Here is why we need Wikileaks — because when our soldiers carry out Collateral Murder, we should know about it. Good journalism should be exposing this stuff for us.
This is a video shot from an American helicopter gunship in Iraq. It shows real human beings being shot to death. I wish I could unwatch seeing it now, so be advised before you click on that play button…it is horrific.
A couple of Iraqi journalists working for Reuters are slaughtered in the above clip, gunned down from a distance by American troops who claim their cameras are weapons, that they're walking around with AK-47s and RPGs…which I simply don't see anywhere in the clip. I see a small group of civilians casually walking down a city street.
Perhaps the killers were merely mistaken, as happens in war. Perhaps they had better views of weaponry than can be seen in this video. But that doesn't explain what happened next, when a van pulls up to help a wounded man and they open fire again, fully aware of what was going on below them, and fire several bursts into the people and into the van.
Maybe they could see weapons more clearly than I can. But then how did they fail to notice two small faces peering out of the passenger side window of the van? They shot journalists and children, all the while laughing and congratulating themselves on the 'nice' pile of bodies they had produced. And when they see soldiers on the ground rushing injured children to aid, they say, "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."
I am ashamed. We are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians. We aren't in Iraq to help those people, our troops are there to oppress them…when we aren't gunning them down outright.
Oh, and go ahead, turn on your TV news. The top stories on CNN are the iPad, Jessica Alba planning to adopt a baby, and Tiger Woods. Doesn't that fill you with confidence?
(via John Cole)
- Log in to post comments
Maybe just a quibble, because in general I agree with you, but I do think many, many senators were perhaps "pushed" into voting for the invasion for fear of backlash if they didn't, given the climate at the time.
Would it have passed even if every senator simply voted their conscience? Perhaps... but it would have been a hell of a lot closer a vote, IMHO.
The case needs to be made that they were insurgents. Otherwise the rule must be do not fire.
What part of that can you not comprehend ? And why are you so ignorant of counter-insurgency doctrine ?
Even to this point there are still no conclusive evidence to prove that these people with the reuters reports were not insurgents.
There's no conclusive evidence that you're not, so let's blow you to smithereens just on principle.
@ LaTomate:
Scotland was always famous for its Crones.
Oh, wait: you meant Crohn's. My bad!
If any of you guys haven't seen In The Loop yet... you really need to see it. It's supposed to be a comedy, and believe me you will laugh... until you realise whats actually going on.
Refresh your fucking mind browser already.
I suggest you delete system32 IRL.
@469
Isn't it their country? Talking on a cellphone is evidence of insurgent activity? Apply that logic to my neighborhood and I could not walk to the store without stepping over the bodies of pretty much all of my neighbors. Are cellphone contraband in Iraq? If not, why not, if using one marks you for a staffing with 30 mm exploding rounds from an attack helicopter?
Why do U.S. armed forces occupy Iraq?
(I'm considering ending all of my comments and e-mails with this question regardless of the topic, a little like Cato the Elder ending all of his speeches with "Carthago delenda est").
And there is also no evidence that they were in fact insurgents... and given the fact that they were gunned down and are now dead, is that not the more important lacking evidence?
Again, michellM, you seem to be making the argument that it's OK to gun down people who are just walking around a neighborhood, because that neighborhood is known to harbor insurgents and for all you know everyone is an insurgent.
For the last time, this is a terrible argument. Please stop making it.
michelleM:
Good grief. Are you suggesting that anyone walking the streets of Sadr City at that time should be considered guilty until shown to be otherwise? Quite apart from the obvious immorality of such a policy, can you not see how this is utterly self-defeating as an approach to fighting an insurgency, as Matt Penfold has already tried to explain?
I'm sorry, but if this is the logic you employ then nuclear weapons should be used, and all of the human beings who happen to be in Iraq at the time should die. Let's just pick a day. Thurs looks good.
After all, there is no conclusive evidence that any of them aren't insurgents.... especially after they're dead.
After that we should move on to countries that are sympathetic to the people who were killed that day.
Thinking helps some times.
I do think many, many senators were perhaps "pushed" into voting for the invasion for fear of backlash if they didn't, given the climate at the time.
True, and a fair point in re my "no one", but BDC said "we", and I don't think any of us are Senators.
Celtic_Evolution:
I understand your point but would suggest that if you don't have the spine to required to speak out against something that was so obviously wrong from the outset, you should not have run for public office in the first place.
Michelle,
To right an insurgency you need to local population to help. You need to have troops on the ground, interacting with the locals. They need to get to know who is who in the neighbourhood. They need to develop relationships. You need to offer to help them, and hope in return they provide you with the intelligence you need. For example in Basra one way the British tried to get the local population onside was by ensuring the local bakers had flour. That meant the local population had bread. It is a little thing, but you build trust. When the population begins to trust you they begin to pass on little bits of information that can be used to build a large picture of the insurgency movement.
You certainly want to avoid antagonising the local population by killing them. The rule must be that if you have any doubt, do not open fire. It is better to let an insurgent escape rather than kill civilians.
As I said earlier, this is not a new idea. The British worked it out 50 years ago in Malaya. They used it in Basra, and in Sierra Leone. The Americans did not try it in Vietnam, despite a number of American Officers being aware of what the British had achieved in Malaya. Some had even be attached the British in Malaya.
Fair enough.
Dragged in to the Iraq war?
If you calculate:
W = P1*P2*OR
where
P1= probability to convince the American people that leader is a brutal murderous dictator harbouring terrorists and WMDs
P2= probability of a succesful invasion
OR= size of Oil Reserves
then it's clear why Burma and China weren't chosen. Iraq was the country with the highest W.
Next on that list of the highest Ws are probably Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We'll see what happens next...
Oh, and by the way: compulsory re-education for the fuckwit who thinks that the natural opponents of stormtroopers are the rebels from Star Wars.
On that point you will certainly get no argument...
Belarus? Texas? Lichtenstein? The Vatican?
Question for
halo.lcfr
Have you ever been in the military?
I vote for the Vatican.
Words fail me. >i>Supposed massacre? Have you actually watched the video? RPG found? Says who?
The US forces? Remember, they're the ones who lied to their teeth about the incident. Why do you think that suddenly, there's a grain of truth in what they say? They still have the cameras of the 2 dead reporters - they still refuse to release them, and the photos that would prove the reporters innocent (or guilty!) Why? cockup or cover-up? My money's on the latter.
After reading thru the first couple of hundred replies, and scanning the rest as I scrolled, I have to add to it. Yes, it's crappy that they had collateral damage. But as I watched and listened to the beginning, I can't really fault the guys for opening fire. There was reports of armed men, a block or two away from an armored personnel carrier, with AKs and an RPG. Then the guy diving for the corner of the building to get out of sight of the helicopter, and peeking around. My first thought was "RPG!" as well, when I saw him crouching, peeking around the corner, and saw the tube under his arm. Then by the time the helicopter comes around the building, you've got a bunch of guys huddling around another. This screams "trying to hide the guy with the rpg." At that point, opening fire on a group of people who are trying to conceal someone with a weapon that can toast the soldiers down the block before they can see him standing in the shade of a doorway is totally justified under the ROE. I've been over there, it's hell deciding who out every single person on the street is trying to blow you up/put holes in you. The Apaches were protecting the soldiers coming up the street. The first few days of the iraq invasion, (and I'll use the word invasion, even after fighting over there, I don't truly agree with our reasons, but I fought.) we lost a lot of good men because we held back and thought we could just concentrate on the uniformed soldiers. What you thought was a mother with a baby was a bundle of explosives tossed from a doorway under a Humvee. The idea that the guy could be an international reporter with several thousand dollars of camera equipment on him, and not an RPG/AK-47 doesn't even come to mind after being on the ground over there. A guy on a cell phone standing in a doorway is a triggerman for an IED down the block, or a spotter for RPG's laying on rooftops, or warning his buddies around the corner to hurry up with planted the IEDs under the trash on the street.
This is not the Napoleonic Wars, where everyone wore bright colors and lined up on big battlefields. Nobody thought the farmer with a pitchfork was going to shoot at them because it looked like a musket from distance. Every single person walking down the street in Iraq, has the capability to kill you. Be it with a cell phone triggering an IED, or a handful of grenades in their pockets, or an AK-47 tucked into their robes. If you spot someone that you can actually go, "hey! that looks like a weapon, and he's acting shady!" you are actually having a good day, because for the one time out of 20, you spotted him first. You don't have the joy of being able to go back, talk to the survivors, or call up Reuters and ask where their reporters are in a warzone. It's a decision right then and there on if that man is going to kill your men or not. It's a decision that hey, a van just pulled up to the scene, and wouldn't they just love to down a US attack helicopter for the jihad with whatever they have stashed in the van, like maybe a shoulder fired missile brought over from Syria.
As far as the comments while shooting by the gunners, there's not a single guy over there that doesn't have that mindset. It's a mental health and physical health self defense mechanism. I was once told, "a soldier's default mode should be looking for any way to kill someone within the ROE.It's the only way you stay alive." If you can't turn it into a joke and laugh about it, it will kill you by being in your head. You guys think that the revulsion you feel at watching people get gunned down is bad, try being the guy who just got in country, who might actually be old enough to drink,(but probably isn't,50% of my platoon wasn't) and is laying there at night in his bunk after his first day in-country and he just gunned down 8 guys from the side of a helicopter. You really quickly learn the release of gallows humor. I've seen it in every person who's ever been in a combat zone, and I've seen it in every cop back in the real world who has seen his share of murders scenes and traffic accident fatalities.
Gryphin,
How about deciding that since the situation is unclear that it would be unwise to open fire as the risk to civilians is too great ?
Mr Tronzu will be puking elsewhere now.
I feel a bit inconsistent, though. Tronzu was open about his hatred. I don't know what to do about all these people making excuses for the murder of civilians...but they seem just as evil. Just more banal.
Freodin,
It was East, a long time back....
@ Troll
Every civilian is innocent until he/she commits a crime. Regardless of faith, race, cultural background, gender, age, political opinion, opinion about other peoples orientation, etc., you name it.
Period.
Which was sort of the point I was making above... understanding the nuances of a "warzone" and that soldiers often react and collateral damage is often inevitable, and also not being in the easiest position to judge after the fact and with time and distance from the situation, I still come back to the simple visual evidence I witnessed, that showed a brutal attack on a group of people that, whether possibly armed or not, was not justified given the pure lack of combative or aggressive behavior by the people being shot. I just can't square with it... YMMV
apologists need to acknowledge the range of the weapons involved. It has been pointed out several times, but it is the definitive answer to the "heat of battle" and "split second decisions" argument. Even if we are EXTREMELY GENEROUS the helicopter is over a half a mile from the supposed insurgents. They could have moved significantly closer while still being a safe distance away.
If people on the ground were potentially in danger (and I gather that there were american troops in the general area, not the immediate vicinity) they had radios and could have coordinated an effective strike with info from air and ground teams. These people had the comfort of a far superior position, they had the desire to kill, they lied to get the permission to do so, and they continued to do so throughout the engagement. Nothing in the video justifies the actions that followed given the positions of the US troops and the range of the weapons (supposedly) involved.
If anyone was by any stretch of the imagination in immediate danger I could understand a bit of apologetics, but this is ludicrous.
Yes, but he set himself apart by spamming the thread with the same repeated post over and over again... that's a clearly stated no-no... he needed to go.
No, I agree. And as I have said, it is an important aspect of fighting an insurgency. Sometime you just have to do nothing, knowing an insurgent might escape, and even knowing that it might be putting your fellow soldiers at risk. Fighting an insurgency is not easy, and it is not risk free but it is important that those fighting it know that the lives of civilians are just as valuable, if not more so, than your own life or that of your fellow soldiers.
Please, halo.lcfr, enlighten us as to your qualifications that enable you to be so wise at labeling us fools.
As a retired Air Force Major here are my "uneducated" comments: I understand the uncertainty that exists in war and that ROEs are established to minimize casualties. At a minimum these pilots (who weren't young 18 or 19 years old but older, trained officers) knew they were operating over a city with civilians and therefore the default position should be to with-hold fire until they are certain their target is hostile. Ensuring they are firing on a legitimate target is something that I know many pilots agonize over. I did not get the sense that these guys were so concerned about engaging the correct target as they were about just engaging. I won't pretend to fully understand the mind-set of the Apache crew but I do question their decision to fire, and so should the Army.
On the term "collateral damage":
I despise this when used to describe human casualties. "Damage" seems to be something done to inanimate objects - desks, walls, the community water pump. But human beings are injured, killed, or in this particular case, coldly murdered. Particularly when innocents are purposely targeted for extermination.
(I'm not taking you to task, Celtic_Evolution; I guess I object to the way in which the U.S. media so easily accepts the dehumanizing language of the government/military, and how that language attains widespread usage in our culture. "Collateral damage" sounds so much more acceptable than "massacred civilians" to our U.S. viewing audience, after all.)
No worries... upon re-reading I wish I had left that particular phrase out...
I agree...
Immediate danger? Please.
The rounds take about 2-3 seconds from firing to impact. That puts them 1600+ to 2400+ meters from the civilians. They have time to orbit a few times, too.
The footsoldiers arrive about 8 minutes after the slaughter. While we don't see what happens prior, it's clear that the group was no immediate threat, and certainly were NOT, as the aircrew claimed lied, firing on anyone. The PROPER action, if truly suspecting these guys were evildoers, would be to continue surveillance while ground troops approach.
We might also note that we see ZERO soldiers securing weapons from the ground. All those AKs and RPG just laying around....
Immediate danger? Please.
The rounds take about 2-3 seconds from firing to impact. That puts them 1600+ to 2400+ meters from the civilians. They have time to orbit a few times, too.
The footsoldiers arrive about 8 minutes after the slaughter. While we don't see what happens prior, it's clear that the group was no immediate threat, and certainly were NOT, as the aircrew claimed lied, firing on anyone. The PROPER action, if truly suspecting these guys were evildoers, would be to continue surveillance while ground troops approach.
We might also note that we see ZERO soldiers securing weapons from the ground. All those AKs and RPG just laying around....
Tronzu:
Bazooka.
RPG
Any questions, you bigoted fuck?
Something that might be worth mentioning- when the people who committed this atrocity come home they will, as veterans, be given preference in hiring by your local police department. And they will bring to it precisely the same mindset of "anyone who isn't one of us is fair game".
It will happen here, and I'm damned thankful that I probably won't live to see it.
I have never understood the idea that soldiers make good police officers when the leave the military.
The skills required would not seem to have much overlap.
Durnit, I'm having browser issues, and almost every time I submit (ooh, whip me) it posts my comment twice - and yes, I am single-clicking the "submit" button*.
*Sexxxxxy
Durnit, I'm having browser issues, and almost every time I submit (ooh, whip me) it posts my comment twice - and yes, I am single-clicking the "submit" button*.
*Sexxxxxy
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not (I scrolled through, but there are A LOT of comments), but there are very clearly at least two men walking right behind the journalists carrying machine guns (the crosshairs travel over them at about 3:40-3:45). Subsequent news reports also confirmed weapons on the scene. This may or may not change things (I don't know the rest of the context or the nature of the mission, e.g., is it a hunt and kill operation?), but it worth correcting an error in PZ's commentary.
On a different note, while I feel the same revulsion at the gallows humour and cavalier nature of the slaughter, this is just the (awful) reality of warfare. This is how human beings psychologically adapt to the horror of the task they are asked to carry out, i.e., murder in the national interest: by dehumanizing the victims.
It is the same necessary callousness you find in operating rooms. Awful to listen to, but I imagine that thrust into the insanity that is war, there is a very good chance I would cope the same way (either that or go insane). I expect everyone would.
So, I would not be so quick to judge the character of the gunners or the pilots.
Did anyone watch the longer video that also showed the gunship firing a couple of missiles at an abandoned building? The video shows an armed man before the building is targeted, however, as the first missile is fired [at 34:40] there's a passer by clearly in the line of fire, and who is no doubt killed in the blast.
Further, before the next missile, there were clearly unarmed people gathering around the building. Yet they still fired two more missiles at 'em... Am I missing here something, is it common practice to fire even if there are possible civilians in the line of fire? Or is it justified to think they're insurgents? Methinks not...
Machine guns that not only had little chance of doing damage to an Apache chopper, but were out of range.
That and the men were not acting in a hostile manner in any way.
"keeping one of the worlds largest oil supplies out of the hands of a maniac was surely one of the main reasons as well"
A good argument can be made that the "main" reason for invading Iraq was because, in Gulf War I, the coalition backed off from "going all the way to Baghdad" because of the implicit threat of Iraqi WMD. This could not be allowed to stand; it sends the wrong message. As it has turned out, the message was substantially correct; North Korea and Pakistan have graduated from pisspot dictatorship to global player status and have put themselves outside of danger of attack by joining the nuclear club. Iran is currently experiencing internal strife, has been repeatedly threatened by the US, and sees the North Korean strategy of holding Seoul hostage as replayable with Israel as the hostage. Iran's recent moves are not the result of our invasion of Iraq in Gulf War II, they are the result of seeing how easily Iraq was crushed in Gulf War I.
Unfortunately, Gulf War I showed unequivocally that having WMD is an effective deterrent against being invaded by a superpower.
I'm a little late for this I guess but I'm a little hazy on the relationship to where the sight is pointing and what the guy is actually seeing. The main speaker is the gunner, I assume, and the other guy the pilot, right? Presuming the radio is timed correctly, the guy identifies "weapons" in the centre view which clearly aren't (they're camera bags or any shoulder bags), he starts at sight of an "RPG" that clearly isn't (it doesn't even resemble one) nor is it being aimed anywhere by someone trying to conceal himself. That's a coincidence of the corner of the building and where he is standing/crouching (and any shooting is taking a picture of the street).
There's one thing that looks like an RPG tube and the guy might be posing with it. It's never loaded. But this is only identified as a "weapon" when on centre screen. The other guys near him hold a couple of thin things that could be rifles or shotguns. If they're AK47s they have no magazines.
Yet plenty of people here are confirming these weapon sightings, including the threatening RPG. Where is it?
The thing is, these vagaries are all confirmed when he circles around the building again to see some guys casually milling around, not terribly interested in him. The initial barks suggest terrible spatial recognition. The subsequent behaviour, a real lack of what I guess they'd call situational awareness.
I think this is a total disgrace, for the record. But even making a few War Allowances for the situation I'd say this guy was really badly trained in threat identification and spatial matters and his poor confirmation and reassessment abilities mean he should never in the air or behind a gun ever again.
#541
weapons of mass destruction
sorry,
weapons of mass destruction
2 guys, each carrying a machine gun? I call BS.
1) I saw nothing "clear" about any weapons. They might have carried assault weapons. At worst, a soldier can carry a light machine gun, which fires the same rounds as the squad's assault weapons.
2) In order to fire a machine gun, the weapon has to be established on its mount. That takes much longer than the Apache rounds' flight time. Then they would have to go through loading, target selection, ranging, etc. Setting it up would show hostile intent (to whom?), and provide more than enough time to then take action.
Couple of Issues I have noticed anyone address:
1. Considering we are talking about Iraq where it seems everyone owns an AK47 (notice I said seems!) Is it normal that that non-insurgents could/would be carrying weapons? Obviously if it were New York City a person carrying an AK47 is a pretty good bet to be a bad guy, but is this the case in Iraq?
2.Is the Fact that the Soldiers reported Gunfire the key to there Exoneration by the military? Without the reported gunfire would they have been allowed to open fire? would it be against the Rules of Engagement? It seemed to me that they reported gunfire simply as a formality to allow them to open fire.
2 guys, each carrying a machine gun? I call BS.
1) I saw nothing "clear" about any weapons. They might have carried assault weapons. At worst, a soldier can carry a light machine gun, which fires the same rounds as the squad's assault weapons.
2) In order to fire a machine gun, the weapon has to be established on its mount. That takes much longer than the Apache rounds' flight time. Then they would have to go through loading, target selection, ranging, etc. Setting it up would show hostile intent (to whom?), and provide more than enough time to then take action.
Part of the US policy to defeat the insurgents was to make use of unofficial militia. There were often groups that had been part of the insurgency but had been persuaded (for which read bribed most of the time) to switch sides.
I defy anyone to easily tell the good militia from the bad militia.
Warning: Gallows humor inbound.
Let me just check the Army ROE...
Ah, here we go.
Good = Dead.
Bad = Still moving.
Hope that clears things up.
This may be a bombshell to some of you...
Iraqi law, once we took over, allowed every family to own one AK47 for self defense. Apparently unless actually seen with one.
This may be a bombshell to some of you...
Iraqi law, once we took over, allowed every family to own one AK47 for self defense. Apparently unless actually seen with one.
Thus it seems Arguing over if they had weapons or not should be moot. which brings back to the claim of Gun fire ... I wonder if that is what the key to this is?
The cases of iPads are made of plastic, and plastic is made from petroleum. They are also manufactured in factories, which takes electricity, some of which comes from petroleum, and they have to be transported from factory to wholesaler to retailer, which uses petroleum. So yes, iPads, like all consumer products, depend on oil.
I suspect (although of course I am not by any means 100% certain) that the key to the soldiers being exonerated had less to do with the actual events and more to do with internal political workings...
This was addressed in the Chilcot inquiry into the war (which, btw, has received virtually no coverage in the US media). Senior officers and Defense Ministry officials testified that their American counterparts actually believed that the troops would be welcomed with flowers and parades and, as a result, didn't even bother planning for the possibility of an insurgency.
Bush actually admitted this several years ago, but the American media and the Democratic party, in typical lapdog style, didn't bother to comment on how outrageously incompetent that was.
True Bob,
To us 'civilians' submachine gun = machine gun. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to call an AK-47 a machine gun.
From Wikipedia entry on Rocket Propelled Grenades:
"Accurate firing is difficult at ranges over 300 meters and with the RPG-7 the phrase "the closer the better" has always been true. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the mujahideen tended to use the weapon at ranges of less than 80 meters."
300 meters = 0.2 miles = 0.3 kilometers
If calculations by others in this thread are correct, the gunship was at least 0.5 miles away. I don't know if soldiers are routinely aware of facts like these or not. My guess would be that a savvy gunship operator would be purposely positioning his craft to be out of the range of common -- and widely available -- shoulder-mounted weapons like an RPG. It was a pre-emptive strike, from a fairly safe distance, apparently.
We shouldn't have been in Iraq gunning people down in the first place. The blame starts at the top, IMHO.
Sili,
That's why I posted. A real machine gun is a heavy thing. They've made single-person machine guns (submachine guns), but nowadays they fire the same rounds as the next guy's rifle (commonality, just faster output). It's important in of the aircrews, ground pounders and the ROE.
BTW, I'm a civilian, always have been. I just accumulate a lot of mental detritus.
For allegedly fairminded skeptics you do get the vapors without consideration of what you see and why you allow commentary to frame the narrative. I was shocked and still am but at least I have the wherewithal to watch it several times and look away from the wikileak arrows.
Note that at least an RPG and an AK can be seen at around the 3:50 mark, carried by the man in the horizontal striped shirt and his buddy. You will then note they move towards where the cameraman is peeking around the wall. Photogs get paid to get pictures of boom; wanna guess what was about to happen?
At one point, the pilots refer to RPG but the video was away from the RPG and was pointed at the crouching cameraman. This is the reason why we think he was mistaking the camera for the RPG. But this isn't necessarily so; the recorder records what it's pointing at, there's no showing of what the pilots were looking at when they made that call.
This is advocacy pure and simple. Wikileaks and associated hysterics went through a lot of work to place commentary in the video but failed utterly to point out weapons and countervailing reasons why the pilots made the call they did. At least they could have linked to the ROE on their own website to explain why an unmarked vehicle (no cross, no crescent) and its occupants, even if unarmed, was doomed in this scenario.
I used to like wikileaks until this because I expected impartial presentation.
Upon viewing the video a second time, on high resolution and fullscreen, I clearly identify two men carrying assault rifles and one carrying an RPG. So I change my mind in this regard.
Firing upon the van is still a crime.
Nnno... There are SMGs, assault rifles, light machine guns, and heavy machine guns in the list of automatic weapons. Generally they're listed by size of the munition and the weapon.
To my understanding, it works like this: SMGs fire pistols rounds, assault rifles and LMGs fire larger rounds while LMGs are light enough for single-man use, and heavy machine guns are generally more elaborate, sometimes crewed by multiple men or mounted on vehicles.
Examples:
SMG - MP5 and MP7
Assault Rifle - AK47 and M16
Light Machine Gun - M249 Squad Infantry Weapon and RPD
Heavy Machine Gun - M2 Browning Machine Gun
And you can support this scenario in this particular incident how?
It's interesting to watch this video and compare with what was reported in the New York Times at the moment of the incident :
If that doesn't convince anybody of the enormity of the lies and odious propaganda the American military have been willing to spew to make excuses for the murder of civilians.
S. Sev, the helos were orbiting at least a mile out. They had to use the optics capability to identify and survey. The video is what one aircrew was looking at through the optics system.
S. Sev, none of this explains why they shot at the civilians or the van.
Beyond that is the fact that American troops had no business being in Iraq in the first place. The possibility of civilian casualties when combatting a resistance movement in an occupied country is just one of many reasons why the US should only invade countries in self defense and as a last resort.
S.SEV #559
"Note that at least an RPG and an AK can be seen at around the 3:50 mark"
You See an RPG? I see the guy carrying something but there is no way that you can conclusively say that what he is carrying is an RPG.
And as I have previously Noted the fact that anyone is carrying an AK47 is not relevant.
Even if he was carrying an RPG would it not be better to hold fire until you could be sure? such as if he starts putting it on his shoulder? or showing some sign of an attempt to use it?
I am still not sure if the mere fact of carrying an RPG would be a strong indication that the person was an enemy Insurgent? I am not familiar enough with the area to make that assumption.
The Bottom line is that This Video needs to be addressed, It raises many questions and at the very least the Military should be releasing the "Investigation" that they performed and justify their decision.
S. Sev.
Nothing you've said in #559... not a thing, has presented a case that justifies the actions. Not to mention you make the same lame, pathetic excuses of assuming you know what's in the minds of the people in the crowd and on the ground.
I've watched the video as many times as you, and at best what's being carried is inconclusive. And furthermore, so what? There was not the slightest hint of aggressive or combative behavior.
Oh, please... if you want to put your psychic powers of prediction on display, there's a nice prize waiting for you at JREF.
How do you know this? Again, you are making some pretty convenient presumptions.
Correct... so while it's possible to assume what you are saying is right, you have no evidence of this... all you have is what we have, what we can see. I'm not interested in making assumptions that bolster my case.
It is nothing that I would categorize as "pure and simple". It is complicated and disturbing, no matter what your angle is.
But how dare you come in here with the following arrogant declaration:
Have you even read through all of the comments on this thread? No-one has come to any conclusion lightly, and the discussion has been fairly well represented on both sides. You're the one with the vapors, so quick to come in here and blast everyone for what you so clearly know better than the rest of us.
Because it's irrelevant to the point... even if there were weapons there, the apache was in no danger, the small contingent of people was not acting in a hostile or combative way, and there was no credible evidence of any ongoing activity that should have prompted that attack. You've not shown that to be the case... not even close.
My message to the Pentagon..
Welcome to the information age.
#560,
Strange, I've done the same and I only see what could possibly be two men carrying assault rifles. And it's not even that clear. Where did you get a high resolution source? And when (which sec.) do you see a a man clearly carrying an RPG?
Also, what does this make you change your mind about? That the military was entitled to kill all these people because as they claimed after the incident, "they were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force"?
S. Sev,
I've watched the unedited video in the best resolution available and do not share your certainty over the identification of weapons (and I know perfectly well what AK47s and RPG-7s look like). I accept there's one guy with an assault rifle that's probably an AK. The alleged RPG looks more a camera tripod to me. *If* someone is strolling the streets of Sadr City with an RPG, that is as good holding a placard that says "I'm an insurgent." Carrying an AK47 does not however; it could simply be for self defence.
Maybe this video only provides part of the picture, but given the distance the Apache was from the scene, the crew would not have been able to observe the situation with the naked eye and would have been reliant on whatever sensor gadgetry available to them. Other than the gunsight camera, which is what we're seeing, what else is available to an Apache to observe distant ground targets?
Regardless, I don't see how anything you've said excuses the aircrew of the following:
1. Repeatedly passing on false situation reports to their controllers.
2. Gleefully willing a critically injured man to reach for a weapon so that they can open fire again.
3. Destroying a makeshift ambulance.
4.
presence of weapons does not justify the use of force shown. The range of those weapons is pathetic compared to the distance from american ground or air troops. There was a proper way to handle this situation and instead of following those procedures, these guys lied and begged to get the opportunity to kill as many people as possible.
This has been pointed out many times and not refuted. Read the fucking thread. This is not how you beat an insurgency.
More pics http://www.collateralmurder.org/file/photos/5.jpg.html
There's more info on wiki links about this. Including the photograph taken by the man (all kinds of shady) leaning around the corner with the "RPG" that he... uh.. somehow took a picture with.
There is also a picture the foot soldiers took with the "RPG" as well.
It also has information on the other "possible insurgents" now people.
There are no more excuses here.
Whoops, brainfart caused premature submission. Continuing from #570...
4. Despite what I said in #408, the children are clearly visible in the unedited video. Therefore the aircrew are guilty of wantonly murdering children - who, needless to say, could not be construed as combatants by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.
Whoa there. That's a hell of an unsubstantiated claim you're making... And especially hypocritical given that you'd called our skeptical bona fides into question in your prior paragraph. Care to provide some evidence that photographers embed themselves with militants in order to obtain dramatic pictures?
sorry, lots of people posted before my last comment showed up. It was aimed at folks who obviously didn't read the thread but felt like telling us all the things they saw in the video that we CLEARLY didn't consider.
@The Chimp's Raging Id:
The kids survived, thankfully, though they're scarred and their father was killed - he was one of the men helping the wounded photographer.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing.
And don't forget the Lies by the Military that they were clearly in Combat with a Hostile force!
If it were that clear we wouldn't be having this conversation!
The Worse part may not be the actions of the soldiers but the actions of the military after the fact. They CLEARLY misled/Lied to the public of what actually transpired.
I won't judge the entire military on the actions or mistakes of some soldiers, they are human and humans make mistakes. But I will judge the military on how they react to mistakes when they happen and they way they reacted to this is just not acceptable.
I will trust/respect a person/Organization way more if they Identify when mistakes are made and take the right actions to try and prevent them in the future. I have zero trust/Respect for anyone that misleads/Lies and covers up their mistakes.
Its the same as the Catholic Church, If they had just been honest and reported/punished the Priest that abused then I would have (Some)trust in the church but instead they chose to cover it up. Most people will not hold an Organization responsible for the actions of a few of their members if they do the right thing when it happens.
Kevin - that was careless of me. Thanks for the correction. So I guess I should have said "guilt of attempted murder of children". Ethically, this is not much better IMO.
Owning a AK is common in Iraq, walking around the streets with one is not.
Machine guns can be fired from unmounted positions accurately, all it takes is another person's shoulder.
As I said way back up at post #67 they violated the ROE's they should have continued to observe and should have never engaged the van. In addition there is no way they could have known there were kids in the van, we know they are kids because they are pointed out to us as kids. Had they not been pointed out would you have recognized those few pixels to be kids?
OEF6 OIF 8
@ Kevin #575
As I posted in #189, IBC lists the two children as dead. What was your source? The guardian.uk?
@Yubal #581:
The Wikileaks website - http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html
Down near the bottom of the page you can see the kids.
"Common" is a pretty relative term, here. So this matters how?
Even still, the apache was out of range to be in any real danger. So this matters how?
Lets forget about the weapons for a moment.
How does the military in Iraq identify Insurgents?
IF they Identify them as anybody carrying Weapons...then the Soldiers could be just following the guide lines that they are given. Even if this is so When are they allowed to "Attack"? (I haven't read the Rules of Engagement) You must also remember that they are not fighting a "WAR" as we usually define one. They are Fighting an Insurgency which is different.
I assume that if they are fired upon or feel that they are in imminent danger then they are allowed to engage. Under what circumstances do the guidelines actually allow them to engage? If it is based on Defense or imminent danger then the Video clearly shows this not to be true.
Lets also say that there is absolutely no doubt that they were insurgents then what are the Guidelines to Engaging? Wouldnt Attempting to capture them seem like the more appropriate option? Especially when they certainly were not an immediate threat?
RodM...
while I agree with what you are saying, your totally random use of capitalization is very distracting... what gives?
Horrible typing habits..... :(
It is why my wife usually proof reads anything I type! :)
oh and Yuba1... not to be sticking my nose in your business, but if you didn't want to serve in Germany's military, why didn't you opt for the social service option? did it not exist when you were drafted, or was that a conscious decision of protest on your part?
feel free to ignore me if you don't want to discuss it, but I'm really curious.
Such viscousness!
I venture to guess that the people who approve of such action are those that want the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings.
Celtic_Evolution:
I don't think paragraphs 1 & 2 in #580 are meant to be connected. The latter, I think, is a clarification of the earlier (mostly inconsequential) discussion of the classification of automatic weapons. I also do not take the 1st paragraph as being offered as support for the pilots' actions. acr228 states clearly that s/he does not see their actions as justifiable (see #67), so I am not sure that there is a substantive disagreement between you.
d'oh!
nevermind youba1, I so totally missed you were talking about the East.
to which I can only say that I'm glad the Polish bureaucracy was inept, because my dad dodged the draft there, and no one noticed...
and now i'm misspelling your handle. I give up. coffee not working this morning.
Some of the statements in his post did seem contradictory to me... I'll allow that I've very possibly misread it, in which case I'm willing to retract my criticism.
The full length version is interesting if you've got the time and can stomach it.
The radio chatter gave me the impression these helicopters were on the look out for shooters on a rooftop reported by some, I think, HUMVs up the road some distance. You hear Hotel 2-6 asking about the rooftop security throughout the incident and being correctd a couple of times that it's not this particular "engagement".
It's possible references to shooting were to the rooftop firing some distance away and being relayed.
The (large) detachment that rolls up to the scene looks like they're securing an adjacent taller building for that reason, but are informed there was never any shooting from there.
So this Apache is all riled up looking for shooters, the other helicopter pointed out this group to them. There's a HUMV group supposedly under threat and they start seeing things, basically. Radio chatter about shooting speeds the permission to fire.
I believe the expression is cluster fuck. That's the impression I got anyway. Hopefully there's a lengthy and honest reconstruction around somewhere.
Perhaps the icing on the disturbing cake is that later they spot a guy walking along who has an actual AK47. And it's so damn obvious he's got it. It's such a distinctive looking thing. Nothing like the "weapons" from earlier. They then waste the building he walks into (an a passerby or two). Then they take so long trying to shoot it again there's already people approaching it there for the next shot.
All fairly routine I'm sure.
This is the sort of crap you get when a) no rational people want to join the military and b) all the ones that do are so called "patriots" from pro war families, many of which hate Muslims so badly they find accusing the standing president as one a *massive* insult, and even *criminals*, some of them *killers*, who where given it as an "option" instead of jail time. Its also likely no where near as bad as what the various private armies Bushy funded to go over there as "contractors" have done, and continue to do, many of them having the same insane reasons that some of the right wing "patriots" have as a reason (i.e., racism, and religious bigotry).
By comparison, even the bombings in Japan where more justifiable, in as much as there is a *strong* line of evidence to suggest that, if at least one hadn't been dropped (perhaps both, as evidence of having more than just the one weapon), there might not have been a Japan left, by the time we defeated them. Which is worse, extermination of a people that won't stop fighting, or nukes dropped on two cities? I am not real clear on why belief that the former wouldn't have happened, against all evidence to the contrary, makes the other one somehow worse. Its not like we wouldn't have been dropping bombs like at Dresden on them instead, in a final offensive, since it *was*, oddly, a more acceptable tactic.
But, in either case, ***we where supposed to have promised not to do this shit in wars any more***. Only, we have, we do, and the only difference seems to be how willing the clown in charge at the time is willing to break those rules, and build concentration camps, along with illegally shooting non-combatants. Oh, and, as usual, the only power the UN seems to have to enforce anything seems to be directed at preventing interventions where they are needed, whining uselessly, and cowering when those interventions involve one of the nations with veto rights on their council. Not that their own troops seem to do any better, when they actual *do* end up some place "keeping peace". Grrr..
I've never quite felt so isolated. I guess we can't expect to agree on everything but this reminds just how unilateral a group can be.
What did you folks think the guy was going to do with the ROCKET LAUNCHER? Water his lawn? I can't believe that people are saying this group was "unarmed". They clearly had the hardware available to take down the helicopter if given the chance. Apparently these journalists wanted the story enough to ignore what should be obvious.
I do agree we shouldn't be there. Nothing good will come of it. We ask them to kill, train them for it, pay them to do it- and then hate them for doing it. The attitude was ugly to anyone who is watching from a couch, but so is the other side, which I've never seen on Pharyngula:
This is the 6th(!) in a series, set to music:
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=806_1268227926[/url]
Where is the outrage? Let's come home. There's beer and warm, safe, good things.
That was PatrioticAmerican, not Tronzu. And from your first link:
and your second link:
(Not that anyone in the video had a weapon on their shoulders.)
I've never quite felt so isolated. I guess we can't expect to agree on everything but this reminds just how unilateral a group can be.
It must be isolating to be so stupid and blind.
there is a *strong* line of evidence to suggest that, if at least one hadn't been dropped (perhaps both, as evidence of having more than just the one weapon), there might not have been a Japan left, by the time we defeated them
No there isn't; nor was that a motivation, or ever offered as a motivation, for dropping the bombs. For a less nonsensical take, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war
PZ, have you read the military report? They claimed (in 2007) to have found an RPG Launcher, RPG round, and a couple AK-47s. They have scans of 5 hand-written sworn statements by men who were on the ground, to that effect. Also, they have a video analysis by Major (Redacted), who watched the video on a large screen TV (higher quality than what the gunner saw), who writes that he saw two cameras, an RPG Launcher, RPG round, and one or two AK-47s or AKMs.
They admit there were two journalists killed (who were not wearing press uniforms by the way), and that two children were injured.
Do you think it's possible that this was a genuine tragedy, but that nearly everyone in that video is an insurgent? Or do you think they planted evidence, falsified sworn statements, and photographs, and a story to cover their asses? That would involve at least 10-20 people, judging from the ground forces involved, and whoever did all the paperwork. Quite a substantial conspiracy, that.
toffeecime,
Well within the capacity of the US military. They've had plenty of practice.
a story to cover their asses
What would you call
?
rr, there's no way an RPG was a threat to that helo. Learn some facts about the weaponry involved. It would be a SAM that could be a threat to the helo, and that has never been alleged.
An RPG cannot plink a moving target out of the sky at a mile. A single 30mm round can just about cut a person in half. Consider how big 300mm is in diameter, and that they are flying around Mach.
Do you think it's possible that this was a genuine tragedy, but that nearly everyone in that video is an insurgent?
Look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik from 3:00 to 3:20. Why, in your estimation, are so many insurgents milling about empty-handed?
I see no clear evidence of a rocket launcher/RPG/anything capable of taking down an Apache gunship, especially at the range it appears to be observing the scene. What are you talking about?
False dichotomy. Just because we condemn the actions of American service personnel in the video in the OP does not be we don't also condemn the actions depicted in the video you linked to. For the record, I found its celebration of killing abominable and could only stomach a couple of minutes.
There are a couple of differences between the two videos that you seem to have overlooked:
1. The atrocity shown in the OP is the result of an illegal invasion funded by American taxpayers (like PZ) and British taxpayers (like me). It is therefore incumbent on us to speak out against unjustifiable acts being carried out in our name. The acts of Iraqi insurgents are not (directly) attributable to us.
2. Iraqi insurgents have some degree of justification in attacking American forces and their allies since they are there through no legitimate authority. I reiterate, however, that I think the video you linked to is a disgusting celebration of violence for which there is no justification. (Cue the "liberal anti-American scum" accusations...)
toffeecime:
Did you watch the part in the targeting videos where these proud warriors shot at a van and everyone around and in it, despite the fact that they obviously posed no threat to anyone, and were trying to help a fellow human being from bleeding to death at a sidewalk?
True Bob #602: the journalists and other men were around the corner from US ground forces, who claimed to be under fire. The Apache was something like 1-2km away from their target, so I doubt the guys on the ground would have even seen it, so nobody is saying the Apache was doing anything but supporting ground forces.
@truth machine603: I don't know. Maybe they only had small arms, or they were pinned down and hoping to get picked up, or who knows? My only point is that this video (I've watched the entire ~40 minute version) is not enough evidence to accuse US forces of murder and an extensive cover-up of said murder. Who exactly were the other men, since they obviously weren't journalists?
so, "when in doubt, trust the military"?
what a fucked up logic. as I already said about police, when you give people more rights, you need to subject them to hightened scrutiny and doubt. so it should be "when in doubt, distrust the military"
Maybe they only had small arms, or they were pinned down and hoping to get picked up, or who knows?
And maybe God intelligently designed everything -- who knows? You asked a question: "Do you think it's possible that this was a genuine tragedy, but that nearly everyone in that video is an insurgent? " -- yes, it's possible, but the evidence makes it unlikely.
is not enough evidence to accuse US forces of murder and an extensive cover-up of said murder
Well yes, actually, it is.
Who exactly were the other men, since they obviously weren't journalists?
I don't know; who are you, since you obviously aren't a journalist? You must be guilty of something and deserving to be shot down.
Of course, there was no Collateral Murder on 9/11, or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, carried out on Iraq's behalf.
Not that I was ever a supporter of the Iraq war. Vietnam should have taught us one thing: wars that drag on become unpopular, and a democracy cannot commit to an open-ended conflict, because governments can change. Where a coalition is involved, the problem of long-term commitment is exacerbated further.
How easy it is to watch a short video and heap condemnation upon soldiers and all from the comfort of our padded lounge chairs.
@610
wait
What?
@611
It is when the video shows them doing what they did.
nearly everyone in that video is an insurgent
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insurgent
Even assuming that the victims were all engaged in armed resistance -- what "lawful authority"?
Jesus Haploid Christ on a Motherfucking Bike. Were you not paying attention to the part where they gunned down people coming to the aid of a gravely injured man? Is there something wrong with you? What is this if not murder?
is anyone surprised at this level of disconnect with reality in ABQ?
How easy it is to snipe at the end of a thread without having read enough of the preceding comments to realise others have said the same thing.
Your bumper is just positively covered with stickers, isn't it?
P.S.
Maybe ... they were pinned down and hoping to get picked up
You say you watched the whole video. Then you must be intellectually corrupt.
You dropped the word "Iraqi" from the phrase "Iraqi oil" and responded dishonestly as if Rorschach had said just "oil", thus engaging in the classic strawman fallacy of pretending the other person's argument is a much more dumbed-down version of the argument than it actually was. The point was - does the oil these things are made from come from Iraq? My money's on it coming mostly from Saudi Arabia and Texas, and thus not being "dependent" on Iraqi oil.
Jadehawk, an excellent point. I live in Finland, which is mostly an uneventful, peaceful place in Northern Europe. People here are used to trusting their neighbours, the police, the military and their local priest. So when a police officer, or perhaps a goon from some private security company beats up a kid, no-one gives a damn. "Didn't happen or he must have deserved it!"
And I've always imagined that with the power to enforce rules upon other people there would be even more scrutiny for the enforcers.
Oh, damn. I hope you'll be able to decipher what I mean, I'm a little drunk, angry and English isn't my first language.
Of course, there was no Collateral Murder on 9/11
Of course no one has claimed that, asshole.
or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, carried out on Iraq's behalf.
What? Fuck ... WHAT? Even if that nutty claim were correct, that doesn't make every single Iraqi guilty of it and deserving to be shot down.
Who exactly were the other men?
The most likely answer is that they were local residents, as Sadr City is a poor area of Baghdad with a very high population density - on statistics alone that one has to be ahead.
I've heard of the dastardly crime of "driving whilst black." Are we going to add to that the capital offence of "going outside while there's a war on" or are we going to start being sensible?
Relatively poor people who live in crowded districts have this habit, you see, of a living a good part of their lives in the open air - especially in hot countries, especially when the already ropey infrastructure was shot to pieces in 2003 and, in many places, has not been repaired. (Or may have been repaired then shot to pieces again, who knows?)
Where there are no six-bedroom homes on 2-acre lots - i.e. most of the real world - it is common for an extended family to live in adjacent or nearby houses. Had we better add to the list the equally dastardly crimes of "walking down one's own street" and "popping 3 doors down to borrow a cigarette from the brother-in-law?"
Plus it is, as mentioned above, their country and with narrow exceptions like murder - actual, not potential, they can do in it what the fuck they wish. Right?
Not directly relevant IMO. The availability of Iraqi oil affects global oil prices - that's the real issue.
Al B Quirky,
With just one post you've shown yourself to be completely disconnected from reality. The Oklahoma City bombing was, according to Timothy McVeigh, committed because in retaliation for the poorly thought out raid of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. It had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, and anyone trying to draw such a connection is both stupid and a fool.
You dropped the word "Iraqi" from the phrase "Iraqi oil" and responded dishonestly as if Rorschach had said just "oil"
You're being a stupid ass. The original claim was
I know, I know, you have to have a brain and some intellectual scruples to actually go back and look at the thread.
Not directly relevant IMO. The availability of Iraqi oil affects global oil prices - that's the real issue.
Obviously. Mading and Rorschach are both being rather stupid about this.
truthmachine #613,
You're using the wrong dictionary. You obviously need the one that sez:
insurgent: anyone gunned down by the US military.
@The Chimp's Ragin Id #614
Coming to the aid of a gravely injured man. It's all puppies and dandelions, when put that way. Here's what Major (redacted) (who viewed the video on a large-screen TV) stated in his report:
So, that's their story. I think it's at least plausible. I'm amazed at how anyone can draw conclusions of murder and grand conspiracy based on the video, and a suspicion that the US military is filled with men and women willing to cover up cold-blooded murder.
@596
My bad. I was under the impression that the Bazooka was a specific weapon.
Disabling the van and a few human lives and almost disabling two children's lives.
you're confused. there's fucktons of evidence for various cases of the US government and military doing exactly that, on a pretty regular basis. This is already well-evidenced to be normal, so it's not some extraordinary claim demanding extraordinary evidence.
As Matt Penfold has already pointed out more than once, even if everyone involved was noble and honest to the point of saintly, this is no way to run a counter-insurgency operation.
Why, toffeecime, are you so desparate that every American should be entirely innocent all the time? War doesn't work like that and you are beginning to sound frantic. About what I am unsure.
OK...Nobody has even tried to really Answer this:
Lets Say that there was an RPG and there were AK47's.
Even if this is true does this alone provide Shooting these people down in cold Blood? And Does Carrying these weapons indicate that the person is actually an enemy?
Do the Rules of Engagement allow for this? Is it Acceptable to shoot down ANYONE even if they are your enemy if they are not posing an imminent threat?
How easy it is to watch a short video and heap condemnation upon soldiers and all from the comfort of our padded lounge chairs.
PZ, sometimes I'm baffled how you're so quick to judge and how easily you're manipulated.
It's all puppies and dandelions, when put that way.
You're an asshole.
a suspicion that the US military is filled with men and women willing to cover up cold-blooded murder
And a willfully ignorant fool.
toffeecime: well you kinda have to accept that they are insurgents or hostile in the first place. Which, based on the video, people generally don't.
Do the rules of engagement seriously state that anyone helping someone already wounded for being an insurgent is also an insurgent?
They might, but, in either case: Wow. Were they hoping to win this war at all?
(I'm not sure what the point is about a large screen TV. Is there supposed to be a higher quality version somewhere? The footage in this one is already digitally blown up, like a digital zoom on a camera. Compression would do some damage but there's not a vast amount of extra detail there to lose)
Did you even watch the fucking video?
Your quote doesn't even contradict what you're replying to, moron. It simply adds "military-aged males" to the descriptor of the Good Samaritans as if it's relevant. There is no mention of guns, hostile weaponry, offensive posture, or anything that might be cause for an attack. It simply says that a van pulled up, people loaded up the wounded, and this was seen as sufficient grounds to "engage". Actual review of the relevant RoE (see 288) at the time shows that this attack did not conform.
Rev.Bigdumbchimp...you're a clone.
erroneously reported as both a white van and a bongo truck
The voice on the video says "a black ess youv-er uh, bongo truck". Did this guy even listen to it? "truck" is erroneous, but the thing does look like a Bongo van.
- The video is not short.
- What, exactly, do you not understand about people finding issue with mowing down civilians with 30mm bullets from an goddamned armored helicopter?
- How easy it is to come to a blog and whine about people being judgemental. Your concern is noted.
Yeah, those guys really had to slog it from the seats of those six ton dealers of death.
Rev-- succicntly put.
toffeecime,
Where to begin..?
Funnily enough, that because it's plainly what happened. Are we to place greater credibility in what we can observe with our own eyes or what Major Who-The-Fuck-Knows tells us?
I admit I would benefit from being able to view a higher resolution version of the video: it would help resolve the questions of what weapons the group the Apaches fired on were or were not carrying. However, the action taken against the van is frigging obvious and the quality of the video does not detract from our understanding of it. I sure as hell do not want a better view of the two children who were about to be physically and emotionally scarred for life.
Weasel words intended to deflect attention from a criminal act. For shame.
The Rev has addressed this already. I'd add that Orwell probably just turned in his grave.
No, it isn't. As I understand the ROE in effect at the time, they were required to identify their targets as hostile before opening fire. We can debate ad nauseum whether the correct call was made in the first attack, but there was absolutely nothing to identify the guys in the van as hostile. Nothing.
Where has anyone made this claim, or are you simply incapable of reading for comprehension?
@Paul #637:
Says the guy who repeated his contentless comment 45 minutes later. Try repeating your assertions a few more times. Maybe if you do it enough you'll fool yourself into thinking you're making an argument.
It simply says that a van pulled up, people loaded up the wounded, and this was seen as sufficient grounds to "engage".
That's clear from the dialog in the video -- they asked to be able to shoot to prevent those in the van from removing the wounded, and they were granted permission to shoot on those grounds; so of course the report saying that is "plausible". toffeecime seems to think that the "plausibility" of the "story" that the soldiers asked permission to murder people and were given that permission makes it ok that they did so.
Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 12:28 PM:
Why would you expect the skills required for a war on foreigners to differ from those required for a War on Drugs™?
Haven't read beyond comment 150 yet, I'll try to catch up tomorrow...
Small parts of the video were in the Austrian TV evening news.
No and no, respectively.
They must have their day in court. I want to know what they knew and when they knew it.
Get the UN in instead, and pay for it. Staying in cannot possibly work.
Your assumption is misguided – I'm not, and have never been, a US taxpayer, citizen, resident (except for a total of 2 weeks), anything. I'm Austrian. This is the Internet, you know; not everyone is an American. The stuff about "it's not his fault" was from a song by Die Ärzte...
Well said.
toffeecime:
Firefight.
In the movies, the 'good guys' can empty magazine after magazine into a crowd and only hit the 'bad guys'. It's time somebody told the Marines that movies are fiction!
I forget who it was that, after visiting a U.S. military base, said something along the lines of; "All very impressive, but where are the grown-ups?".
And no, I'm not making light of this particular incident, it is horrifying but is anybody really shocked that it happened? It certainly isn't the first example of 'friendly' fire, and you can bet that it won't be the last!
Assange and Greenwald interviewed:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military
I personally didn't see anything wrong with what they did. I have been in that shit hole called Iraq and it is a messy affair. When I looked at the video I could'nt tell what the reporters had and I would have guessed they had weapons as the other AIF's did have weapons. It was an ongoing operation where we were being shot at, killed and and wounded. I also never saw the movement in the van, which was later pointed out to be children, as I was focused on the AIF's on the outside of the van. War is a messy affair and there is no way we can fight and have zero collateral damage, no matter how careful you are.
Combat is a morbid business and their comments where just. They felt that they killed a bunch of AIF's which would prevent the killing of our soldiers. Anyone who has been in combat will come out it very differnt then when they came in. I was not the same person after my one year + 3 months deployment.
I was not the same person after my one year + 3 months deployment.
Indeed, you are now broken, which is a tragedy.
Fixed that for you.
Are you fucking stupid, or what? Shooting people to keep them from escaping your assault on them is murder. Killing people who are carrying their dead or wounded off a battlefield is murder.
Clearly. You haven't recovered your moral compass. You know, the one that allows you to distinguish murder from self-defense? The one that would work normally if you weren't trying so hard to shield these guys from responsibility (because then you might have to question your carefully constructed sense of righteousness derived from being a veteran)?
P.S.
It was, if you believe the report (I'm guessing you don't, and that's fine), them attempting to stop insurgents from escaping.
By both the report and the video, the only people identified as "insurgents" are the wounded, not the driver of the van or the people attempting to move the bodies. These "insurgents" are not "escaping", they are being removed. Shooting at them, or their rescuers, is murderous.
The Apaches engage disabling the van seconds later.
Gee, I guess their aim is pretty bad.
Imagine if the police had stopped OJ from fleeing by spraying his car with bullets. Heck, why not just drop a nuke on people trying to escape -- that's a sure way to disable their vehicle.
I enjoy PZ's blog, but his readers are celebrity obsessed rabid fans who agree with everything he writes...which is a little disconcerting.
Interestingly, googling carrying+wounded+off+battlefield
brings up
has anyone seen the footage of the apache shootin civilians? as the first hit.
Who might those be, specifically?
No, I doubt that. More likely you're a badly camouflaged concern troll.
Nope, I enjoy his blog.
I find it a little disconcerting that his celebrity obsessed rabid fans bow down before him and agree with everything he writes.
P.S. The justifying posts there resemble those here. From someone with an icon that says "snipers get more head":
I ask you, once again, who are these people, and how are you measuring their "fan" status, or how many times they agree or disagree with PZ? Come on. If you disagree with commenters here, voice your damn disagreement. Calling everyone a PZ yes man is just silly.
You know what, xunatz? You can make an actual argument as to why in this instance agreeing with PZ is incorrect in your view, or you can fuck right off.
You're trolling. And boring.
I find it a little disconcerting that his celebrity obsessed rabid fans bow down before him and agree with everything he writes.
Some people here agreed with (some of) what he said, and some didn't, moron.
Is it just a coincidence that so many of those who justify this action are so obviously stupid?
No one is interested in facts, inquiries or investigations. Short youtube videos trumps them all!
They watch a short video, which is all they need to condemn, throw stones and cast guilt.
Oh, seriously, STFU. You can't have read the debate (and it had a lot of nuance) above and still make that claim. You're deliberately trolling.
truth machine,
Your #661 had me reaching for the brain bleach. That was horrible.
...and you're ruled by youtube videos and by whatever PZ writes.
You stfu and get back to youtube.
I haven't read the whole thread here, but the comments supporting the slaughter sound a hell of a lot like "well if they weren't guilty, the cops wouldn't have arrested them".
Not much more horrible, if any, then what we get from toffeecime, antelopecajoe, and others.
xunatz @ #665:
David Marjanović @647:
Hmm...
You guys just don't understand xunatz. He's special -- he's the only person in the whole world who reads my blog and actually disagrees with me.
He probably noticed how much truthmachine fawns over me, and realized that the Seed logo down at the bottom right corner of the page is actually hypnotic.
Yes sir, you've figured me out. Now back to your regularly scheduled fapping.
Matt Penfold @ #535
>I have never understood the idea that soldiers make good police officers when the leave the military.
>The skills required would not seem to have much overlap.
Now that's a vile lie. At least they know how to wear a uniform.
Seriously? It's worse than "not much overlap". Soldier training actually makes for worse policemen.
Consider the following situation:
You're on patrol. You see suspicious character behaving suspiciously. What do you do?
Police training: Take up position and observe. Without any evidence that will stand up in court, there is no point arresting him even if you're sure he's guilty.
Soldier training: Threat! Kill!
__________
I've seen soldiers and policemen on patrol in Singapore's Changi Airport, usually in groups of four. I can't be sure, but from body language and so on, it appears that only the police officer's weapon (MP-5) is actually loaded. It would also appear that the police officer's the man who makes the decision whether the soldiers load their weapons (SAR-21, 5.56mm calibre).
This is almost certainly due to the above.
What Seed logo? All I see is a watch on a chain waving back and forth, with your face on the dial. . .
xunatz,
That the "facts, inquiries or investigations" are being discussed is evidence that commenters are interested — so how do you draw such a conclusion?
The video and audio are a primary source, hard to get much more factual than that, no?
YouTube is a video hosting site; your implicit claim that because a video is on YouTube it is perforce lacking credibility is otiose.
xunatz,
The unedited video is approximately 40 minutes long. You must be very patient person to deem this "short"... either that or very slow.
Also making this statement at #638
shows that you are talking utter bollocks. The Rev is practically part of the furniture here, which you'd know if you really were a regular rather than a low-rent drive-by troll.
What log...
...
Yessss, massssster
He's special -- he's the only person in the whole world who reads my blog and actually disagrees with me.
And yet, remarkably, he's just like rrpostal.
how much truthmachine fawns over me
Don't feel bad, I don't fawn over anyone. :-) But I do agree with you far more often than not. An indication of your selective perception was when I introduced myself at your talk in Isla Vista and you expressed your expectation that I would rip into you, when in fact I lobbed you a couple of softballs. I did rip into you later for telling me to my face that I'm "very obnoxious" when I was trying to be friendly.
I'd like to know what I said that is so horrible. Perhaps I'm naive, but going from the video to 1) murder 2) forged photos 3) forged sworn statements 4) falsified commentary on the full res video etc. is a bit of a stretch. That being said, I fully support further investigation, and if there is any truth to these accusations, then obviously I think the people involved should be held accountable, including (and especially) the higher-ups.
I can't take this anymore. Listen to me: You have lost the capacity for independent thought. You have lost the ability to critically evaluate, on the basis of the evidence, what powerful people are telling you. You should read up on the Stalinist show trials and the people* who actually came to accept and believe the guilt imputed to them by the regime. You're on that road.
This is an organization that lies. It lies profusely, shamelessly. It has very obviously lied in this very case. Step back. Try to imagine these are Soviet reports from Afghanistan or press releases from the Cuban government. Watch the video again and imagine the people on the street as French civilians under the Nazi occupation and the voices of the soldiers in German. Try, try to regain your critical faculties and moral judgment.
*(there were fewer than it might superficially appear, and descriptions of 'totalitarianism' or the 'totalitarian mind' aren't to be trusted, but the phenomenon existed)
SC, it's a valiant try, and you're right, but I think you'd have better luck talking to a coffee cup. I hope I'm wrong. :)
Perhaps I'm naive
Not naive, intellectually dishonest. People have repeatedly pointed out how and why the shooting of the rescuers in the van constitutes murder. There's no need to posit forged or falsified statements.
Blood lust. A clear need to kill. This was fun for them. Killing innocent people for fun and fulfillment. I guess it's hunting on another level. Congratulations Sarah Palin. Here's some porn you and your ilk can actually get off on without feeling dirty.
I'd like to know what I said that is so horrible.
This:
Your justifying the deliberate slaughter of people who are rescuing the wounded, on the basis that such rescue constitutes "insurgents escaping", and blaming them for being "in the middle of a firefight" -- a patent falsehood -- is horrible.
This is an organization that lies.
Even the truths they tell are damning. The soldiers asked permission to shoot towards unarmed people on the basis that they were removing wounded people from the scene; they got permission to shoot on that basis. The army report from "Major (redacted)" reiterates that. But amoral slime like toffeecime want us to believe that this isn't, or might not be, murder. It is murder, and would be even if the ROE allowed it -- which they don't.
TM
You have the bias of hindsight on your side. I watched the original, full-length video, fully prepared to rage at the US military for murdering civilians, including journalists, as Wikileaks so confidently put it, but I saw something more nuanced than you. For having a different interpretation of the events--or at least being willing to entertain the possibility that this isn't so cut and dried--I'm intellectually dishonest.
Let me ask you: put aside the part with the van for a moment. Do you deny than an RPG Launcher, and RPG round, and two AK-47s were found at the scene? Were the photographs fabricated? What about the sworn statements? Do you think the original engagement was possibly justified, or do you think the gunner and pilot overreacted from the very start?
You guys leap at anyone's throat who questions your interpretation of events, and you call me intellectually dishonest. Look up the meaning of the phrase.
Do you deny that people in the USA walk around with weapons of their own?
Maslab no I don't.
So why are they not allowed to?
toffeecime,
You might wish to peruse tm's link to the ROE.
Do you seriously consider that the ROE were adhered to?
If so, under what section of those was the action taken warranted?
I don't know about "allowed to", but it might be a bad idea, with US ground forces literally around the corner from you, especially if you're going to start pointing things at them, be it a camera or said RPG Launcher.
Also, I don't think US citizens can walk around with AKs and RPG Launchers, but perhaps I'm just grossly misinformed. Not that what US citizens do has anything to do with what people do in a war zone in Iraq (whatever you think of the war).
Yes.
(PS: In case you're unaware, we can't disagree, since we're one and the same, as everyone at Deltoid knows. :))
Major Redacted would be a great name for a character in a play or novel.
acr228 writes:
Machine guns can be fired from unmounted positions accurately, all it takes is another person's shoulder.
Depends rather a bit on the machine gun, doesn't it? I carried an M-60 for 2 years and the suggestion of using a person's shoulder as a brace for it is laughable. And that's a light machinegun; it's just a little .308 and wouldn't knock down an apache unless you got very very lucky indeed. A DshK or an M2 would do the trick but using a person's shoulder as a brace for one of those... Absurd.
Why am I bothering? What do you know about firing machine guns that you didn't learn playing video games?
Let me ask you: put aside the part with the van for a moment.
No, you intellectually dishonest piece of crap, I won't, because that is the basis on which we have been debating whether there was murder for the last bunch of posts. You don't get to set aside the case that most obviously goes against you, and instead hunt for something that might not.
But now that we have clearly established your intellectual dishonesty, let's address your strawman bullshit:
Do you deny than an RPG Launcher, and RPG round, and two AK-47s were found at the scene?
It is intellectually dishonest to pose something that way unless the fact has already been established. You say there is a report to that effect; I haven't seen it. I don't know whether those were found at the scene, so of course I don't "deny it", but neither do I accept it. Having looked at the video carefully, I do think that there were rifles present, as I have stated previously.
Were the photographs fabricated? What about the sworn statements?
Fuck if I know; I haven't seen either of those. You referred to a military report, but haven't seen fit to provide a citation.
Do you think the original engagement was possibly justified, or do you think the gunner and pilot overreacted from the very start?
I've already answered this, asshole; that's possible, just as it's possible that God or space aliens designed everything, but the evidence is against it. The soldiers clearly inflated the number of weapons and failed to note that most of the men were unarmed (aside from your baseless speculation about handguns). They reported a camera as being an RPG pointed at them -- as I said previously, I can believe that they honestly thought they were threatened at that moment. But no way did they think so when they panned around the building and opened fire on a bunch of clearly unarmed men. At the very least they violated the ROE, because they had plenty of time and opportunity to make positive identification, but did not.
Toffeecime:
Please Explain why it matters if an RPG Launcher, Round and 2 AK47's Matter? Or even if they were definately Insurgents?
Do you Believe it is ok to gun down people when they are not an imminent threat? Would an Attempt at capture not be a better option?
This was not a battle as the military would have had you to believe. It was a Slaughter even if they were insurgents it was still a slaughter.
Now lets get back to the weapons, If the weapons do justify the actions what about the fact that there were 11 people killed yet only 3 weapons?? that indicates that they killed 8 Unarmed men!
toffeecime,
What, US soldiers aren't US citizens?
--
PS Bush makes historic speech aboard warship.
Pullquotes:
"The character of our military through history, the daring of Normandy, the fierce courage of Iwo Jima, the decency and idealism that turned enemies into allies is fully present in this generation.
When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will. When I look at the members of the United States military, I see the best of our country and I am honored to be your commander in chief."
...
"With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians.
No device of man can remove the tragedy from war, yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.
In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement."
Whoops... Supposed to say "Why it matters if an RPG launcher,round and 2 AK47's were present or not"
In case you're unaware, we can't disagree, since we're one and the same, as everyone at Deltoid knows.
I seem to have missed that. Should we point them to the posts where we call each other nasty names and tell each other to go to a mythical warm place?
See the ABC thread.
I alluded to those.
Guess we'd better stop all planes above my town.
The regular patrols of military jets that fly over might shoot them down for so much as turning towards them.
It is possible for you to walk around with an AK47 if you legally own it. I would say the same of RPGs, as long as it was legal. Second Amendment and all that. You would almost certainly be pulled over and questioned, but just flat out shot?
Major Major Major Major is the bestest name in all of fiction of all time. Of ALL TIME!
I don't know about "allowed to", but it might be a bad idea, with US ground forces literally around the corner from you
You keep saying this, but I've seen no evidence that it's true.
especially if you're going to start pointing things at them, be it a camera or said RPG Launcher.
The question isn't whether it's a bad idea, but rather whether the army's actions are criminal. What if it were Martian airships shooting at Americans carrying rifles on U.S. soil? Would you be absolving the military and blaming the victims?
Not that what US citizens do has anything to do with what people do in a war zone in Iraq (whatever you think of the war).
It's an illegal invasion and occupation -- like if it was Martians attacking and occupying the U.S.
Oh fuck off. My contention is that the encounter with the van didn't happen in a vacuum. It's entirely relevant what happened beforehand. You're looking at it in isolation from everything else, including what set the whole thing off: 4 men who appeared to be holding weapons (we know now that it was only maybe 2 of the original 4 that are seen), one of whom--in the gunner and pilot's impression--was crouched and pointing an RPG Launcher at a US military vehicle, which was down the road (we actually have the photograph that was being taken from the photographer's POV, now).
Now you admit you haven't even read the report, and you're continually calling me intellectually dishonest. Do at least some research, before spouting off, please.
toffeecime:
You're also evasive. See my #692.
And here we have it in a nutshell.
tofeecime:
If you are saying that because they thought something that wasnt an RPG was one that they were justified? That may actually be true, But when Hindsight tells us that they were wrong shouldn't they stand up and admit they made a mistake rather then hiding it?
Even if their actions can be defended because of what they thought they saw and what their perceived threat was, When seeing the evidence after the fact should they admit they made a mistake?
Indeed. Perhaps you should learn some fucking history.
You go to hell. You go to hell and you die. I'm responding to other people, too, and cooking food.
Oh my. I'm sorry we interrupted your sacred cooking time! It won't happen again sir, we promise! [/sarcasm]
Does it make me a bad person that I am not surprised that this response came around eventually?
toffeecime:
Uh huh.
Like I said, evasive.
Much like the Rodney King incident, the evidence is indisputable. Which was PZ's point, I think.
Perhaps. Though, according to their report, they did find an RPG Launcher among the weapons. So, it appears they might have mistaken a camera for an RPG Launcher and an RPG Launcher for an AK-47 or AKM being held perpendicular to the ground.
But this is why I ask about the beginning of the engagement: it does matter whether the men in the video were armed with AKs and an RPG Launcher, or not, or if the pilot an gunner genuinely believed they were, or if they were just out for blood, because that sets a completely different tone for the later encounter with the van--which would have crucial bearing on whether the attack on the van could even conceivably be justified by the ROE or not.
Hmmm. The debate seems to have deteriorated, I suppose that's what happens when all the relevant points have been made over and over again. I take back my earlier point made at #342, the soldiers in the Apache do appear to lie to get permission to fire.
I was fairly decided on the "fog of war" being a defense for the initial incident (although the van shooting is indefensible IMO), however, new info about the relative ranges of RPGs and Apache helicopters have me back on the fence. I plan to watch the full version to see if it gives me enough information to come to a conclusion, but I suspect it won't..
I am very surprised that PZ considers everyone who is prepared to bear in mind the reality of conflict "evil". Yes, in the cold light of hind-sight, those are obviously shoulder bags and maybe that is a tripod and not an RPG, but this wasn't the cold light of hind-sight. These guys were subject to cognitive bias brought about by the context and, having wrongly identified camera bags as weapons, everything else was subject to identification in that light. It is possible those were just words and this was a cold blooded murder, but we will never be able to answer that question. The gallows humour is a coping mechanism and if you want your soldiers to defend you, you have to accept that.
That does not make the subsequent shooting of obviously unarmed rescuers and the cover-up any more acceptable, nor does it mean there aren't lessons that could be learned from this. It also doesn't meant that people advocating that view support the invasion of Iraq or believe that the US army shouldn't take responsibility for incidents like this.
I really don't understand why holding that view makes me "evil".
Don't take my word for this, but the Apache(s) were there to support ground troops who were already in the area, and taking small arms fire. So, it wasn't that the Apache crews were in danger, which a lot of people seem confused about.
Ak47s and RPG-7s have very different shapes. Take a look.
RPG-7
AK-47
It may just be me, but I find it hard to believe that you can mistake those two for one or the other.
That's, like, your opinion, man.
Someone not responding to you for all of 30 minutes is not necessarily evasion. Regarding ROE, I was attempting to establish the conditions of the first encounter. Other posters are treating the encounter with the van in isolation, while I'm arguing that the context does matter.
There are cases where the pursuit of hostile forces, including the use of deadly force, are within the ROE.
Pictures and videos can be terribly dangerous to an invading and oppressive army. Is it beyond the realm of conceivability that these cameras were considered more dangerous weapons than RPGs?
(just to be wildly conspiratorial on the other side of all the trolls)
White House has responded to the video. They don't really add much, but it's good to see this is getting some attention.
toffeecime,
[I refer here to Annex E (ROE) as linked to by tm above.]
There was no "pursuit" as per B (1) (a) ii (Pursuit of hostile forces) in the ROE.
That said, it's clear that under G2, G1 can be obviated.
Soldiers may, but are not required to, use EOF¹ when responding to a positively identified hostile act or display of hostile intent that threatens them or other designated personnel with death or serious bodily injury.
In your consideration, was this condition met?
--
¹ Escalation of Force — i.e. G1.
Says the murder apologist?
That's, like, your opinion, man.
I can't believe you resorted to that.
Like totally, dude.
Someone want to run down to the 7-11 with me? I got a wiiiicked case of the munchies.
"Our military will take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety and security of civilians, and particularly those that report in those dangerous places on behalf of news organizations."
Lie.
Oh fuck off. My contention is that the encounter with the van didn't happen in a vacuum. It's entirely relevant what happened beforehand.
What the fuck does that have to do with whether your wanting to set aside the argument that went against you is intellectually dishonest?
Yes, of course its relevant -- it explains why the army refers to the wounded as "insurgents". What it doesn't do is absolve them for murdering both the wounded and the rescuers. That you treat stopping the escape of wounded people who have (it is believed) aimed weapons at soldiers as justification for shooting at those wounded people and their rescuers, without any further moral examination, is what makes you not just intellectually dishonest, but morally corrupt.
Now you admit you haven't even read the report, and you're continually calling me intellectually dishonest.
This tu quoque argument is intellectually dishonest, not to mention mindboggling stupid -- there's nothing intellectually dishonest about "admitting" to not having read a report -- a report you keep referring to but still have not provided a citation for. If I ever see the report, I might read it. Even if I don't, that alone wouldn't make me intellectually dishonest, you git.
@John Morales #720 this might be relevant, right off the bat: you are quoting from an ROE document (the one TM linked to) which is dated August 2007. The events depicted in the video occurred on July 12th 2007.
Derp derp derp.
I see an RPG between 3:43 and 4:00. every iraqi in baghdad in 2007 knew that carrying an RPG was punishable by death.
There are cases where the pursuit of hostile forces, including the use of deadly force, are within the ROE.
Regardless of whether such cases apply here (they obviously don't), nothing in the ROE justifies shooting unarmed rescuers, asshole.
Quoting the almighty Wikipedia, which is never wrong about anything, except when it is:
I think that's relevant TM. You haven't done any digging in to this story, but you act like it's perfectly obvious that your position is unassailable.
I'm rejoining this fray way, WAY late, but I feel something should be addressed...
Cerberus, do not accuse me of blaming the victim, and don't EVER pull that "blame the rape victim because she was slutty" shit with me. I do not engage in that sort of behavior, and things will piss me off more than when other people do.
What I wanted to do was to address the people who were making the argument that merely possessing rifles in a war-zone is not reason enough to open fire on someone. I felt this was disingenuous. I pointed out that there's a difference between people milling about with AK-47's, and someone who appears to possess an RPG. A group milling about (and by all appearances, aiming) what appears to be an RPG marks them as distinctly hostile to the crew of the helicopter. Why? Because RPG's aren't civilian defense weapons; which is exactly what I pointed out in my post.
Did I say that the cameramen shouldn't have been walking suspiciously? No. Did I say they should have refrained from shooting pictures. No. Did I say that the helicopter crew wasn't overly aggressive, or justified in shooting at the van? NO!
I was NOT blaming the victim here. But I wasn't crying out for the helicopter crew's blood either, as it seems so many here are doing. To me, it was a mistake; a bad, bad, BAD mistake. If you want to find someone to lay the blame on, blame Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for it. I've been against this war since before the first shot was fired all the way up to now; but that doesn't mean I'm going to start screaming "baby killer!!!" at every kid who had to fight over there, just because they were callously joking about people who were just killed. Damn, take a psych 101 class sometime and try to understand WHY they're acting that way; it's the only way to stay sane in that kind of environment.
this might be relevant, right off the bat: you are quoting from an ROE document (the one TM linked to) which is dated August 2007. The events depicted in the video occurred on July 12th 2007.
Look at item 1, page E-4, you cretin: "as of 31 March 2007".
You haven't done any digging in to this story, but you act like it's perfectly obvious that your position is unassailable.
I said that I don't know whether the claims in that report are correct; I also said that, from my own viewing of the video, I think there were rifles present. There may have been an RPG present; I have not asserted otherwise; none of my arguments depend on it. OTOH, you have repeatingly failed to address points made by myself and others, you putrid sack of dishonest shit.
Watch out for those Martian airships, asshole.
BTW
Quoting the almighty Wikipedia, which is never wrong about anything, except when it is
Especially when the article has a tag saying it lacks citations, idiot. That bit you quote is pretty useless; it implies that no one can honestly claim that the theory of evolution has been confirmed without first digging up every square inch of earth to check for precambrian rabbit fossils. Or that it is dishonest to accept AGW without first reading every blog post by every denialist to see if they might actually have disproven it. Nor can you believe what your lying eyes tell you from viewing this video; first you must read the army's spin. See The Courtier's Reply.
toffeecime, you seem to be arguing that, if the ROE provisions were adhered to (something you have not established), then the actions documented in the video are moral — not just legitimate.
I put to you that, if the people who were massacred engaged with deadly force were non-combatants, then the action was neither moral nor legal; if they weren't, then the attack on the rescuing party was in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, and hence neither legal nor moral.
Okay, I was mistaken about the timeline on the ROEs.
I'm running out of bullshit.
My knowledge of machine guns includes the m249 SAW, the m240b, m240 G, M2, Mk19, things I carried and operated for 5 years. Lugging around a DshK or M2 fully assembled is absurd and you know that, as do insurgents which is why they don't do it and we don't do it. As would be attempting to fire either one of those from the shoulder. Being a machinegunner you would know that.
Unfortunately insurgents don't use M60's they use RPD's and RPk's which are significantly lighter than even our SAW. Using the shoulder to support the RPk/RPD to gain a stable firing platform and elevation to shoot as you fly past isn't laughable. Its done all the time in Afghanistan to shoot at us. I served from 2002-2006 and involuntarily from 2008-2009 I've deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh my MOS was 0311, thats Rifleman if you weren't a Marine and know what our MOS designations are. I lived with a bunch of 0331's (Machinegunners)both stateside and overseas. I was cross trained on their weapons. Far cry from a video game.
I submit that intellectually honest people do not need to look to the Geneva Conventions or any other document to recognize that shooting those rescuers was immoral. Intellectual honesty demands consistent application of standards -- e.g., if it were the Martian army and the rescuers were one's best friends, would the shooting be just?
Somewhere in all this another point is being missed.
The offical military version is that troops were reacting to being under fire from rifles and RPGs. Even if that's true this is fudgy because it's clearly not these people in the video doing the shooting.
As I said, the radio chatter in the long video strongly suggests, to me, two incidents are being conflated into one. Which means the official version is at best only half true. Yes the pilots were reacting to ground forces being under actual fire. But not from the people in the video or even that vicinity.
So if the Mil aren't lying, they don't know the whole story and should investigate further. At the very very least.
Yeah, a BAD mistake that cost the lives of 11 people, of which none were positively identified (ie with reasonable certainty) as insurgents. A BAD mistake which was covered up by military command who claimed (see my comment #564) that :
From watching this video, this claim was an evident lie. This was no "clear combat with a hostile force". This was the gunning down of 11 clearly non hostile people who didn't "combat" but were suspected of being insurgents because 2 of them carried something that looked like an assault rifle and 1 carried something that looked like an RPG but was actually a camera.
That's what the military command should have reported after the incident. They chose to lie, to cover it up because they thought nobody would ever see this video. Without the video, noone knows. Why would anybody trust the military? This one event clearly indicates we cannot trust them.
I'm not asking for "the blood" of the helicopter crew. They should be judged. Military command should say that they lied, and take the appropriate measures to ensure this doesn't happen again. Which they won't, so I'll continue to distrust them: they are just a bunch of lying assholes.
Nowadays we've got unmanned drones flying over afghanistan controlled via cameras killing people who they suspect of insurgency. How many of them are innocent civilians killed in the same manner as with this apache crew? I won't take any of the answers of the military for granted. I'll assume they are lying.
Day three and I still want to know .....
* why someone - everyone? - had neglected to tell the men who fired that no weapon capable of being carried and fired by one man had any chance worth even thinking about of bringing down a military helicopter already a kilometre away and in motion?
* why people are being put in charge of 30 mm weapons who are not bright enough to work that out for themselves?
* what it must feel like to live in a country where the citizens are so unused to being told the truth, even about honest mistakes, that they have become passive and will accept whatever someone in a uniform tells them?
* why this whole conversation has been so devoid of historical context - waves to SC OM - or even the most basic of pattern recognition?
I thought P.Z. was against "simplistic us-vs.-them thinking". But taking this premise - okay, this is who "we" are. Then who are the not-we? Who are the "they"?
Well, "they" are the ones who dump chemical weapons onto civilian towns and brag about it, hack entire villages apart with machetes, deal in slaves, shoot twelve year old girls in the head for not being veiled, force mothers to cut their own children's throats, fight out of uniform and use civilians as shields, saw away clitorises, bury gays alive, rape nine year olds, and younger, perform genocide upon genocide upon genocide...
Might that explain a little about what "we" are?
Or is this sort of collectivization of guilt suddenly no longer cool?
This isn't morally serious. This is crap. This is pornography and masochistic pornography at that.
I note the (expurgated) U.S. Army investigation report is available here:
http://cryptome.org/reuters-kill.zip
Cimourdain, we already know your hobby-horse; you ride it into every thread.
PS You cannot excuse the bad by pointing to worse.
I didn't excuse this. This is disgusting, and should be prosecuted.
What I condemned was this pornographic collectivization of guilty and I pointed out what that leads to. The excuse you cite I don't make - I point out how it naturally follows from this crap analysis.
Tuxedo Cartman spewed
An insurgency is not a war zone.
The rest of your post is just a lost whinge about how people have been mean to you. Since you spouted such bullshit you only have yourself to blame for that. If you want to be treated decently, quit making dishonest arguments. If you cannot or will not do that, fuck off.
Cimourdian,
My Lai, anyone?
I prefer to go with the notion that we are all equally fallible, that a grasp of what can go wrong plus a little thought by the individual can lessen the depths of depravity into which any one of us might fall and, above all, that sometimes the institutions within which we operate reinforce the very human tendency to act badly and then lie about it. (See RCC on other threads.)
Thanks for the link to the report John Morales.
This does get more comprehensible, if not forgivable.
Accepting that the Apache were responding to geniune fire from...somewhere and on the lookout for hostiles, and accepting that there were some weapon looking things in the crowd and a HumV up the street, their hasty reaction is somewhat understandable (only somewhat). But as with Abu Grahib, this might be standard operating procedure a lot of the time, but standard operating procedure just happens to be complete crap destined to lose good faith, lives and the conflict itself.
What is still perplexing from the report is how the guy could conclude that these guys were a) insurgents (and not just some guys who found some guns from the other day) and b) the particular insurgents ground forces were in contact with. He watched the video. That's simply ridiculous.
They also leave hanging the implication that, Reuters photographers were embedded with insurgents who were about to attack US forces, if they weren't already. That would be a particularly offensive detail to Reuters wouldn't it?
Read the report by the investigation officer linked to by John #743.
1. The report starts by mentioning that the Bravo Company has been under sporadic small arms and RPG fire since the operation ILAAJ had begun at dawn on that same day.
2. the cameraman peering from behind the wall is mistaken for someone getting ready to point an RPG at an HMMWV of the Bravo Company sitting at an intersection 100m away from the cameraman. Photos from that same camera were found that show this.
3. 2 individuals are seen openly carrying an RPG and an AKM
4. the Apache shot the van to "prevent the escape of the insurgents"
5. After arriving on scene, infantry discovered 2 RPGs of which one ready loaded, 1 AKM, and the two cameras. No coroborating evidence is provided for this claim.
The report concludes that the 2 cameramen were killed for being in company of armed insurgents who had been firing at the Bravo company during operation ILAAJ and for not having clearly displayed that they were reporters or informed the Bravo Company of their presence.
I don't know from which evidence the investigation officer can conclude that the so called armed insurgents are the ones who had been firing at the Bravo Company in the morning. This is complete fabrication.
Also, the report concludes that the people in the van were killed because the Apache crew thought this was a means to escape the wounded insurgers. The report states that Children are no way seen but fails to report that the Apache crew mentions the Children in the audio.
Last night the BBC news reported that the Pentagon states that the incident "followed standard procedures".
Unfortunately, the implication is that this kind of thing happens all the time. That's the most depressing thing about the whole mess -- that's it's a common occurrence, not an outrageous one-off mistake.
I want to know where on earth they got the idea this was acceptable.
First Geneva Convention:
Oh, because they followed "standard procedures":
1. the Apache crew asked permission to engage to prevent the escape of the wounded insurgents.
2. permission was granted
Note that the report states that it is unknown if the van had any connection to the "insurgent activity". But it does say that the 2 men loading the wounded insurgents were "military aged men". I guess being that age is sufficient a crime to get you killed by the American military.
I am utterly disgusted by this. Not that I wasn't disguted by the Iraq War before, but to see this with all the groovy details, the video, the report of the investigating officer which is a complete joke, the reaction of the military after the incident which is a complete coverup and now the Pentagon who states that the incident followed "standard procedures", I just think I want to puke.
This is unbelievable.
maureen,
Once again, you're missing the point. I wasn't sanctioning this - I was attacking this cretinous collectivization of guilt, the sheer wallowing in it.
Cimourdain,
I think you have a problem with words. Still after rereading what you wrote several times, I don't understand what is your point.
Please try to express yourself clearly.
Cimourdain,
Most of what has taken place on this threat is an attempt to assess what the Apache crews are or are not morally responsible in this case. What is this "cretinous collectivization of guilt" you are referring to?
Because deep down despite what Cimourdain says he feels that anything that happens to any Muslim is deserved.
And pointing out any wrongdoing on the part of non-Muslims against Muslims is "cretinous collectivization of guilt"
Cimourdian,
Those of us who, from knowledge and experience, have become sceptical of the tendency of governments to protect their own and to rewrite history as quickly as possible would have been content, I think, to say it once and go away.
We were, though, set upon by a battalion of idiots - idiots determined that the story most comforting to them should be true, determined to ignore the facts and the history for their own reassurance.
If such people then found themselves slapped around the face more than once with a large dead halibut then they have themselves to blame.
As for guilt, those who face the facts tend not to suffer from it unduly. Those who are constantly on the run from reality, including the realities of war, may well experience something akin to guilt.
Their problem, not mine.
Oh I doubt this very much.
Perhaps, negentropyeater, I am working too much from personal experience.
I shared a bed for 20 years with someone who had done things during the Malayan emergency and in Korea which it would have been almost impossible for him to do in sunny Sarf London, when I knew him. What he experienced later was, yes, horror - that he had done such things, that he had been put in a position where such things were even possible - but guilt, no.
Though my conversations with them were less extensive, this is confirmed by discussions with then surviving members of the International Brigades - another very messy war where hardly anyone was being honest about what was really going on.
I sense in those who take a view opposed to mine a terrible sense that they must prove themselves right or the sky will fall in. I don't know many such people in real life so I can only go on the basis of what they write and how they express it.
Anyway, you be the judge.
This is still going on?
Well, at least the conversation has stayed civil...
I guess there are a few primary issues present:
1. Were the actions "Legal"? Were they justified based on defined procedure? When the Pentagon states that they followed "Standard Procedure" they are essentially trying to tell us the answer to this question is yes.
2. Regardless of the answer question 1, is what happened "Morally" acceptable?
Under the current guidelines what happened may very well have been justified, we can debate this all we want but we will never know for sure since we can't read the soldiers minds and do not know if they actually lied or if they were simply wrong. For this matter I am not convinced we should be criticizing the soldiers involved. In a war judgment calls need to be made and inevitably some will be wrong.
Some Questions we should really consider:
1. If the military believes this was acceptable then why did they mislead us about situation in the first place?
2. When 11 people are killed and many others wounded and the official report lists only 3 weapons being present, does this not raise concern that the best actions were taken?
3. Why wouldn't the Military release the video when Reuters requested it via the Freedom of Information Act?
4. If a person is identified as an insurgent should the primary action be to KILL him/her?
5. When incidents like this occur should they be subject to review and investigation by a third party?
Maureen Brian,
I note nobody has answered your questions from #741. Here's my (mostly speculative) attempt:
I doubt they needed telling. If I were to hazard a guess as to the reason for the Apaches' distance from and motion relative to the scene it would be twofold:
(1) They do not want to alert hostile forces to their presence.
(2) They know they can operate their weapons effectively at that range and velocity, whereas the weapons commonly available to Iraqi militants are known to be ineffective.
In other words, I'm suggesting Apache crews know perfectly well the range and capability of AKs and RPGs, and that's why we see them operating their aircraft in the manner we see in the video.
See above. Also, I think the selection process for Apache crewmembers is fairly rigorous. The people operating these aircraft are not, as a rule, idiots.
Obedience to authority is commonplace everywhere, but it seems especially prevalent in the US. I'm not sure why and I doubt the answer is simple.
Indeed. History informs my suspicion of official accounts of anything, especially military operations.
As I said above, I'm mostly speculating. I would welcome correction from people with the relevant knowledge and experience regarding the first two questions.
Hey All, 1st comment on Pharyngula.
I'm not gonna wade into this argument, just wanna point out a little known (and very revolting) fact.
I read in an article a coupla years ago (don't remember by whom, it was on www.counterpunch.org, so might've been Alex Cockburn) that shooting ambulances was common practice in Iraq around the time this incident happened.
In other words, the part of this video that's most repulsive, might actually have been standard procedures (if unofficially) at the time!!!!!
Hey All, 1st comment on Pharyngula.
I'm not gonna wade into this argument, just wanna point out a little known (and very revolting) fact.
I read in an article a coupla years ago (don't remember by whom, it was on www.counterpunch.org, so might've been Alex Cockburn) that shooting ambulances was common practice in Iraq around the time this incident happened.
In other words, the part of this video that's most repulsive, might actually have been standard procedures (if unofficially) at the time!!!!!Hey All, 1st comment on Pharyngula.
I'm not gonna wade into this argument, just wanna point out a little known (and very revolting) fact.
I read in an article a coupla years ago (don't remember by whom, it was on www.counterpunch.org, so might've been Alex Cockburn) that shooting ambulances was common practice in Iraq around the time this incident happened.
In other words, the part of this video that's most repulsive, might actually have been standard procedures (if unofficially) at the time!!!!!
@luyola:
Well it wouldn't be a proper welcome if someone didn't call you an idiot, so... since you double posted (and the second post being a double in itself)...
IDIOT!
There... welcome to Pharyngula.
sorry about the double post. Damned Internet
Thanks
Now I feel more at home already :)
Excuse me for a second, but...
Derp derp derp.
You know what Americans could do if they don't want Iraqis to shoot at them? Not invade their country and kill their neighbors. If you believe in any right to violent self defense, then the Iraqi resistance has every right to shoot at armed soldiers invading their homeland. Even if they Iraqis were armed (in this case, I am utterly convinced they were not), the US soldiers are still in the wrong because they have zero right to invade Iraq and force the Iraqis into submission.
On another note, the troll above who concern trolled about gays clearly does not give a rats ass about international gay rights and knows nothing about them. Because, as any informed person could tell you, in pre-invasion Iraq, being gay was legal. It is in post war Iraq where American supported 'police' hunt and murder gay people. There has been mass slaughter of gays since the invasion, which has been supported by the US's 'allies'.
When I first saw this on (I think) MSNBC, it was pretty obvious that there was no weapon in sight. Wikileaks had taken the piece from a whistleblower, and at some point, the encryption on it had been broken. This is a bit like Pentagon Papers and Mylai Massacre information, brought to an even more cynical public, still sore from 911 and still half inclined to go after the "Islamic terrorists" as insurgents are usually called, much the way they went after commies. Why else the huge "defense" budget?
This is a case which differs a bit from Mylai, in that the killers are not on the ground and not in the least moved by what they are doing. Nor are the victims peasants thought to be helping the enemy. The target is a journalist. The target is the messenger. Can it have escaped notice that the "fog of war" is a mighty good excuse for covering up a targeted death of someone recording and saying things you do not like to be told or to see? And then just for good measure, kill a bunch of people around him to make it look like a terrible mistake, which is then covered up. Until someone tells. Until another message gets through. There have been a disproportionate number of journalists killed in Iraq, right from the start. How many died from "friendly fire" as here? What is the "take away"? How has the art of journalism morphed into pure propaganda?
More leaks please. And faster.
maureen,
I don't believe the reason why the Apache crew killed all these people had anything to do with them thinking they were at risk of being shot down.
Reading the investigation report:
1. the mission of the Bravo company infantry on the ground and of the two helicopters that were in direct support was to "clear the sector and look for weapons caches".
2. the soldiers on the ground and an HMMWV were only 100m away from the group of men when they were spotted by the helicopter.
3. when they saw one man peering on the side of the wall pointing what thay thought was an RPG, but was in fact a camera, in direction of the HMMWV, they decided to engage.
Then the rest follows.
This is all the result of a tragic fuck up of mistaking a camera for an RPG.
I don't think the blame should rest solely on the helicopter crew. I think more about those in the military command who believe one can handle an insurgency with these kind of means. It is bound to result in numerous fuck ups of that sort where innocent civilians (in this case reporters and other men and a couple of children) are mistaken for insurgents and murdered or severely injured for the only reason of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. How can one assume that a helicopter crew with a camera is going to be able to distinguish the details of a scene and make the correct judgement? It's ridiculous.
Think about now, the military is using unmanned drones controlled via camera to do the same thing in Afghanistan. Imagine the number of tragic fuck ups of the same sort that must be happening every day over there without anybody in the West seeing it as clearly as on this video.
"the United States military does everything that it can to avoid civilian casualties, to limit the impact of any military operations on the civilian population and, most importantly, to take action where our soldiers do not follow the rules."
--Tom Casey, U.S. State Department spokesman, June 2, 2006
Can a lie be more tragic than this one?
This is all the result of a tragic fuck up of mistaking a camera for an RPG.
Bullshit; regardless of whether you think their initial attack (forget that fucking "engagement" euphemism) can be justified, their attack on the van -- a man and his daughters heading to their tutor and stopping to help wounded men -- is a war crime. And if you watch the full 39 minute footage, that's not the end of it. And this is just one video and one incident; this sort of thing happens all the time, but usually with no Reuters reporters killed that raise it to awareness.
"they" are the ones who dump chemical weapons onto civilian towns and brag about it, hack entire villages apart with machetes, deal in slaves, shoot twelve year old girls in the head for not being veiled, force mothers to cut their own children's throats, fight out of uniform and use civilians as shields, saw away clitorises, bury gays alive, rape nine year olds, and younger, perform genocide upon genocide upon genocide...
I don't see anyone in this video doing any of those things.
Might that explain a little about what "we" are?
Well, yes, that sort of racist generalization is part of the explanation.
Quite. But I ain't in that video either - so what's all this "this is who we are" crap? Who, exactly, is this "we"?
That was my point to begin with.
What is this "cretinous collectivization of guilt" you are referring to?
Hmm, I thought he was quite clear about referring to PZ's
What's odd is that he asks who "we" is. "we" is "the U.S.", a fairly well-defined collective entity. It is as a collective entity that we invaded Iraq. That does not mean that each individual American is guilty of what is done by the collective -- "collectivist guilt" is a strawman. But if one identifies at all with this collective, then there is reason to feel shame about its bad actions, without holding oneself personally culpable.
That was my point to begin with.
Your point is ridiculous. America acts as a collective -- Islam, or whatever collective under which you are trying to fold all those disparate acts, does not.
truth machine, if you phrase it like that then there's a reasonable case there. But there's also a corollary:
Then the "they" is the "Ummah", a fairly well-defined collective entity. It is as a collective entity that it has practiced Jihad, slavery etc. [see previous list]. But if one identifies at all with this collective, then there is reason to feel shame about its bad actions.
But I ain't in that video either - so what's all this "this is who we are" crap?
I'm a member of the board of an organization. We voted to do X. I didn't, but we did. I think it was wrongheaded, and I feel a bit ashamed that my organization took this position. This isn't a difficult concept for most people (but might be for people with autistic spectrum disorders).
Ah, just seen your response. Sorry, truth machine, you're wrong there. You want it both ways. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Look up "Ummah".
wtf is the hangup on PZ's "we"?
it's an entirely appropriate phrasing, for several reasons. First, as a repudiation of American exceptionalism and imperialism, it's a repudiation of the myth of the heroic American "we". And second, it's there to remind Americans that they pay taxes for this, and their representatives voted for this. and the only way to end this and not see it happen again is loud activism; simply saying "I didn't vote for this" isn't enough.
But if one identifies at all with this collective, then there is reason to feel shame about its bad actions.
Yes, there is, which is why many Muslims express shame about some of what has been done in the name of Islam. But
It is as a collective entity that it has practiced Jihad, slavery etc.
Well, no, that's false and sophistic. But let's take it as a stipulation for the sake of this discussion.
You want it both ways.
Fine, we should feel shame about what is done by our collective and they should feel shame about what is done by their collective. You lose.
Cimourdain wants to argue against the sentiment "As an American, I feel ashamed of what America has done". He can't help but lose that argument, and look foolish in the process.
But let's take it as a stipulation for the sake of this discussion.
But now let's revisit it:
"The U.S. invaded Iraq".
"The Ummah saws away clitorises".
Oops, no -- even ignoring the fact that female genital mutilation is a cultural practice in Asia and Africa that predates Islam and is not endorsed by it.
I thought P.Z. was against "simplistic us-vs.-them thinking". But taking this premise - okay, this is who "we" are. Then who are the not-we? Who are the "they"? Well, "they" are [the Ummah]
Hey, Cimourdain, you moron, PZ did not say anything about us-against-them, you did. He only wrote of "we" -- Americans. The "not-we" is ... everyone who isn't American; duh. Plenty of them have their own matters to be ashamed of, but you should be ashamed of your idiotic false dichotomy -- not that there's any chance you are.
This is pornography and masochistic pornography at that.
See no evil.
Most people who have seen this feel that they have learned something important by doing so. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-bronstein/the-wikileaks-incident-ho_…
He has shown time and time again that he is unable to post here without looking foolish in the end. If you feel ashamed because we killed civilians in some Muslim country, you're a fool. We're under attack by the Islamists, and do you think they would feel bad if a suicide bomber blew you up? No, so you're just showing how weak you are. You wouldn't last a day in Cimourdain's post-apocalyptic world where the Muslims have overthrown Western civilization (which will happen if we don't act now to stop Muslims from immigrating to Western countries).
But anyway, thanks for calling him on his shit. I hate seeing it go unanswered, but I'm not willing to attempt to engage him in serious discussion. He's shown many times before it's a futile endeavor, and if you get the upper hand he'll just slink off and come back the next time someone says something not hostile enough about a Muslim or someone in a Muslim-dominated country.
if you get the upper hand he'll just slink off
Fine with me. The guy's an idiot, who here projected his own "us-vs-them" ideology on PZ where PZ expressed no such thing, and he then proceeded to attribute "dump chemical weapons onto civilian towns and brag about it, hack entire villages apart with machetes, deal in slaves, shoot twelve year old girls in the head for not being veiled, force mothers to cut their own children's throats, fight out of uniform and use civilians as shields, saw away clitorises, bury gays alive, rape nine year olds, and younger, perform genocide upon genocide upon genocide..." to "the Ummah" while pretending that he was arguing against collective guilt. Stupid and vile.
TM,
I should have written "the initial attack is the result of..." and not "this is all the result of..."
I don't think the initial attack can be justified. All this shows is that it's impossible to determine with reasonable certainty on a small video screen on the Apache (seen only once and in the action) if the group of men were insurgent getting ready to engage in hostile fire or if they were innocent civilians.
This kind of air operation to take down insurgents is bound to lead to countless innocent civilian deaths.
If public opinion can't find a way to stop the war in Afghanistan, there should be no doubt that we must at least try to stop the military from doing this.
@truth machine #772
"...their attack on the van -- a man and his daughters heading to their tutor and stopping to help wounded men -- is a war crime."
I can understand this statement if the men firing with weapons knew ahead of time that they were firing on an innocent man with his children.
However, the video does not suggest that they knew that (presuming we're only going off the information in the video). They seem to have believed that the unmarked van was picking up wounded and weapons; perhaps to use the weapons against the soldiers on the ground, perhaps to do something else. The men firing did not know the intent of the men (4 to 5 was the original estimate) in the unmarked van.
I do understand the argument that they shouldn't have fired because they didn't know the intent of the men in the unmarked van. Someone earlier made that exact argument, stating that it was better to be safe than sorry when it came to the innocent civilians.
To say what had happened is horrendous is something I would agree with, but to claim it a war crime is over reacting; then men firing did not know there were children in that van until the men on the ground arrived at the scene.
I could be wrong, but if so, I would like someone to point out where in the video the men firing noticed the children before they started firing.
I should have written "the initial attack is the result of..." and not "this is all the result of..."
Well, ok then. :-)
I can understand this statement if the men firing with weapons knew ahead of time that they were firing on an innocent man with his children.
Uh, it's not a war crime because the man was delivering his children to a session with their tutors, it's a war crime because they fired upon unarmed wounded and upon unarmed rescuers of the wounded, which is strictly verboten by military tradition, the Geneva conventions, the ROE, and basic morality. If you think that a belief on the part of the soldiers that those in the van might be picking up weapons justifies slaughtering them, then you are as morally bankrupt as they are.
@truth machine #791
"If you think that a belief on the part of the soldiers that those in the van might be picking up weapons justifies slaughtering them, then you are as morally bankrupt as they are."
If the men really were picking up weapons to use them against the soldiers on the ground, would you think the apache would have been justified in shooting? Or is this only a case of, "well, thery really were there to help, so this is all wrong" type of thing?
Or do you believe it is wrong because the apache fired first, instead of returning fire (which was the ROE when I was there).
To say what had happened is horrendous is something I would agree with, but to claim it a war crime is over reacting; then men firing did not know there were children in that van until the men on the ground arrived at the scene.
The war crime isn't shooting at children! It's shooting at a non-hostile target that is only recovering the wounded. At no point were they given grounds to assume hostile intent from the people in the van (unless you count the despicable statement in the report that describes them as "military-aged men" as if that has any relevance to their offensive posture). What is so difficult about this? It's been stated at least a dozen times in this thread.
It doesn't matter if they didn't know there were kids. They shot at non-hostile civilians that were clearly leaving the field.
presuming we're only going off the information in the video
I really have to wonder if you did watch it. The soldiers repeatedly say they can't see any weapons -- they want the crawling man to pick one up so they can shoot him -- before saying "we have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons. Let me engage.". Do you really think that's all it takes -- a possibility that rescuers will pick up weapons that are nowhere in sight -- to justify shooting them? If so, you are one fucked up individual. It's a war crime -- stop being complicit in it with your rationalizations.
If the men really were picking up weapons to use them against the soldiers on the ground, would you think the apache would have been justified in shooting?
It's a moot question, since they obviously did no such thing. The issue isn't it would have been a war crime if different things had happened, the issue is whether it was a war crime. It was.
Or do you believe it is wrong because the apache fired first, instead of returning fire (which was the ROE when I was there).
First? The Apache fired, period. On the ground there were no weapons, no one looking for weapons no one holding weapons, no one firing weapons. Sheesh.
P.S.
to claim it a war crime is over reacting
Fuck off, asshole.
@truth machine,
I was asking a hypothetical, but since you're incapable of expanding your mind to something outside the situation at hand, then I'm done talking to you.
Also, I would recommend you stop with the projecting of beliefs/actions onto others; you sound like the classic type of person PZ rails against on this blog when you do such.
Good luck, and enjoy your day.
I was asking a hypothetical
You fool no one, you stupid fucking dishonest asshole. Your hypotheticals are a dodge, much like when people justify torture by posing hypotheticals that don't reflect the situation at hand.
since you're incapable of expanding your mind to something outside the situation at hand
Fuck you, you piece of shit. This was unambiguously a war crime; had someone stepped out of the van and picked up a weapon and pointed it at troops or otherwise taken hostile action, it wouldn't have been.
Good luck, and enjoy your day.
Fuck off and go to hell.
@TM:
Fuck off, asshole.
You know what? You are right, it's likely a war crime, war crimes happen in warfare and some groups are more prone than others.
In any case, not only are you right, you are also a jerk. How is it possible to be such a dick when making a point? In any case though, I know that's how we roll at Pharyngula, and since Jarred is too polite to strike out, I will...
You can suck the hemorrhoids out of my anus, you big bundle of sticks.
In any case, this thread is over, might as well have a flame war.
The point is, nobody cares about your hypothetical. You brought it up to avoid having to support your claim that "to claim it is a war crime is over reacting".
We don't care about your hypotheticals, if you're only using them to distract from the very serious issue at hand. And it sure appears that way. If you think they highlight something relevant or important, feel free to explain how instead of just crying that people aren't interested in following your dissembling.
You are right
Which is what people should care about, not your putrid tone trolling. Jarred is an asshole who refused to address the arguments I made in #794 and #795. He stupidly seized upon the issue of children, when that isn't what makes this a war crime. He never conceded his error, instead claiming -- groundlessly -- that calling this a war crime is an overreaction. It isn't, it's quite appropriate and the reasons for it were given, reasons he has failed to refute or even rebut.
You brought it up to avoid having to support your claim that "to claim it is a war crime is over reacting".
Exactly so. But this is the sort of bad faith that idiots like zeroang3l#979a3 excuse for being "polite".
@TM:
putrid tone trolling
I have honestly never heard that one before. Anyhow, enjoy, I gotta go pick up my son from daycare, I'll be on the lookout for US soldiers, suicide bombers or just plain assholes behind the wheel as opposed to on the Internet.
This thread is only over when PZ says it's over, idiot.
It would have been over long ago if the US did not produce quite so many people inclined towards special pleading and lacking any intellectual discipline or an ability to assess either facts or law.
assholes behind the wheel
Check your mirror.
How do you know this?
because they're obviously independent variables. d'uh?
and no, a flame war is pointless invective. are you saying you have nothing of value to contribute, then indeed, go away.
In any case, this thread is over
How do you know this?
The same way, neg, that he knows if Americans did it then it can't possibly be a war crime.
Oh hey look, it's zeroangel, who says things like
Are we going for an encore, because civilians are giving honest opinions about how servicemembers comport themselves? As I recall, zeroangel can get quite angry when one says they would give their real opinion about war and how soldiers behave in war to a soldier (I mean, that thread left such an impression I remembered him, and I'm horrible with names...).
The same way, neg, that he knows if Americans did it then it can't possibly be a war crime.
That's not fair -- perhaps you have mixed up the players? zeroang3l said "it's likely a war crime, war crimes happen in warfare and some groups are more prone than others."
The thread is over because all the arguments have been rehashed several times now. I've actually read this whole thing. There is nothing more to contribute because there is nothing more to discuss, any point that has been made in the last 100 or so comments has already been made in the first 700.
By all means, keep it up, I'll probably keep reading and no doubt you guys will keep responding.
Paul: of course you are right, If I wanted to hide who I was I would have used a different nick. In any case, I've already agreed that these particular pilots were wrong.
I don't think this 'hypothetical' made all that much sense anyway:
If they had been hardened insurgents knowingly driving their van into a firefight, intending to join the "battle" right after they picked up their wounded... why wouldn't they bring their own guns?
truth machine OM,
You are right. I did get confused and apologise.
I've actually read this whole thing.
Oh. Well then.
If they had been hardened insurgents knowingly driving their van into a firefight, intending to join the "battle" right after they picked up their wounded... why wouldn't they bring their own guns?
What? What? Haven't you heard? You cannot bring up a new and valid point, because the thread is over.
@TM:
Your mom called, she said PZ is actually your father so I don't have to pay child support anymore. :)
zero, you should read #807, and also #810, before you dig that hole any further.
@TM
Fushta!
Jarred C. @ #792
Did you watch the video? They were not picking up weapons, they were not picking up bodies. They only picked up one wounded man, before they were shot at.
You must be new here
We can expect serious problems when we send children like zero to war.
See, something new to discuss:
U.S. military weighs renewing probe over Iraq video
Also:
I hope this story continues to get more exposure.
And Zeroangel, you were wrong. This thread isn't over yet.
You must be new here
Not really.
@TM:
We can expect serious problems when we send children like zero to war.
Yet another reason for the draft (aside from making the hawks think twice about voting for war), dog knows we need folks like you on the battlefield. I'm sure you support such a policy.
Neg:
And Zeroangel, you were wrong. This thread isn't over yet.
It certainly appears you are right.
Should know better then.
@negentropyeater, 821
Did you also see that the military has cannot find their copy of the footage? The cynic in me was thinking they'd use that as grounds to say they could not verify the clip as authentic, but being more realistic it is too widespread for them to be able to disavow like that. Once people see images, they can't just sweep things away (hell, even if the video is forged or heavily doctored, like the ACORN ones). This isn't like when they managed to keep the torture photos out of general circulation...
Don't be absurd, Zeroangel. The thread isn't over until someone explicitly compares someone else to Hitler.
Noktieran you little Hitler wanna be.
You know who liked bacon?
Hitler.
How do you feel now, Rev?
Humm, I have a craving for bacon
Yet another reason for the draft (aside from making the hawks think twice about voting for war), dog knows we need folks like you on the battlefield. I'm sure you support such a policy.
I was eligible for the VietNam draft but I rolled a high number; I understand its upsides and downsides. One of its downsides is life and death decisions made by people as immature as you are.
Should know better then.
Oh, he does; the point of my link is that he knows very well how to be a dick while making a point.
Paul,
it also says they don't dispute the authenticity of the video.
No, the cynic in me is thinking that they'll probably reopen the investigation, conclude to some wrong doing, make an example, and the usually complacent American media will use this to show how great the military is and most of the usually gullible American public will say Amen... And of course this kind of stuff will continue going on in Afghanistan in total impunity.
@TM
One of its downsides is life and death decisions made by people as immature as you are.
...and yet I've correctly identified the pilots as wrong. Besides, are you talking about a downside with the draft or with volunteer service?
So did you support the draft during Vietnam or not? Do you currently support such a thing?
@TM
Oh, he does; the point of my link is that he knows very well how to be a dick while making a point.
OK, Uncle! That was pretty cool, I LOLed.
According to http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6/massacre_caught_on_tape_us_military "The US military has confirmed the authenticity of newly released video showing US forces indiscriminately firing on Iraqi civilians".
@TM
Oh, he does; the point of my link is that he knows very well how to be a dick while making a point.
...don't forget though, I have an excuse, I'm all fucked up because I got PTSD and am "broken," what's your excuse?
zeroang3l,
What about the system and process that enabled that wrongness to occur?
What about their exoneration in the Army report immediately afterwards?
Is negentropyeater @832 really being cynical, or just realistic?
John:
There appears to be a great many things wrong with what happened. I have confidence that our system of government, our society, our open media, and even our military will do the best they can to sort it out. PZ is doing his part here, I may not be fond of the tone, but I can't argue the main points.
There's more I'd like to say to you on this topic (related to personal experiences) I think, but I'd rather do it on a different medium.
yet I've correctly identified the pilots as wrong
So what? That doesn't change the fact of how obviously immature you are.
Besides, are you talking about a downside with the draft or with volunteer service?
Having trouble with reading comprehension? I clearly referred to the upsides and downsides of the draft. Of course, voluntary service also has upsides and downsides.
So did you support the draft during Vietnam or not?
I opposed the war, so of course I did not support the draft that made possible its execution; I also oppose forced servitude. But, while I personally benefitted from a student deferral through 1969, I recognized the justice of ending them and instituting a lottery instead. But the whole effort stank.
Do you currently support such a thing?
What I support is a radical reduction in U.S. military spending and involvements. Within that framework, I think that voluntary force is better than a draft for a number of reasons, including opposition to forced servitude and the disruption of people's lives that comes with a draft.
“Cynical realism—it’s the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation.” - Aldous Huxley
I'm all fucked up because I got PTSD and am "broken," what's your excuse?
I don't need an excuse; as Jadehawk suggested in #807, my invective isn't pointless. I have good and valid reasons for why I responded to Jarred as I did.
I have confidence that our system of government, our society, our open media, and even our military will do the best they can to sort it out.
Well, aren't you the stupid one.
@TM:
So what? That doesn't change the fact of how obviously immature you are.
*YAWN*
including opposition to forced servitude and the disruption of people's lives that comes with a draft.
...so it's fair to say that, if for example, in some future world where the US drastically reduces it's forces and then some yet unknown power attacks our shores you'd rather have other people do the fighting on your behalf?
my invective isn'tpointless.
…funny, I thought all invective was pretty much pointless. OK, it’s funny though, you got me there.
Well, aren't you the stupid one.
Your mom. Seems to me the fact that PZ is even able to post this story and we are even able to discuss it speaks pretty well of our society, our government (of which our military is a part), and our media. But then, I’m a glass half-full kind of guy.
@Weed Monkey, #818
"Did you watch the video? They were not picking up weapons, they were not picking up bodies. They only picked up one wounded man, before they were shot at."
Yeah, I know. I was basing it off what the pilots were saying, not what actually happened. To me, that's key to this issue; it's about what the pilots were thinking that makes the difference between a horrible event and a war crime.
I don't believe that the pilots thought they were shooting at innocent and unarmed men in the beginning of the video. I think they actually thought there were weapons. It's less clear when they shot the van, but it seems to me that they believed they were justified in shooting. Were they? I'm not certain. It seems as if the Apache was firing in order to protect the ground troops, but I don't know the full details of the incident, or if my assessment accurately reflects the true events. All I'm seeing from this one video is a video designed to bring up strong emotions about something bad. To truly make my own decision on what happened, I would need to see all the other details.
However, simply because I think this is a horrible event, and most likely not a war crime, I'm somehow "morally bankrupt" according to some people.
I'm not really sure how this means that I am justifying what happened; from my perspective, I'm merely trying to understand what happened (as well as expand on the subject of morality with a few individuals). Without knowing all details, I do not believe I'm qualified in making an accurate judgment of the events (and still be able to claim intellectual honesty).
I'm very good at separating my emotions from logical thinking during situations such as this; it's what kept me alive during the war, it's what allowed me to excel when I was an EMT for two years, and it's what is making my career as a forensic investigator.
If you really want to see a war crime, watch the movie, "Shot Through the Heart." It's a true story about the Balkan wars, with two snipers who were once friends, ending up on opposing sides. At one point, one of the snipers is firing into a city intentionally targeting women and children who walk out of their homes in search of food and water. This happened day after day. To me, that is a war crime. The sniper intentionally targeted innocent women and children, knowing full well they were not a threat, for the purpose of causing terror.
/Ah well, with strong emotions involved, it's often difficult to have a rational and civil conversation.
Paul @ #825,
Gawker had a bit of a chuckle at the 'misplaced' video. Or should that be 'videos', as we know there were two Apaches involved, and presumably the other aircraft has a similar gun camera video.
negentropyeater @ #832,
Yep, this will be probably treated as a one-off 'terrible mistake', maybe the pilots/gunners will be disciplined and maybe one or two officers will get their wrists slapped for the sake of spectacle, and then we'll all go back to sleep. In the Democracy Now! interview (see link in #834) with Julian Assange, he states that WikiLeaks are on the verge of releasing a video showing the killing of 97 Afghan civilians. Dog knows how that is going to go down.
Spoken like a true believer. And if they don't, God will take care of it I suppose?
Your mom.
Dunning-Kruger.
still be able to claim intellectual honesty
You can claim whatever you want, just as those soldiers claimed that the van was possibly there to pick up weapons, but the evidence of your intellectual dishonesty is in your refusal to respond to points that prima facie refute your claims. Shooting unarmed wounded and unarmed rescuers is a war crime, regardless of whether, in the minds of the shooters, the rescuers are possibly there to pick up weapons -- weapons that the shooters have repeatedly said they don't see.
If you really want to see a war crime
False dichotomy, and morally bankrupt. We really saw a war crime; of course there are others, and worse ones.
Jarred C:
Hey brother.
I'm very good at separating my emotions from logical thinking during situations such as this; it's what kept me alive during the war, it's what allowed me to excel when I was an EMT for two years, and it's what is making my career as a forensic investigator.
Yes, but I think on this website you are supposed to feign some kind of outrage and get emotional or actually become emotional. I'm not sure, I've tried all methods... just do what comes naturally, before you know it it’ll be 2am and your wife will be complaining about getting off the computer and coming to bed.
Neg:
And if they don't, God will take care of it I suppose?
No, he doesn’t exist.
TM:
Dunning-Kruger.
A snappy little non-reply. I was at least hoping for a "Sylvania!" by now.
zeroang3l,
Irrelevant. The debate is about the world we're in right now, and that's a world in which there is no likelihood of any nation state waging conventional war on US soil.
"... to sort it out."
Nicely ambiguous, that.
Chimp:
and that's a world in which there is no likelihood of any nation state waging conventional war on US soil.
...which is partly because the US has such a massive standing army.
zeroang3l,
And what good is a tool that's never used, eh?
PS When was the last time the US faced invasion by hostile powers?
PPS List of wars involving the United States (20th Century).
Jarred C,
It doesn't matter what it's "to you".
A war crime is a violation of the laws or customs of war as defined by the Hague conventions of which the USA is one of the signatories. Hague IV (War on Land) stipulates that "The obligations of belligerents with regard to the sick and wounded are governed by the Geneva Convention."
The Geneva convention Art. 18 stipulates clearly that:
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
By shooting the van where the wounded were being collected they committed a violation of said article 18.
This is a war crime.
John:
And what good is a tool that's never used, eh?
That's kind of the point. It's not like we are talking about a shovel here. In order to not use your military you have to at least have a formidable one.
List of wars involving the United States (20th Century).
You're talking to someone incapable of comprehending you, John.
zeroang3l, you might have had a point — if the military had in fact not been used, but merely kept ready as deterrent.
Instead, it's been used as a tool for enforcement of foreign policy. Gunboat diplomacy, I believe is the term.
And, in the words of Jerry Pournelle, "Armies break things and kill people."
There is always "collateral damage".
(You might wish to peruse that link I posted @852.)
@negentropyeater #853
"The Geneva convention Art. 18 stipulates clearly that:
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality.
By shooting the van where the wounded were being collected they committed a violation of said article 18.
This is a war crime."
By that definition, I would certainly agree with you. This situation seems to fit the criteria of a war crime.
On the other hand, I wonder if the regulation you cite is current or updated. Or if the Geneva Convention was ever updated to begin with (I honestly don't know). The reason I ask is because when I was there, we were specifically told that, per the Geneva Convention, we were not allowed to fire upon medical units (Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc..). We were never told of the specific passage if which you wrote, nor were we ever told that the enemy could spontaneously collect enemy wounded. Typically, if more men ran into an area we had just fired upon, but before we could secure the area to collect prisoners and treat enemy wounded ourselves, we assumed they were part of the enemy, and fired upon them (or if we were in vocal range, gave them the opportunity to surrender). My particular unit worked with Iraqi police, national guard, and civilians (depending on the mission), so we always had at least one person who could speak arabic.
I wonder if the GC has been updated, or if the US has been violating that Article since 2004 (when I was there).
Oh he was being sarcastic! I get it, silly me. My point still stands. One of the reasons the US doesn't have to fear invasion is because it has a massive army. In any case, this is irrelevant (or so I'm told).
zeroangel,
I know you don't believe God exists. That was supposed to be tongue in cheek.
But you do believe there is a higher power that is going to sort things out, don't you? Otherwise how can you be so confident that the US Govt, society, media and military are going to sort things out for the best? Where does the magic come from?
Don't you see that it's precisely because of people like you with their "positive thinking attitude" who believe there is always going to be some sort of miracle that will sort things out that nothing ever changes?
I have confidence that our system of government, our society, our open media, and even our military will do the best they can to sort it out. what the fuck would suggest such paid for any wrongs it committed, why would it start now? the only reason we even know about this is because of a site that the government has been trying to shut down. Your trust is entirely misplaced.
we are talking about a shovel (AKA the military-industrial complex), and it's bullshit that you need a large army to make peace. Germany and France aren't at peace with each other for the first time since their existence because they have huge armies to defend against each other.
Do you really need to get an answer to this? Remember, the CiC was W, a man who routinely lied to grab power, hid and faked evidence for wars, and scapegoated every little incompetency, and you expect this character to have respected international treaties or human lives?
crap, blockquote fail. let's try again.
what the fuck would suggest such paid for any wrongs it committed, why would it start now? the only reason we even know about this is because of a site that the government has been trying to shut down. Your trust is entirely misplaced.
we are talking about a shovel (AKA the military-industrial complex), and it's bullshit that you need a large army to make peace. Germany and France aren't at peace with each other for the first time since their existence because they have huge armies to defend against each other.
Comments 199, 225, 266, 291, 293, 303, 314, 315, 316, 321, 327, 333, 342, 382, 420, 444, 526, 533, 558, 565, 594, 595, 750, 807, 830, 839, 840 bear repeating.
The horror is that they're not apathetic. They're not merely not sobbing. They actually like it. They beg for someone they shot down to pick up a gun so they're finally allowed to kill him. They find the whole situation funny!
See also comments 178 and 315.
They're dangerous madmen and need to be taken out of circulation already.
So... you're saying they're literally stressed out of their wits?
Then they're dangerous madmen who need to be taken out of circulation already. They're too... witless to fight.
This probably means that most people are unfit to be soldiers. If so, deal with it.
Also, see comment 209.
I shudder in revulsion.
I think that getting caught is a much greater deterrent than the prospect of horrible punishment if getting caught.
Only two kinds of people commit crimes, as far as I can tell: those who believe they won't get caught, and those who are so full of adrenaline/alcohol/whatever that they can't think that far in the first place.
Cannot be said often enough.
It's already unjustified. To start with, it's not even legal.
Very well said.
Yes, and a troll at that. If he/she/it/squid keeps going, I smell a banhammer in their future.
:-D So true!
<headdesk>
ROTFLMAO!
Congratulations to him :-)
Dude, there's not a single mistake in your English.
Oh yes.
Years of practice? :-)
LOL!
That reminds me of why Austria still has a draft: "because we are looking into the eyes of the coldest war of all times, while the direction of gaze still has to stay secret for security reasons". (Source forgotten, probably around 15 years old.)
I hope I won't dream of it; I'll go to bed, it's half past 3 at night...
neg:
But you do believe there is a higher power that is going to sort things out, don't you?
That's not what I said at all. I specifically mentioned that PZ is doing his part and I consider him part of "our society." He is American after all.
Our system might not be perfect but it's pretty darn good and I am glad I was born in the US.
Where does the magic come from?
Our society (which includes us).
Jade
Germany and France aren't at peace with each other for the first time since their existence because they have huge armies to defend against each other.
Germany and France’s peace didn’t happen in a vacuum, there was a massive war (of which the US’s massive Army was a part of) that happened first. That’s only a small part of it though.
Jarred C.,
No need to wonder, you're on the internet.
The Geneva Conventions today (note the external links at the bottom of the article).
Jared C,
I'm talking of the 1949 Geneva Convention, ratified by the US in 1955.
It's the only one valid today.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView
You can check Conv. I Art. 18 in full.
It doesn't surprise me at all that the military is commiting violations of said conventions (Hague and Geneva) on a daily basis. It's a different matter to be able to point a clear and evident violation like this one.
The US spends 41% of the total world's military expenditure. It spends more than the next 14 powers combined, many of whom are allies. If we cut it down by 1/6 it would still be number one. The military isn't primarily being used for defense, it's being used for offense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_federations_by_milit…
that's a non-point. before that massive war was another massive war, which didn't prevent the massive war you're talking about.
it wasn't guns that created peace.
Yet your society is congested by a majority of gullible people who believe in crazy notions such as "American Exceptionalism" and that the military is beyond reproach. Don't you think this seriously handicaps any ability of efficient criticism?
Do you realise that a vast majority of people would say the same kind of irrelevant platitude (thinking it's actually profound), wherever they were born? From A like Algeria to Z like Zambia.
Jade:
it wasn't guns that created peace.
Riiight... I am sure that if the US and all of Western Europe massively scaled back their armed forces there wouldn't be any nations in the region that would get adventurous.
In fact, I'll bet the key to peace on the Korean Peninsula is the South Koreans showing some good faith and scaling back a bit too.
Like it or not, guns play a part in keeping peace.
like it or not, delusions like yours are what creates war.
zeroang3l,
Let's grant that, arguendo.
Would you say that, "if a little is good, more must be better, most is best"?
neg:
Yet your society is congested by a majority of gullible people
Sounds like someone had an unpleasant visit to a Red State. I really think there are plenty of people in the US who criticize it’s government and military.
Do you realise that a vast majority of people would say the same kind of irrelevant platitude
You really think so? I am kind of betting that you won't get much of that from say... Somalians. Or at least you'd get a much larger portion of Somalians wishing they were born in the US as opposed to the other way around.
Good night guys, junior and wifey need a hug and I'm not going to do this until 2am. See ya tommorrow.
North and South Korea are not in a state of peace but in a perpetual state of cease-fire while at war with each other.
not sufficiently so, and most of them still ramble on about "America the Great" and their "wonderful country".
I was specific when I spoke of the military and a majority of people. Criticizing and/or distrusting Govt (especially when it's the opposing party in power) seems to be much more common practice.
Somalia and a few other failed states/war torn countries probably not. Never been there. But everywhere I've lived (and I've lived in many different places in Europe, Asia and America), most people seem to think they live in the best country in the world. Especially amongst those people who've never travelled abroad. Ignorance of other cultures is always a good predictor of one's confidence in the superiority of one's own culture.
if more men ran into an area we had just fired upon, but before we could secure the area to collect prisoners and treat enemy wounded ourselves, we assumed they were part of the enemy, and fired upon them
Regardless of whether they are armed and hostile?
You're a war criminal.
Non sequitur, unless the population of Somalia is a few of orders of magnitude greater than the ~9M given by standard sources.
BlueEyedVideot, #332:
I admit that I was considering the actions of the Apache crews and their immediate superiors, not the idiot Bush.
However, I think the most we can confidently say about Bush's religiosity and Iraq is that Christianity failed to prevent him launching a war of aggression. It's not at all clear that Christianity played a decisive part in his decision making, and he had plenty of secular reasons (Iraqi oil, strategic bases in the heart of oil country, revenge on behalf of Daddy, wanting to be a war president etc etc). He made a reference to Gog and Magog to a confused Jacques Chirac, but as Tronzu demonstrates you don't need to be a Christian fundie to think Muslims are evil. See also Hitchens' and Harris' support for the war.
Who the fuck is Timmeh Tebow?
My point is that we know nothing of the religion of the Apache crew, and thus cannot conclude that their actions can be blamed on Christianity. Even if we knew they were fundies, the most we could conclude is that fundamentalism does not prevent attrocities.
I'm an atheist and am of the opinion that humanity would be better off without religion. Politically I am very close to PZ and Dawkins. Perhaps my use of the word "secular" to mean "neutral wrt religion" confused you, as the fundies conflate it with atheism?
The reason I point this out is that one of the major problems with religion is that religious identity is a powerful force for creating in-groups and demonisable out-groups on which everything can be blamed. Unfortunately, atheists are not immune to this bias (see Tronzou again) in spite of our admiration for reason and empirical evidence, and I will call it out.
For example it is common to blame the (especially suicide) terrorism of Muslims on Islam. The evidence does not support this conclusion beyond the aforementioned in-group out-group dynamic formed by any religious identity.
For more enlightenment, you can refer to the previous thread we've both linked to. Zeroangel sez:
And later,
In short, he seems to take the position that soldiers don't need to worry their pretty little heads as long as the US government tells them they don't have to follow treaty obligations.
In short, yes, war criminal would not be an inaccurate descriptor. But of course, it doesn't matter because he was following orders.
I await an insult about my mother. I wonder if he'll top "Fuck you, fuck your family, I hope you eat shit, contract some nasty disease, and die" from last time. And that time I didn't even point out that he admitted to committing war crimes, I was just pointing out that there may be a reason other than Islam that Iraqis/Afghanis are pissed at us (such as invading their country, installing tinpot dictators, etc...).
But you do sort of need to be a Christian fundie to literally believe the Bible, and further believe that Gog and Magog are present in Iraq needing to be taken out.
"This highly disturbing video appears to show that after the initial attack, U.S. troops opened fire on people seeking to assist a wounded man, injuring two children, and killing several more people," said Malcolm Smart, director of Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa program, in a statement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100407/ts_nm/us_iraq_usa_journalists;_ylt=…--
Let's grant that, arguendo.
Why not? What I said is that I support a radical reduction in U.S. military spending and involvements -- like, down from a military budget greater than the sum of the budgets of the next 25 countries combined. zero's response was to a strawman, with fantasies of an "unknown power" (a surprise attack from Mars?) attacking our "shores" (what century is this git living in?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?hp
If I may just cut in for a moment, why thank-you very much:
Has anyone else watched the full unedited video? I ask because there are a couple of things not mentioned in the edited one that I think are also noteworthy.
Shortly after the first incidents, the Apaches are directed to a derelict building nearby. I'm not certain, but it is possibly the one that had had insurgents on the roof and from which ground troops were taking fire. It was probably the target they were originally called in to engage, before they mistook the ground for a roof and started shooting up civilians.
The film shows one armed man possibly holding a AK47 possibly go in the building and two unarmed men follow him. Radio chatter says there are at least 6 armed men inside. The first shot is taken as a pedestrian is walking by, he is past the entrance and was clearly not involved but no effort was made to give him time to get clear before firing.
A second missile is fired into the building from the other Apache, but so much time is left between the two shots that a sizable group of people has begun to gather and they too are obliterated.
This shows that not even the slightest care is being taken to protect innocents. I find it as bad as the other incident, if not worse, because it highlights the casual attitude all these soldiers have to Iraqi civilians.
There is also a rather concerning few moments where the gunner appears to forget how to use his weapon. That raises some concerns over his ability surely?
If you're interested, the relevant part is the last 12 mins or so of this video
Paul #881,
We only know from a third hand source what Dubya said to Chirac (a theologian who claims to have been consulted by the confused Chirac). It's not very reliable, we don't know how literally Dubya meant it, and even if he did mean it literally we don't know if it's a rationalisation for what he was going to do anyway.
It's certainly possible that the Iraq war wouldn't have happened without Dubya's faith, but I think I hedged appropriately by writing "the most we can confidently say".
From Gravityloss, why up:
And with the magic of Tubedubber we can put the audio of one over the images of the other.
Full tastelessness here. Video options don't seem to stick though.
Ellie,
The indiscriminate killing of civilians in that part of the video has been noted already (e.g. #540). And I agree, the gunner doesn't seem to know what he is doing.
QFT
John:
Would you say that, "if a little is good, more must be better, most is best"?
That’s about right, I could get on board with some reduction in the armed forces but not to the extent (for example) of just letting the Coast Guard alone do the job. I’m thinking a handful of our allies in Asia might not like that idea either.
Aratina:
North and South Korea are not in a state of peace but in a perpetual state of cease-fire while at war with each other.
Last time I was in Seoul (about a year ago IIRC) there was a noticeable lack of North Korean soldiers killing folks and blowing shit up, it seemed rather peaceful actually. Silly me for thinking that the fact that the South Koreans have a rather formidable army (many of whom are conscripts) and are allied with the US (with its massive army) had anything at all to do with it.
Jade:
not sufficiently so,
I would think the recent Presidential election is evidence of a rather large portion of Americans having been quite upset with the way things were going.
Neg:
Especially amongst those people who've never travelled abroad.
I have lived and traveled to quite a few places as well (some of them not so nice), the US and her allies is pretty high on the list of nice places. If you had to nail me down though, I’d be willing to go with some place like Australia as well.
Paul:
For more enlightenment, you can refer to the previous thread we've both linked to. Zeroangel sez:
Wow, looks like someone’s ass got chapped. To be honest, I didn’t really remember you. I remembered John Morales and a few others, you, not so much. In any case, as I have indicated, it does seem rather like these pilots broke the applicable US laws and regulations and some others may have been complicit in sweeping it under the table.
Here’s a homework assignment for you, before I bothered to change the yahoo nick to zeroang3l I was posting under a generic yahoo ID, see if you can figure out which one is me. Good luck!
I wonder if he'll top "Fuck you, fuck your family, I hope you eat shit, contract some nasty disease, and die" from last time.
LOL! Did I hurt your feelings? That’s hysterical. Thank you, you made my morning.
You guys are slowing down, I was expecting at least 100 some odd comments.
Aratina @# 861:
>...you expect this character to have respected international treaties or human lives?
I think you set the bar too high. I would have simply asked if we expected him to simply read.
I'm reminded of that scene in the South Park movie when Chef gets informed that they're going to be part of "Operation Human Shield" and everyone else is going to be part of "Operation Get Behind The Darkies". He asks if the general has ever heard of the emancipation act.
The general says that he doesn't listen to rap (or similar; it was some time ago.)
I laughed when I saw it, but it stops being funny when you realise that somewhere along the line, we entered a world where it was true, and we never noticed.
That isn't peace, though, is it? If the South Koreans were to stop vigilantly pointing their weapons at North Korea, do you think nothing would happen? You are welcome to cross the border unarmed and find out yourself how the North Korean government reacts to unarmed foreigners. Look, getting a peace treaty negotiated with Kim Jong Il is like getting Mabus to agree not to flood Pharyngula with spam—it's that difficult or at least has been, only it's worse because WATB DPRK is the real victim here, or so they claim.
aratina:
If the South Koreans were to stop vigilantly pointing their weapons at North Korea, do you think nothing would happen?
That's my point. In a world like ours, guns keep peace. I don't think you believe that South Korea would be a more peaceful place if the US decided to disband it's military save for the Coast Guard (to use the earlier example). I'm not wrong about that am I?
Aratina:
One more thing to clarify:
You are talking about them being technically at war. Let's be honest though, Seoul is about as much as a war zone as Mayberry is. Hell, there are places in the US that (due to criminal activity) probably qualify as more of a "war zone."
@zeroangel
I don't give a flying fuck if you remember me. I just wanted to point out to everyone here that you are on the record stating that international law doesn't matter to a US soldier if he is given orders that break it. In your words, "the US government decides to what extent those treaties are applicable". You are blatantly using the Nuremberg defense there. I thought others might find it interesting.
It's telling that you completely ignore the point and only respond to me wondering if you'll just descend into flaming like you seem to like to do in lieu of making an argument. I really have nothing more to say to you unless you try to formulate an actual argument. I'm simply pointing things out for others that might see this conversation and think that you are in any way a reasonable, rational party arguing in good faith.
Notkieran,
Yeah, the bar was a little too high I suppose :)
zeroang3l,
It is rather peaceful in South Korea (except along the demilitarized zone), but it is nothing like the peace between nations such as Germany and France, and the people living in Seoul are not peaceful because North Korea is pointing weapons at them.
There seem to be different kinds of peace we are talking about. In one kind, you have to carry around some kind of defensive tool all the time and watch your back to not be violently assaulted or killed. In the other kind, defensive tools are not necessary and you don't have to watch your back most of the time. Within South Korea, you have the second type, but the state on a whole has the first type as does Iraq at both the state and societal levels. As you can see, having the first kind of peace for a society isn't really peaceful but for a state it can be because its society can operate under the second kind of peace internally.
Paul:
Oh, I think you do. I think you are taking this a bit personally. I also think the fact that you remembered a 7 month old post is indicative of that.
I am sorry no, I said that the US military decides to what extent those international "laws" are applicable. ALL nations do that. The very fact that there is no international body with actual power to enforce international law is why this is the case. It's also why international "law" isn't really "law" at all.
If a US soldier is given an illegal order he can refuse, and then the system works out to what extent his/her refusal is legal. Call me crazy, but I am willing to bet that if a gunner in a similar situation refused an order to fire he might have a very good case.
Did I address your point? I just wanna be sure.
I'd claim you were new here for an ignorant statement like that but we know you aren't.
Dude, people pull up years old posts and comments all the time to make points and call people on their words.
aratina:
but it is nothing like the peace between nations such as Germany and France
The current peace between Germany and France wouldn't exist if it weren't for the existence of several rather large armies in the not too distant past.
The second kind of peace (worldwide) is simply not possible in the world we live in. It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Chimp:
Dude, people pull up years old posts and comments all the time to make points and call people on their words.
I guess some folks take this website a little bit more seriously than I do. That's cool.
zeroang3l,
You can look at it that way, a way that worships the weapons, but consider that the existence of defensive armies was only necessary in response to aggression. The peace between any two nations does not have to come about because of a successful defense against an aggressor.
And that really goes back to the whole point with this video. Were the people who were slaughtered from on high actually aggressors? And the answer glaringly appears to be "NO!" No peace was being kept or created by murdering them. Saying that this was an act of peace is ridiculous.
aratina:
I don't worship weapons, but I understand why they have to exist in the world we live in. I look forward to a day when there's a true one world government (as long as it's some kind of free-democratic society of some form), but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
In any event I have said several times now that the pilots appear to have been wrong.
Look, France and Germany before the end of WWII were major powers. They had had PLENTY of weapons for over a century. That didn't stop the Franco-Prussian war, World War I or World War II. Their over sized militaries weren't used for defense; they were used for offense. The game only stopped because they were exhausted from killing and the next war would mean annihilation.
The fact is that these military operations in foreign countries only decrease the safety of US citizens. Remember, one of bin Laden's rationales for his jihad was US troops in Saudi Arabia. Massacres like the one seen in the video only encourages anti-American sentiments. Could you really blame these children for anger against the US after after what happened? Well, those children are going to eventually grow up.
Feynmaniac:
Oh, it's a double edged sword to be sure, and it's a tricky thing finding out exactly what's the right balance of formidable defense vs. aggressive action.
The problem does not lie in the size of any military. The problem lies in how the elected leaders choose to implement it. Which, again, brings us back to the idea that instituting conscription in the present day US might change the way the US military is used.
Feynmaniac:
Also, I think I said this the last time we had this chat, but I do not accept the idea that the Irans and North Koreas (just examples) of the world would leave the US alone if it left those respective regions. They certainly wouldn't leave their neighbors in the region alone.
The size of the French and German armies in the past has nothing to do with the peace.
The economic and political stability enjoyed by both nations from the European Union as well as the change in mentalities of the inhabitants of both nation from long term educational policies have much more to do with that peace than whatever arsenal there might exist. Moreover, with France's nuclear power, both countries could easily halve their current military expenditures that this wouldn't change a thing with that peace.
The USA could easily divide by 3 its military expenditure that it wouldn't change a thing to the defense risk of that nation.
The whole world would be a much more secure and peaceful place with far less weapons around.
Nobody claims that a peaceful world completely free of weapons is a dream that can become reality within the next century. But reducing significantly the total military expenditures of the planet while maintaining a more peaceful world than today should be our goal.
If only we in the West can learn to be more nimble and the world radically improves its ability at managing and sharing reserves in critical resources this goal is achievable.
But I'm afraid if we continue the way we are doing now, the opposite with come true.
The economic situation and a better educated population have much more to do with peace than any military arsenal.
Well when Iran was at war with its neighbor Iraq we not only didn't stop them but we gave them weapons (well, in fairness we also gave weapons to Iraq and, ironically, stopped any UN resolutions condemning them for use of weapons of mass destruction). Also, when massacres were occurring in Rwanda and Sudan, the US gov't didn't really care that much about intervention. The point is, US foreign policy isn't so much about protecting others as protecting its own self-interest.
As for US security, look at my #867. If you look at NATO as a whole the countries there make up about 70% of the world's military spending. It's WAAAAY past the point of well defended and very much into aggression.
neg:
Well, again, I would say, none of that happened in a vacuum. France and Germany happen to be allied with the US and it's massive army. They also happen to be pretty close to the former Soviet Bloc.
Maybe I should have phrased it more clearly and said the "current peace between France and Germany wouldn't exist in it's present form."
Both countries could easily halve their military expenditures and it wouldn't change a thing with the peace between them.
The whole world would be a much more secure and peaceful place with far less weapons around.
It's a wonderful sentiment and I really wish I shared your optimism. Sadly, in this regard, I do not. I think I feel much the same about the rest of your post. You sound like a very thoughtful caring person, and that's good.
Feynamaniac:
The point is, US foreign policy isn't so much about protecting others as protecting its own self-interest. ...
It's WAAAAY past the point of well defended and very much into aggression.
I think I already suggested a solution to this problem with my conscription idea. I like my idea better than yours.
The current peace between Germany and France wouldn't exist if it weren't for the existence of several rather large armies in the not too distant past.
Sometimes, someone makes a statement that completely sums up the utter irrationality and ignorance of their ideology. This is such a case.
@TM:
Oh, my bad, you are right, it's rather likely France and Germany would be at peace, under German rule (or Soviet, take your pick).
Fushta!
Both countries could easily halve their military expenditures and it wouldn't change a thing with the peace between them.precisely you fucking idiot. and none of that has anything to do with anybody's penis army size.
You're not able to think critically about this, and figure out precisely what lead to two mortal enemies who have fought for centuries becoming so closely tied together that war between them has become impossible, are you.
The size of the French and German armies in the past has nothing to do with the peace.
Nor the size of the U.S. or Soviet armies in the past. There are many many alternate histories in which France and Germany would be at peace today with no large armies in the past.
You sound like a very thoughtful caring person, and that's good.
You sound like a patronizing git.
I'm not sure how that would help. There was conscription during Vietnam and that was pretty much the height of US aggression. Military spending was still high and the atrocities committed in Vietnam were even worse than the ones committed in this video. What's more, as tm mentioned, there's the whole issue of forced servitude.
Oh, my bad, you are right, it's rather likely France and Germany would be at peace, under German rule (or Soviet, take your pick).
Only if there had been a large German or Soviet army, you cretin. You really have no understanding of history or the causes of world events.
Jade:
Pity, and we were doing so nicely!
and figure out precisely what lead to two mortal enemies who have fought for centuries becoming so closely tied together that war between them has become impossible, are you.
Well, for one thing, the fact that one of those nations got its ass kicked so badly not once but twice had something to do with it.
TM:
You sound like a patronizing git.
Oh, I was being serious, neg post caused me to think for a second. I liked it. Can't really say the same about you though.
the height of US aggression
What jingoist cretins like zero are truly unable to comprehend, with their blather about peace under German or Soviet rule, is that the U.S. is the aggressor nation (see #852) and the exporter of weapons. As PZ said, we are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians -- and not just of Iraq.
I also note that WW2 was by no means inevitable, had the allies done after WW1 what they finally did after WW1
only people with a hard on for military might ignore the fact that wars and the armies to fight them with are not actually inevitable
Feynmaniac:
Yes, but it's a different world today. Military atrocities committed in WWII were worse still, I don't think you can chalk atrocities in Vietnam up to the draft alone. Besides, as someone keenly pointed out earlier, one of the things that finally brought the Vietnam war to a close were so many people sick of being drafted for something they didn't believe in.
If everyone knew they would possibly have to serve themselves I think the US would fight less wars.
zeroangel makes me feel seriously old.
Let us try a couple of historical facts, even if that is outwith the training to which our hero above was exposed.
In WWI an infinite supply of potentially dead bodies - i.e. conscription - made both politicians and generals lazy and able to continue like it was 1815, long after anyone could remember why they were having a war in the first place.
Ditto for Vietnam, except that this time they were forgetting why they had picked up a war impossible to win and which France had already lost.
Now, a bit a of theory. It has been argued that a large standing army both drains a country's resources and increases the detachment of the military from reality and from their fellow citizens - to the detriment of the state. It has been argued thus for millennia.
Also posited is the idea that a large and highly equipped army will, in time, become more interested in proving that it justifies what it is costing and in checking whether its fancy new kit works than in any nobler objective. This I can believe from what I have seen in my lifetime.
And for USAians, a question. Do the Second Amendment and a large standing army make sense in relation to eachother? You could begin work on that by picking up the discussions from Philadelphia in the late eighteenth century.
I'm off to cook faggots. No, no, comrades - the sort that you eat.
that also happened in WW1. do you know why that didn't prevent WW2? are you even capable of thinking about these things?
@TM
Only if there had been a large German or Soviet army, you cretin. You really have no understanding of history or the causes of world events.
Oh for dog's sake. Yes, if we all put down our weapons and sang kumbaya the world would be at peace. It isn't going to happen in this lifetime.
strawman, or a false dichotomy, if you prefer. peace needs to be created, but guns don't accomplish that.
I also note that WW2 was by no means inevitable, had the allies done after WW1 what they finally did after WW1
Right; as I said, there are many alternate histories leading to peace between Germany and France today that don't involve large armies. Germany's military buildup and aggression had its consequences, just as U.S. military buildup and aggression has its consequences.
only people with a hard on for military might ignore the fact that wars and the armies to fight them with are not actually inevitable
Take our cretin zero here, with his talk of nations getting their asses kicked, as if it were impossible for Germany to be at peace today without having been at war in the past.
Oh for dog's sake. Yes, if we all put down our weapons and sang kumbaya the world would be at peace. It isn't going to happen in this lifetime.
Non sequitur, and Dunning-Kruger; everyone here, save you, can see how stupid you are.
do you know why that didn't prevent WW2?
Yes, in short, because the allies didn't do a very good job of helping rebuild Germany and treating them decently afterwards.
peace needs to be created, but guns don't accomplish that.
Guns don't accomplish anything, they are tools. How people use those tools (whether for defense or otherwise) is what's important.
zeroang3l, two words for you: Robert Schuman. Germany and France are at peace because a war is not merely unthinkable (now that the militaristic education of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has stopped), it's economically simply not feasible. The economy of the entire EU is too intertwined that any country could pull out. Now that the Cold War is over (...it's been 21 years...), the French army does nothing but mix into African politics, and the German army does nothing but burn money and stand around in Afghanistan.
Conscription never works equally; people with money and connection always find a way out, and if that is deliberately stopped, they find a way to monopolize the pencil-pusher jobs. Forget about it.
The US Constitution says that ratified international treates are "the laws of the land". To act against the Geneva Conventions is illegal under US law, period, end of story. The people in that helicopter, and everyone above them in the chain of command who had the slightest inkling of what was going on, must have their day in court, everything else is a crime.
How people use those tools (whether for defense or otherwise) is what's important.
In the case of the U.S. it's otherwise.
TM:
everyone here, save you, can see how stupid you are.
What exactly is it that makes you such a crotchety old bastard? Wife died? Joystick broken? What’s your paypal account? I’ll send you a few bucks so you can get yourself some Viagara.
To quote a character from “Good Morning Vietnam:”
You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.
(OK, I don’t know that you are white, but that’s the quote anyways)
Ad hominem response. That you are stupid, and that it is evident to all but yourself, is a fact that I point out; my mood, age, and the legitimacy of my birth are irrelevant.
if we all put down our weapons and sang kumbaya the world would be at peace
Certainly if the U.S. stopped expending such an immense amount on weaponry that it then uses to wage war against others and provides to others to wage war amongst each other, the world would be more peaceful.
David:
The people in that helicopter, and everyone above them in the chain of command who had the slightest inkling of what was going on, must have their day in court
I agree.
As for peace and France's / Germany's Army, or downsizing armies in general, there might come a day when the entire world is so economically intertwined (like Europe) that the US and her allies can consider seriously scaling back drastically. I don't think now is that time.
Conscription never works equally;
Yes, no doubt, but I think the upsides would balance out the downsides. Everyone that votes for hawks doesn't have money afterall.
I wasn't. I was just saying that conscription didn't stop it. In fact, increasing the size of military and putting many people there who don't belong in a war zone didn't help. But this of course was NOT the only cause of atrocities.
Also, there was a lot of opposition to war in Iraq even before it began. Close to half the population didn't want it. It wasn't enough to stop it, unfortunately, but this opposition came without a conscription. One of the reasons why worse atrocities haven't been committed in Iraq was because human watch groups were paying close attention and many US citizens wouldn't support it. Just look at how much a scandal Abu Ghraib created. Again, these mechanisms are far, far from perfect, but they do do some good without forcing people against their will into the military.
yes, it is. it's now, or it won't ever happen because people like you always feel it's not the right time. demilitarization and peacebuilding. Now. Everything else can only be classified as wanting to see more people die the way those reporters did, because of refusal to actively do something to prevent reoccurrence.
If everyone knew they would possibly have to serve themselves I think the US would fight less wars.
This is one of the possible upsides to the draft. However, there's a more direct way to get that result.
TM:
That you are stupid, and that it is evident to all but yourself, is a fact that I point out;
…because you magically know what every reader who is and isn’t commenting thinks. ‘sides my standardized test scores in school told me differently.
my mood, age, and the legitimacy of my birth are irrelevant.
Absolutely, but it’s still incredibly funny and probably not far off the mark to imagine that you are very likely a crotchety, unhappy, old man in the miserable waning years of life.
Feynamanic:
See #340. I tend to agree with that poster.
because you magically know what every reader who is and isn’t commenting thinks
It doesn't take magic.
‘sides my standardized test scores in school told me differently.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Do I sense a MENSA moment coming?
TM:
LOL!
Are we wrapping this up yet? I gotta go get my son from daycare in an hour or so.
Do I sense a MENSA moment coming?
No, I always kind of thought MENSA was for people who like to brag. Besides, I am sure the average IQ around here is probably pretty darn high anyhow.
Are we wrapping this up yet?
What? Haven't you heard? This thread has ended.
Clown.
This, from negentropyeater, bears repeating:
@TM
What? Haven't you heard? This thread has ended.
Touche!
Clown.
ED sufferer!
Now, now. Don't start to troll.
WW1 was sold as "the war to end all wars". It was followed by what has been called "the peace to end all peace". And not just in Europe – two words: Armenia, Kurdistan...
And the French army actually told the US that the war wasn't winnable. Reading about the history of the Vietnam war is painfully embarrassing from the very start.
Well, I digress, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't make sense, period. It's completely unclear what it even means. The fact it hasn't been amended into something comprehensible, the fact that Americans of all political orientations just keep doing exegesis with it and stop short of using Ouija boards to figure out what the Founding Fathers intended, can only be explained by the bizarre religious attitude to the Constitution that is simply missing in other countries.
Well, the best time would have been 1991... the Bush Sr administration was too stupid to notice... <sigh>
But that doesn't mean it's impossible now. As has been pointed out, the US military budget is so insanely high that it can be scaled down without changing anything about the potential of China or Iran or North Korea to make trouble.
I'm not going to wade into this discussion properly, as I don't have the mental energy. But someone mentioned conscription above, which is an issue about which I feel strongly. While I am pro-military, believe that the military profession is both honourable and necessary, and advocate maintaining high military spending, I'm also completely opposed to conscription.
Conscription is a violation of basic civil liberties. It requires people to risk their lives for causes they may not support, merely because they happened to be born as subjects of a particular nation-state. And it has, at its root, an insidiously immoral idea: the idea that people are somehow the property of the state, subjects rather than citizens, and that the state is entitled to dispose of their lives as it wishes. This is something that we, as free citizens who want to live in a freer society, should not be willing to accept. An individual's life is his or her property, not the state's property, and the state is not entitled to demand unquestioning allegiance from everyone who happens to be born on its soil.
I will reiterate that I believe we (both the US and UK, as well as the democratic world in general) need a strong military, and that I believe joining the military is an honourable career path. But it should always be voluntary. Conscription is immoral in virtually all circumstances.
There are also solid practical arguments against conscription. It doesn't produce a professional, trained, motivated fighting force. Modern warfare, particularly urban warfare against insurgents, requires trained professional soldiers, not conscripts. Shipping a bunch of randomly selected people to Iraq or Afghanistan, to fight for a cause they might not support and might not even understand, would be a recipe for military disaster. The evidence bears this out. This video notwithstanding, the modern volunteer US Army is a far more competent, professional organisation than the conscript US Army of the Vietnam era. Unless you want a second Vietnam, conscription is not the way to go.
it rarely is. in the States, the "volunteer" army is a conscription of the poor. for for a vast majority of recruits, it's merely less equal than a conscription of all, not more voluntary.
Unless you want a second Vietnam, conscription is not the way to go.
I agree with every single of your arguments against conscription, but that second Vietnam has already been happening for 7 years and a month now.
Blockquote fail in comment 946.
A few hundred comments above we had at least one guy who said he had joined the army because it paid for his college education.
Just for comparison, where I come from, college is free – as in "beer", not just as in "speech" –, and even the most expensive public universities in Europe cost, like, a quarter of the North Dakota State University.
The US army is a way out of unemployment. Lots of people have no realistic options than to join it.
My dad joined the US Marines because there weren't many jobs avail in the Midwest, but that was in 1954.
The only other people I personally knew who joined the military (mostly from my 2002 graduating class) did so for college money. Even after 9/11, when everyone who thought about it foresaw serious offensive military engagements, kids were discussing joining the military to pay for college more often than doing so to "do their duty" or any of those patriotic type sentiments.
I'm wondering if anyone has investigated any other sorties carried out by this crew, if it's possible that this isn't the only time they've done something like this?
I should add to my #948 that my high school was not by any means in a poor area. It wasn't the richest area in Southern California, but even most of the students talking about joining the military for college money generally weren't "poor" by any definition. I can only imagine how much better the army must look when you have no money, no job, and no real support structure to speak of.
But that doesn't mean it's impossible now. As has been pointed out, the US military budget is so insanely high that it can be scaled down without changing anything about the potential of China or Iran or North Korea to make trouble.
Ah, but zero is concerned with an "unknown force", one that apparently arrives so suddenly that we are unable to ramp up to deal with it. Even he seems to recognize the absurdity or North Korea, Iran, or even China invading our "shores" ... although it wasn't all that long ago that Ronald Reagan was warning of how the Sandinistas could reach Texas in a mere 48 hours.
Gawker: Reuters Chief Spikes Story on Killing of His Own Staffers In Baghdad
A different piece ran, but doesn't include the experts that said the events clearly violated the Geneva Conventions or constituted a war crime.
Oh, and an article linked therein notes that US Command in Iraq stated yesterday that they have no plans to reopen the probe into the attack.
Apologies, I was inaccurate. The mentioned article does have an expert stating:
It is less direct in general, though, and some quotes from the spiked article do not appear, such as the following from a human rights lawyer:
And I'll stop flooding the thread. Not much more to add at this point, unless stupid comes back again or new information comes in..
Dave:
US military budget is so insanely high that it can be scaled down without changing anything about the potential of China or Iran or North Korea to make trouble.
I'm OK with a modest scaling down. Let's say I'd be on board with a 25% scale down and then give it a few years and see how the world community reacts.
Walton:
I get your points and they are rather convincing, however, I think on some level one could make the argument that the state already risks it's citizen's lives by virtue of it's actions whether or not those citizens are soldiers.
Nice to see you again, BTW.
Unhappy Old man:
Ah, but zero is concerned with an "unknown force", one that apparently arrives so suddenly that we are unable to ramp up to deal with it.
Strawman.
Strawman.
How droll, coming from the idiot who blathered about "Kumbaya". But in fact it's no strawman:
which was itself an attack on a strawman, not my actual statement:
Here's a clue for you, asshole: both of my parents volunteered to serve during WWII. If some "unknown power" arises that truly threatens U.S. "shores", I would gladly volunteer to help rebuff it, whereas, at 60 years old, I'm not likely to be eligible for a draft.
a 25% scale down
Scale down of what? Are you just talking of troop reductions? I referred to "a radical reduction in U.S. military spending and involvements", but all I got from you is crap like "if we all put down our weapons and sang kumbaya".
P.S. Good on Obama.
TM:
If some "unknown power" arises that truly threatens U.S. "shores", I would gladly volunteer to help rebuff it, whereas, at 60 years old, I'm not likely to be eligible for a draft.
It's about fucking time. I finally got an answer to the whole hypothetical "unknown force" scenario in the first place! So how would you feel about your children helping to rebuff said force (assuming you managed to convince someone to tolerate you long enough to procreate, and of course, assuming you are hetero), what about any grandkids?
Here's a clue for you, asshole: both of my parents volunteered to serve during WWII.
They sound like great Americans! Of course, what your parents did has zero bearing on what you would do or what you claim you would do.
Um, Zeroangel, homosexuals can have kids too.
Cancer Patient:
Scale down of what? Are you just talking of troop reductions?
Do I really have to go into details? Let's say across the board, troop reductions, naval ships, spending, EVERYTHING; 25%. It's just a broad arbitrary number I threw out to make the point that I am OK with downscaling but not drastic downscaling.
Jeeezzz... if ever there was a candidate for medicinal marijuana you are it.
Um, Zeroangel, homosexuals can have kids too.
That's right! I stand corrected. Thank you Gyeong Hwa. Modern medicine kicks ass.
Paul,
From the article that got published:
He would welcome a thorough new investigation? How about demand a thorough new investigation? Two of his people are dead. There is blatant evidence of a war crime. And he would merely welcome a new investigation. What a spineless sack of shit.
If I were a member of victims' families, I think I'd want this guy's head on plate. Further proof, if proof were needed, of how deferential the corporate media can be to those in positions of power.
I finally got an answer to the whole hypothetical "unknown force" scenario in the first place!
Fuck you, asshole. You are one long string of strawman responses and evasions. Your "hypothetical" -- a form of "will you stop beating your wife if ...", was dishonest from the get go as I just illustrated -- my point was about involuntary servitude, a point that you just said is "rather convincing" when offered by Walton.
what your parents did has zero bearing on what you would do or what you claim you would do.
I just told you what I would do, you fucking cretin. What my parents did is relevant to the question about voluntary service when a real threat arises, as opposed to coercion of other nations and peoples that our current military spending is primarily for.
I'm sick of your vile dishonesty and stupidity; out.
Agree. Any of his Iraq/Afghan/Middle Eastern correspondents should be knocking down his damn door demanding a new investigation.
But no, the earlier article was spiked (or as they say, "delayed") to get more of a variety of opinions from and to hear what the Pentagon had to say. I suppose they got tired of everyone saying "it sure appears there was a war crime", and they don't want the government to be pissed off at them for being too pushy.
Modern medicine kicks ass.
Adoption is medicine?
Cretin.
Um, it doesn't take modern medicine for a homosexual to procreate. The old fashioned method is also available. Have you never heard of a person with a family coming out, or being called out? Hell, my second cousins are children of just such a situation. He was a preacher, even (which may have contributed to him taking a while to come out).
Senile, bitter Old Fart:
I believe I used the word, procreate and I was referring to biological children. Whose the one with reading comprehension problems now? Honestly, go get yourself some anti-depressants or something.
KOPD:
I am corrected again, thank you!
Drooling fossil:
a point that you just said is "rather convincing" when offered by Walton.
It is convincing, I still disagree.
I just told you what I would do, you fucking cretin.
Of course you did, I'm just skeptical is all.
I'm sick of your vile dishonesty and stupidity; out.
Good riddance, let's see how long that lasts.
you were talking about the possibility of children, and you assumed procreation and heterosexuality as preconditions to that. you were wrong on both accounts.
and what's with the prejudice against adoptive children, anyway? do they not count as real children, or what? why single out biological children, other than to retroactively attempt to cover your ass
Jade:
Oh for dog's sake, are we going to dissect a flame?
In the future I'll be sure and be more sensitive and accurate when I try to imply that someone is such a disagreeable fuck that they were unable to find a life partner to raise children with.
OF COURSE adoption counts as real children and frankly, my wife and I have considered it.
Good grief...
It is convincing, I still disagree
Fucking illiterate.
yes, we are. I mean, you could try to have a serious conversation, but since that's not something you seem capable of, we'll troll-stomp instead.
[meta]
zeroang3l, you don't appear to realise that your efforts at derisive witticism via insulting epithets to refer to tm are risible and evince your own impotence. It's a bit sad.
LOL!
I'm sick of your vile dishonesty and stupidity; out.
That lasted, what? 30 minutes? HAHAH. Dude, call a psychiatrist right fucking now, OCD is a serious problem and so are your obvious anger / depression issues.
you were wrong on both accounts
More that just two: there's no "modern medicine" that has any bearing on procreation by male homosexuals that doesn't apply just as well to heterosexuals.
when I try to imply that someone is such a disagreeable fuck that they were unable to find a life partner to raise children with
The funny thing is how you don't realize how badly this sort of thing undermines your own credibility, rather than having any negative effect on mine.
John:
No, I am well aware of my own shortcomings, I just am unashamed and having a lot of fun right now. I am glad you are amused (even if you are laughing at me and not with me.)
Of course you did, I'm just skeptical is all.
Why ask me hypothetical questions about what I would do under various circumstances if you're going to reject the answers? That's a rhetorical question, as are yours: your questions are asked in bad faith.
you could try to have a serious conversation, but since that's not something you seem capable of, we'll troll-stomp instead
Yes.
zeroang3l, you don't appear to realise that your efforts at derisive witticism via insulting epithets to refer to tm are risible and evince your own impotence. It's a bit sad.
Yes.
The funny thing is...
That you are still rambling on more than 30 minutes after you said you were leaving...
I just am unashamed and having a lot of fun right now
In other words you're a despicable troll.
That you are still rambling on more than 30 minutes after you said you were leaving...
Non sequitur.
Incidentally, this is one reason I linked to the previous war thread earlier. I could have been more explicit, but didn't want to come off as too creepy. He basically did the same thing there. He flings shit because he can't support his opinions with anything but contentless invective (or at best, crazed fantasies of us being attacked and needing our bloated military, and you cowardly civilians will just hide in your cellars when it happens). You can note there he tried to turn it into a content-free flame war pretty much from the beginning of his participation, much like he has here.
crazed fantasies of us being attacked and needing our bloated military, and you cowardly civilians will just hide in your cellars when it happens
A good summary of his substantive offerings.
TM:
Non sequitur.
No, it certainly speaks to your credibility, or lack thereof.
Paul:
Flame war aside, I thought I was pretty clear. I do support a scaling back of the military but at a slow, progressive pace taking into account developments as things go. I do not think all civilians will hide in cellars, but I certainly think there are a lot that want a strong all-volunteer military so they have the luxury of not having to fight if it comes to that.
You can note there he tried to turn it into a content-free flame war pretty much from the beginning of his participation, much like he has here.
Let's see ... his first post:
His second post:
Yeah, pretty much.
Let's see ... his first post:
Actually it wasn't my first post. See my reply to Paul in #889 ref. a HW assignment.
No, it certainly speaks to your credibility, or lack thereof.
So so stupid.
First, what you responded to was my comment about how your flames don't undermine my credibility, only your own -- thus, your comment about my continuing to post after saying "out" is non sequitur. Second, my doing so has no bearing on my credibility.
Funny how you call unilaterally shitting all over a thread where people are going about their business having a grown-up discussion a "flame war". Do you spend a lot of time with neo-Cons?
And you definitely have a strong basis for forming this opinion, based on all the attacks on American soil that have occurred where people against conscription refused to defend their country. If you at least just admit that you're irrationally biased against non-servicepeople and consider them on average more cowardly, you can at least appear honest in the way you've described and referred to civilians (in this thread and others).
I think the USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air 655 offers some interesting parallels.
Somehow the Vincennes crew mistook a passenger jet travelling 380 knots at 12,000 feet and climbing for n F-14 with a speed of 455 knots, altitude 7,800 feet and descending. And then they shot the passenger liner down.
I doubt they set out to do this but seemingly it happened due to a gung ho captain and an earlier engagement with Iranian boats which created an atmosphere where people saw what they expected to see not what really happened.
Being generous, I can see how the chopper crew may have made similar fuck ups when identifying a camera as an RPG when called into a situation where they expect to find insurgents.
However even allowing for this exceedingly generous interpretation of how the incident started there doesn't seem to be any excuse for the act of firing on people trying to help the wounded. The chopper crew themselves state that these guys are trying to help the wounded - it looks like a clear violation of the Geneva convention.
The other interesting parallel with Iran Air 655 is the coverup. I think its instructive for all those "useful idiots" who are wailing about what the official states and how it completely exhonorates everyone. The Pentagon lied through its teeth about the Vincennes shootdown.
They claimed the Vincennes was in international waters - it wasnt. They claimed that the Vincennes was assisting a non-existent Liberian tanker under attack. the US has never accepted responsibility for the shootdown.
There is a reason people don't just blindly accept version from the US military given their history of coverups, particularly when this video looks so damning.
p.s. Im now expecting a Vatican spokesman/Bill Donohue to claim that the RCC coverups are no worse than the US military and at least they dont machine gun innocent civilians so really the pedophile priests are saints.
Paul:
There's precious few grown-ups on this site and the level of invective is a pretty good indicator of that, I just respond in kind. Tell you what though, if you can be civil, I'll return the favor.
Oh sure, we don't have a lot of good examples to go by as far as the US being invaded, but I wouldn't say so much that there's anything "cowardly" necessarily about wanting to have a strong military to do fighting for you. Some people might say it makes good sense.
I'm not irrationally biased again non-service people, just assholes.
Actually it wasn't my first post. See my reply to Paul in #889 ref. a HW assignment.
Your first identifiable post, you cretinous troll asshole. Who the fuck are you to give people "homework"? Why should Paul or anyone else play your stupid games?
Why should Paul or anyone else play your stupid games?
I don't know, why are you still playing?
ROTFLMAO!
Oh yes.
My only point of criticism is that he still doesn't seem to have understood that, as Scientific American put it about 10 years ago, "National Missile Defense WON'T WORK", all-caps and red color in the original. It's just as easy to trick/overwhelm/circumvent/... as SDI was.
Of course. You have fallen among the scientists.
B-)
So you admit to trolling?
There's precious few grown-ups on this site and the level of invective is a pretty good indicator of that
No, actually, it's not, and there have been long threads explaining at length why that's a false inference.
I just respond in kind
No, actually, you don't, but you're too stupid to understand the difference between earned contempt and your sort of silliness.
I don't know, why are you still playing?
I'm not playing your game, asshole. I gained my positive reputation here largely by swatting down troll garbage like you.
Well, if the fighting is pure aggression and the person thought it was necessary I would call it 'cowardly'. Like how many abled body men (i.e, Dick Cheney) supported the war in Vietnam but did not go fight. If we must have a draft why not only draft the children of congressmen and senators? (Joking, mostly.)
Anyway, I have the feeling this thread is gonna get closed pretty soon.
zeroang3l,
Like in Japan?
It doesn't seem to have hurt the country, rather the opposite.
My only point of criticism
Oh, I have plenty of criticisms of Obama and I think there's a lot he doesn't understand, but reduction in nuclear arms is something that he has taken seriously for a long time and has been quietly pushing hard for since he took office.
LOL! Imagine what ad I'm getting in the right sidebar right now!
Google ads can be so fitting... :-D
Unlike you, I've always been proud to be a confessing coward.
Were you born a condescending douche, or did you go to school for it?
Grownups swear. Especially when confronted with lying trolls such as yourself. Whining about tone is the last resort of the weak. There's a nice little blog over at Discovery Mag called the Intersection where you can find like-minded pearl-clutching twits to whine about Pharyngula's attacks on your fragile little soul. Try it out.
That you think your responses in any way hold up in truth, being informed, morality, knowledge of history, integrity or even quality of verbal barbs is exactly why you are being treated like the pathetic immoral homophobic weasel you are.
You have done nothing but lie, evade and troll in every thread you have ever decided to derail and pollute with your presence. Grownups consider that to be uncivil behavior. You are not entitled to civility.
Okay, so you concede the point. Thank you, move along. Discussion over.
What fighting? Your imaginary invasion (I mean, really -- are you really worried about Iran shipping over its army?) or these offensive bullshit occupations we are currently engaged in?
Do you write for Fox News? They pull this excrable weaseling tactics all the time. Or is it just that you are so deeply D-Ked that your deep certainties compel you to say that just to make an even bigger ass of yourself?
So people that call you on your bullpuckey are by definition assholes, or is it just the ones that aren't nice enough about it for your poor, delicate sensibilities?
PZ's busy, and had a hard trip judging by the twitter feed on this page. Doubt he'll be doing any thread maintenance for a day or two.
If anyone's wondering, odds are zeroang3l was previously posting as the yahoo id containing 15934. I forgot about his game (ignored it initially), and it took about 10 seconds to figure out. All the other yahoo ID's are either saying it's just and right (even necessary, since they are acting on our behalf) for civilians to comment on what our military does, or saying that war is horrible and should be avoided at any costs.