previous commenting regarding legal action. Chopper jocks can probably get away with something that would have put me in jail.

The Kiowa monkeys in Mosul used to buzz our towers all the time. Something tells me they didn't do paperwork for blasting sneakies.

SecretMethod70 · 04-06-2010, 09:07 PM

There is an interesting post at The New Yorker about this as well...

News Desk: The WikiLeaks Video and the Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker

Quote:

There are a number of legal issues that soldiers must consider whenever they use force—a subject I explored in some depth for “The Kill Company,” a story about a war crime that I wrote for The New Yorker last year. (Subscribers can read the full text; others can buy access to the issue.) Here are a few quick legal and command-culture issues that came to mind while I was watching the video shot over Baghdad from an American helicopter in 2007 and released on WikiLeaks today:

Proportionality. A longstanding feature of the Law of Armed Conflict, which has been incorporated into the Army’s Rules of Engagement, is the concept of proportionality: all military action must be necessary and proportional to a given threat. This means that soldiers cannot legally shoot down a couple of young teenagers who are throwing stones at a tank. It also requires that soldiers judge, sometimes under difficult circumstances, the advantages of an operation against the potential collateral damage. (The advantages must outweigh the estimated loss of civilian life in order to proceed.) There is no written standard for such a judgment, nor could there be; it must be made case by case. In 2006, the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual, redrafted under the guidance of General David Petraeus, offers some elaboration. “Combatants cannot intend to harm noncombatants, though proportionality permits them to act knowing some noncombatants may be harmed,” the manual explains. “In policing situations, combatants cannot act in any way in which they know bystanders may be harmed.” Proportionality requires that soldiers discriminate between combatants and civilians—an especially difficult thing to do in a counterinsurgency, when threats quickly emerge and recede from the fabric of daily life.

Positive identification. All soldiers must “positively identify” a person whom they intend to kill as a legitimate combatant. According to the Rules of Engagement, this means that there must be a “reasonable certainty” that the person is displaying hostile intent, or is behaving in a hostile manner, before soldiers may attack. (In rarer circumstances, people can also be killed based on their “status”—that is, based on their affiliation with an organization that the military regards to be hostile—though this does not appear to be the case here.) One cannot determine the proportionality of a military operation without first positively identifying the combatants involved.

Command culture. The authority to use lethal force might rest with a person who is not at the scene of the battle, and so communication up and down the chain of command often plays a vital role in determining when soldiers can fire. On several occasions, the soldiers in the Apache seem to regard the conditions on the ground in the most threatening terms, even when there is limited evidence that this is so. “Have five to six individuals with AK-47s,” they tell the on-scene commander, after identifying only one or two armed people on the street. When the Apache is flying over Saeed Chmargh, while he is wounded and struggling on the pavement, the crew expresses hope that he’ll find a weapon so that they can kill him legally under the Rules of Engagement. But when the van arrives, the Apache crew reports to the commander, “We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.” This is later amended to, simply, “picking up the bodies.” (There are important legal distinctions between the two scenarios.) Later, when requesting permission to fire a Hellfire missile into a building on a crowded street, Crazy Horse 1-8 tells the commander that there are “at least six individuals in that building with weapons” and that they are from a “previous engagement.” But there is also evidence that people without weapons are in the building, after a couple of seemingly unarmed men walk into it. At some point, when contradictory information is relayed, one would expect the commander to stop and ask for more details before granting the authority to demolish a building in a crowded area. The use of a Hellfire missile typically requires a probing collateral-damage assessment.

The wounded. The video raises a number of interesting questions about the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation. On several occasions, the Apache gunner appears to fire rounds into people after there is evidence that they are have either died or are suffering from debilitating wounds. The Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Combat do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries. What about the people in the van who had come to assist the struggling man on the ground? The Geneva Conventions state that protections must be afforded to people who “collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.” The understanding here is that such people are clearly designated as noncombatants—by wearing a prominently displayed red cross, or red crescent, on their persons, for instance—or who are obviously civilians. A “positively identified” combatant who provides medical aid to someone amid fighting does not automatically lose his status as a combatant, and may still be legally killed.

There is also an interesting comment to that post...

Quote:

It may be useful to note that this video is not from a helicopter but most likely from a fixed-wing AC-130 which fires from the left side. That's why it constantly circles, why the gunners discuss the "azimuth limit" which automatically prevents the gun from shooting the wings as the plane banks, and why the victims seem to pay no attention to the aircraft. The significance is that the aircraft was much further away than a helicopter might have been. The men on the ground probably only saw planes up in the sky over Baghdad with no clue that they were in the crosshairs.

Plan9 · 04-06-2010, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinn

What I think lacks is their ability and their training. The approval to fire seemed rather arbitrary (and seemed to be made by someone not even in the field of combat?) and I wonder why the approval is even necessary. Is it a documentation thing? I authorized them to use deadly force because they told me they had AK47s and RPGs? Time, date, personal responsible? If so, I think perhaps additional training needs to go towards soldiers of all stripes that they are being given the authorization to kill based merely on their representation of what is actually happening. Everyone makes mistakes describing what they see, that's OK. I don't even know if it's possible to train someone that because they're at the end of a weapon they need to take additional responsibilty about how they describe the events to those with the authority to authorize firing. But it sure would make me feel better if I knew these things were in place.

I don't get this comment at all. The ability is clearly there. They pulled the trigger. And the training doesn't seem to be lacking. They managed to hit the targets, dude. You can't really ask for more in the ability and training department for chopper pilots.

Turns out permission to fire is something people have been shot at while waiting for and only to have it denied. Turns out that sucks. For every incident where GI Joe gets permission to fire, I'm guessing there's at least a dozen where he is told to stand down. Even if he's taking fire.

Quote:

Also, I run towards gunfire. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

I'd recommend cutting a flank instead. You're less likely to catch one with your liver.

...

A lot of people are confusing troops with cops. Turns out that's a different occupation.

dlish · 04-06-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plan9

I don't get this comment at all. The ability is clearly there. They pulled the trigger. And the training doesn't seem to be lacking. They managed to hit the targets, dude. You can't really ask for more in the ability and training department for chopper pilots.

Turns out permission to fire is something people have been shot at while waiting for and only to have it denied. Turns out that sucks. For every incident where GI Joe gets permission to fire, I'm guessing there's at least a dozen where he is told to stand down. Even if he's taking fire.

I'd recommend cutting a flank instead. You're less likely to catch one with your liver.

...

A lot of people are confusing troops with cops. Turns out that's a different occupation.

yeah, its not a matter of training i dont think.. as one of the seniors said in the video "good shootin'"

Plan9 · 04-06-2010, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlish

yeah, its not a matter of training i dont think.. as one of the seniors said in the video "good shootin'"

I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down, soul brothah...

...

We're surprised when GI Joe hits his target (Those personnel targets were destroyed by that anti-armor weapon!? No way!).

We're surprised with GI Joe misses his target, possibly killing innocents (poor training, obsolete or faulty munitions).

So basically... we're surprised in general. "Were you surprised? I was surprised."

Lasereth · 04-07-2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

* Proportionality. A longstanding feature of the Law of Armed Conflict, which has been incorporated into the Army’s Rules of Engagement, is the concept of proportionality: all military action must be necessary and proportional to a given threat. This means that soldiers cannot legally shoot down a couple of young teenagers who are throwing stones at a tank. It also requires that soldiers judge, sometimes under difficult circumstances, the advantages of an operation against the potential collateral damage. (The advantages must outweigh the estimated loss of civilian life in order to proceed.) There is no written standard for such a judgment, nor could there be; it must be made case by case. In 2006, the Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual, redrafted under the guidance of General David Petraeus, offers some elaboration. “Combatants cannot intend to harm noncombatants, though proportionality permits them to act knowing some noncombatants may be harmed,” the manual explains. “In policing situations, combatants cannot act in any way in which they know bystanders may be harmed.” Proportionality requires that soldiers discriminate between combatants and civilians—an especially difficult thing to do in a counterinsurgency, when threats quickly emerge and recede from the fabric of daily life.
* Positive identification. All soldiers must “positively identify” a person whom they intend to kill as a legitimate combatant. According to the Rules of Engagement, this means that there must be a “reasonable certainty” that the person is displaying hostile intent, or is behaving in a hostile manner, before soldiers may attack. (In rarer circumstances, people can also be killed based on their “status”—that is, based on their affiliation with an organization that the military regards to be hostile—though this does not appear to be the case here.) One cannot determine the proportionality of a military operation without first positively identifying the combatants involved.
* Command culture. The authority to use lethal force might rest with a person who is not at the scene of the battle, and so communication up and down the chain of command often plays a vital role in determining when soldiers can fire. On several occasions, the soldiers in the Apache seem to regard the conditions on the ground in the most threatening terms, even when there is limited evidence that this is so. “Have five to six individuals with AK-47s,” they tell the on-scene commander, after identifying only one or two armed people on the street. When the Apache is flying over Saeed Chmargh, while he is wounded and struggling on the pavement, the crew expresses hope that he’ll find a weapon so that they can kill him legally under the Rules of Engagement. But when the van arrives, the Apache crew reports to the commander, “We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.” This is later amended to, simply, “picking up the bodies.” (There are important legal distinctions between the two scenarios.) Later, when requesting permission to fire a Hellfire missile into a building on a crowded street, Crazy Horse 1-8 tells the commander that there are “at least six individuals in that building with weapons” and that they are from a “previous engagement.” But there is also evidence that people without weapons are in the building, after a couple of seemingly unarmed men walk into it. At some point, when contradictory information is relayed, one would expect the commander to stop and ask for more details before granting the authority to demolish a building in a crowded area. The use of a Hellfire missile typically requires a probing collateral-damage assessment.
* The wounded. The video raises a number of interesting questions about the treatment of casualties during an ongoing military operation. On several occasions, the Apache gunner appears to fire rounds into people after there is evidence that they are have either died or are suffering from debilitating wounds. The Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Combat do not permit combatants to shoot at people who are surrendering or who no longer pose a threat because of their injuries. What about the people in the van who had come to assist the struggling man on the ground? The Geneva Conventions state that protections must be afforded to people who “collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.” The understanding here is that such people are clearly designated as noncombatants—by wearing a prominently displayed red cross, or red crescent, on their persons, for instance—or who are obviously civilians. A “positively identified” combatant who provides medical aid to someone amid fighting does not automatically lose his status as a combatant, and may still be legally killed.

Read more: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...#ixzz0kPvhvWdF

/thread

This in particular: "The authority to use lethal force might rest with a person who is not at the scene of the battle, and so communication up and down the chain of command often plays a vital role in determining when soldiers can fire. On several occasions, the soldiers in the Apache seem to regard the conditions on the ground in the most threatening terms, even when there is limited evidence that this is so. “Have five to six individuals with AK-47s,” they tell the on-scene commander, after identifying only one or two armed people on the street. When the Apache is flying over Saeed Chmargh, while he is wounded and struggling on the pavement, the crew expresses hope that he’ll find a weapon so that they can kill him legally under the Rules of Engagement. But when the van arrives, the Apache crew reports to the commander, “We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.” This is later amended to, simply, “picking up the bodies.” (There are important legal distinctions between the two scenarios.)"

The whole incident isn't what's messed up about the firing. What's screwed up are the soldiers' attitudes during the episode. There's no getting around it, they wanted to fire, they wanted to kill, they wanted a story to take home, and they exaggerated to the CO to make it happen.

BTW the AC-130 thing sounds about spot on to me. I don't know why I didn't think about it earlier since they are circling and no one ever even looks in their direction.

04-06-2010, 11:19 AM	#43 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	truth be known, i understand that arguments that the folk are making about one of another version of the "fog of war"...i'm less sure that the folk who argue from that position see the need for rules on the order of it is not ok to mow down children and it is not ok to mow down non-combattants. actually, a better way of saying that is: i don't doubt that there is a general agreement that there should be some rules of war. if you look back through the history of modern warfare, the reasons for them are self-evident--and if you look at the post 1045 "non-conventional" or assymetrical wars from vietnam/algeria forward, you see over and over that abandoning the rules has done no-one any good. at all. on any side. the question is who is going to do the judging, yes? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-06-2010, 11:23 AM	#44 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, if Obama can reverse Bush's policies on the use of nuclear weapons, I can imagine he could also reverse Bush's policies on the rule of law. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-06-2010, 11:28 AM	#45 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	RB, of course it's wrong to intentionally mow down civilians. I don't think anyone here is saying that it is. What many of us are say, though, is that it is impossible for anyone here to whether or not this was intentional. You seem to be operating under the misguided delusion that all soldiers want to kill everything in front of them - that's far from the case, and we've had actual combat veterans tell you otherwise. If someone who was on patrol (as a duo) with Pat Tillman 3 hours before can mow him down with a SAW from 60M because he didn't recognize him as a friendly and bullets were already flying, what makes you think that these guys are somehow better than normal human beings? You need to recognize that you're trying to hold these guys to the "way it should be" standard, not the "way it is" standard. Yes, in a perfect world, no civilians would be shot, but when someone is multitasking with armory, folks get hurt. The point is to do it to them before they do it to you. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-06-2010, 11:36 AM	#47 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	This video does not seem intentional to me, but it does seem like the soldiers were unreasonably eager to pull the trigger. The first attack is bothersome, and considering - as MSD points out - it's not illegal to carry an AK-47 in Iraq, nor is it illegal to gather in groups, it worries me that they didn't wait for any indication of hostility before firing. That incident is on the border though; I can see arguments in its defense. Being eager for the injured person to grab a firearm so you can kill him, though, there is no excuse for, nor is there any excuse for firing upon people that are providing medical assistance, even if you think they're treating the bad guys. In other words, I find this video rather disturbing, but at the same time I think it's being blown a little out of proportion with the idea that this was an intentional killing of civilians. Rather, as dippin says, it's an issue of being trigger happy, which is still clearly a serious issue. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 04-06-2010 at 11:39 AM..

04-06-2010, 11:45 AM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	dippin anticipated one of the moves i was about to make. second is that i cannot imagine a situation in which the rules of war as attributes of some "perfect world" scenario. those scenarios would exclude war altogether i would think. maybe once the Revolution comes and international socialism is the self-generating order of things we can talk in these terms. the rules of war are what prevent utter barbarism. this is not the same as the distinction walt (for example, because he made the argument explicitly...plan9 alluded to it as well, but via a link to a book synopsis) between people who have killed and those who haven't. the first are to prevent atrocities. the second is a characterization of anyone who has been a combattant and who has fired a weapon--so undergone the conditioning required to break down the social prohibitions on killing. but simply because you've undergone the second doesn't mean that therefore anything--at all--goes, does it? that's an implication of the arguments that are happening in this thread. the sub-argument seems to be: if you civilian person haven't been subjected to the same conditioning as i, military or ex-military, have been, then you cannot judge my actions or those of anyone else who is in a war theater. but that's absurd. taking that seriously you lead you to argue for jettisoning not only all civilian oversight of the military but also all subordination to the law. but it's exactly because combat is a sociopathic space that rules are required. and it's because the institutions that surround those sociopathic spaces self-evidently cannot be relied upon to conduct themselves by the rules of non-sociopathic society BECAUSE in order to reproduce the space of combat, of killing, these institutions HAVE TO normalize it. but maybe you're all making a narrower argument. i don't think you are. i just dont see you taking your own logic far enough to see how strange it really is. [[btw in order to back the debate away from simple yes/no, i should say that my own position is more where i started in this thread. i began pushing at the fact that what you're watching in it could well be a war crime as the thread developed, in reaction to those whom i saw as poo-poohing it. but i think there's an interesting question in here about law and war and such. not new, but interesting.]] __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-06-2010 at 11:48 AM..

04-06-2010, 10:51 AM	#41 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	I'll freely admit that if I'm on the front lines and there's known insurgent activity and it appears that people with guns are running around, I would adapt a "me or him" mentality. My flag comment was aimed at a much broader scope. We all know that innocent casualties are a part of war. It's going to happen no matter the war or the agenda. I think the sticking point for most people in this is how the soldiers seemed so blood thirsty. I'm kind of desensitized to it as most of my military friends freely throw around kill stories and degrading comments about the people that inhabit the countries they've been in. Doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what they say, but I think if we as civilians sit here and think that soldiers should react in a way that they are killed or in danger more than they should be, we are doing everyone a great disservice. The true faults of the actions don't fall on the soldier's shoulders (in most cases) but the people who put the soldiers into the situations to begin with. Granted, there are just some things that happen that are the soldiers fault and responsibility but I can't fault them for trying to follow orders or for keeping themselves and their partners safe.

04-06-2010, 11:32 AM	#46 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	I understand all the empathizing with the gunner's position that goes on here. The problem, of course, is that that is only one position that is being empathized with. Given all the tough guy talk that goes around here ("they are asking for my ethnicity on the census form? let's revolt") I'd imagine how these people would react to living under the conditions these Iraqis live in (and are apparently guilty of their own deaths whenever someone else gets trigger happy). Personally, the US casualty-to-civilian-casualty ratio is such that I think more hesitation in these "him or me" scenarios is needed. That or let's drop the "we're the good guys" act.

04-06-2010, 12:02 PM	#49 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	RB, I have no interest in making a meta-argument. That would simply piss both of us off. I'll simply say that I don't agree with the idea that there's a great social prohibition against killing - the fact that murder/homocide is more prevalent than incest lends itself to my argument. Then again, I think that humanity is fatally flawed, and you probably don't. As for the incident, let's remembering that the US actors in this are men who have VOLUNTEERED for the training you mentioned. That's important. For infantrymen, pulling the trigger for the first time in combat is the culmination of a life's goal. Well, for the 50% that aren't the slack-jawed yokels Plan9 mentioned. Now, I'll conceed that it's possible that a "war crime" occurred here. I don't give it much credence, but it's possible. Perhaps our triggerman would admit under oath that pulling that trigger gave him the biggest stiffy of his life and that he had sticky shorts the rest of the day. More likely, he erred and mistook one thing for another. That's not a crime. It's a tragedy, but it's not a crime. As Walt said, some of these people had no business being anywhere near this scene. Any self-respecting parent drives away from gunfire. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-06-2010, 12:48 PM	#51 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	and yet, nobody thinks about the war crimes being committed by the big brass by sending all of these kids into war to die...

04-06-2010, 12:48 PM	#52 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I don't think it's a meta-argument to consider that maybe some rules were violated and maybe, as such, there should be some accountability. Very few of us have made calls for any kind of punitive action barring evidence of obvious war crimes, which is not the impression I came away with. And as for those people on the street and in the van, no one here has a damn idea what they were doing or what they were thinking either. It's kind of funny how easily their motivations and judgement are called to account in a 'war zone.' Give me a break. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-06-2010, 12:57 PM	#53 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	MM, with all due respect, it's pretty fucking easy to tell what's going through their minds. Rational noncombatants don't run towards gunfire. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-06-2010, 01:05 PM	#55 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	gucci...i think about it quite a bit. i am still bewildered about the fact that there was no investigation of the self-evident concerning the iraq war in the united states as there was in the uk even. you know, the chilcot inquiry. nothing like that here. most law related to war crimes is geared around being able to hold individuals accountable for the actions of a country. it's pretty obvious to me that there are alot of people in the bush administration who should be prosecuted. but there's that whole question as to whether there is a war crime apart from losing. and then there are other questions about the extent to which we in the united states really do live in a single party state with two right wings. it's only under such conditions that it's imaginable that an administratoin can launch a fucking war under self-evidently false pretenses and nothing happens. not that the chilcot inquiry amounted to anything in terms of sanctions. but i'd say british democracy is alot healthier than is american democracy. but that's one of the bigger questions. addressing it by-passes the clip and by-passes alot of other similar information about the conduct of us forces on the ground in iraq and afghanistan, information that's available in non-american media outlets but curiously not so much here. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-06-2010, 01:43 PM	#57 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	If I knew who that person on the street was. Or thought I knew who he was. If I were a physician. Or a policeman off duty. If I had been living for years in an atmosphere where there was the constant threat of this kind of event, I might think differently than I do sitting here at my computer in an air-conditioned condo in 'paradise.' It seems like you are being deliberately obtuse to make a point that I find it hard to believe you are truly invested in. Just my impression. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-06-2010, 01:53 PM	#58 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I know doctors. I know policemen. I know lots of people. About the only ones that I feel confident in saying would run, unarmed, towards gunfire are the ones who are crazy. I don't know anyone rational who would do so, and I sincerely believe that you don't either. I also think that the plausibility of my argument is much greater than yours, which is why I'm making it. There are a lot of assumptions going on with both sides of the argument, but I've got to say that I think mine makes fewer and ones that are more logical. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-06-2010, 02:07 PM	#59 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I don't know anyone except those trained in armed combat who would run towards gun fire. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-06-2010, 02:20 PM	#60 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Is it really that hard to believe that someone might want to help unarmed civilians who have been injured? It's kind of sad that we're so jaded as a society that people can't even give assistance to dying photographers in the middle of the street without having their motives questioned. It's pathetic even. I can absolutely imagine that were I living in an area where this kind of thing is the norm, I might choose to help those whom I perceive to be innocent victims. Not saying I would, but I can certainly see how I might. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

04-06-2010, 02:26 PM	#61 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	So on one hand first hand experience is necessary to comment on what the soldiers did, but first hand experience is not needed to comment on what the civilians did? Besides, where the hell did either of you get the idea that whatever going on was limited to that exact position and as such easily avoidable?

04-06-2010, 02:41 PM	#62 (permalink)
uncle phil comfortably numb... Super Moderator Location: upstate	i sincerely hope you all are listening to what plan9 has to say... i wasn't in the exact same situation, but he covers this so much more eloquently than i can... damn, viet nam was such a long time ago... __________________ "We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done." - Robert S. McNamara ----------------------------------------- "We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches... We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles." - Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message" ----------------------------------------- never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty; the pig likes it.

04-06-2010, 05:31 PM	#65 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I just hope to god that I never have to live under the rule of an occupational authority.

04-06-2010, 06:06 PM	#67 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Second guessing what the civilians did is just as problematic as second guessing what the soldiers did. I really hope people can see this. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

04-06-2010, 06:10 PM	#68 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so essentially what you're saying walt is that dippin is correct. you speak for the Manly Men of the American Military in a war zone in a way that assumes whatever happens to the civilians and children is their fault. way to go. war crime? impossible so long as the Manly Men of the American Military are involved. that's basically the argument, yes? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-06-2010, 06:25 PM	#69 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	If I was in a profession or position that required me to help others, I would do so, but not with my kids in the car. Sorry, that's just fucking stupid. I think I'm just going to say that more often than not, war is just one huge fucking crime. Killing the king seems like it would be an easier solution to the problem than placing blame on those the king has sent into the fray. The only problem with this is: which king needs to be killed?

04-06-2010, 07:04 PM	#70 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I read all the posts, and I'm soundly in the middle. Monday-morning quarterbacking happens far too often with the military, and I'm at least conscious of my own inherent arrogance enough to know that whenever I start by saying "If I were in his position.." I'm totally lying, because I have no fucking idea what I would do in their shoes. On the other hand, I think a real problem occurs when we aren't allowed to critique something simply for lack of personal experience. Sound judgments about the behavior of others can be made without first experiencing it. We can condemn murder without first murdering. In this case, I think it is a tragic incident (not accident) and I think that the soldiers acted to the best of their ability and training. What I think lacks is their ability and their training. The approval to fire seemed rather arbitrary (and seemed to be made by someone not even in the field of combat?) and I wonder why the approval is even necessary. Is it a documentation thing? I authorized them to use deadly force because they told me they had AK47s and RPGs? Time, date, personal responsible? If so, I think perhaps additional training needs to go towards soldiers of all stripes that they are being given the authorization to kill based merely on their representation of what is actually happening. Everyone makes mistakes describing what they see, that's OK. I don't even know if it's possible to train someone that because they're at the end of a weapon they need to take additional responsibilty about how they describe the events to those with the authority to authorize firing. But it sure would make me feel better if I knew these things were in place. Also, I run towards gunfire. I just thought I'd throw that out there. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

04-06-2010, 07:18 PM	#72 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	An interesting argument I saw advanced in the massive storm of commentary about this video (one I don't particularly agree with) is that this is a side-effect of the way that 'insurgents' are choosing to fight. If they were acting as armed members of a standing army with the appropriate decorations under the Geneva convention, and the van had something like a cross painted on it to indicate it was not a military target, less civilians might die in 'collateral damage'. Like I said I don't particularly agree with it (seems a bit like rape apologism - she was dressed provactively!) but I do see the general idea as being valid. They're not at fault, but certainly it contributes, as do all of the other factors.. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

04-06-2010, 07:20 PM	#73 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	First, did all the "yeah, bad civilian" folks actually watch the fucking video? So we have a helicopter with a camera and several times magnification. For the first 3 or 4 minutes there is nothing going on. Then they fire. Then after another 4 or 5 minutes a van comes along and starts to load the wounded into it. Nevermind for a second that it is actually against the Geneva conventions and the military's own rule of engagement to shoot it. You do realize that the helicopter is actually very far and most likely not clearly visible (if it was clearly visible, then the guys not running away from it would clearly not be the enemy). So basically the attitude is "it is their own fault for standing around within range of weapons that have a range of several hundred meters?" The idea that anyone drove towards a combat zone when the video itself makes it clear that they were very far from the thick of the action is ludicrous. Now, before I get another round of "war is dirty, it happens, etc., etc." I'd say that that is precisely the fucking point. I mean, that is the reason people opposed the war. You can't, whether as an administration, part of the military, or whatever, at the same time spill some bullshit about "liberation," "fighting for democracy," etc. etc. and claim that things like this are "no big deal." And it has nothing to do with "hating the soldier" or whatever spin people want to put on it. Whether or not the rules of engagement were followed is beside the point. If they were, they need to be reviewed, because the civilian-to-military casualty ratio, even just looking at the lowest numbers is unacceptable. Or, if you think it is acceptable, then we should call the war what it is, some sort of neo colonial engagement. You see, I had no illusions about this war when it started. I knew that the civilian body count would be in the hundred of thousands, that there would be torture, and all those other things that we tend to consider war crimes when the losing side does it. Which, not coincidentally, is the reason I was against it. The bottom line is you can't have it both ways. You can't claim a war is a war of liberation and have this number of civilian casualties. You can't claim it is going to be a "clean war" because of the mythical qualities of the super American soldier and it's military and then claim they're "only human." Last edited by dippin; 04-06-2010 at 07:49 PM..