Notices
Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Collateral Murder video (american helicopter attack in iraq)

  1. #1 Collateral Murder video (american helicopter attack in iraq) 
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    I do not know how much coverage this has in the U.S.A but it is getting a lot of coverage elsewhere in the world, especially in the middle east, and has generated enormous anger (so much for winning hearts and minds).

    http://www.collateralmurder.com/

    Dont watch if your easily upset, it is thermal video and audio from an American Apache gunship in Iraq attacking a group of what they believe are insurgents, but the majority of which turn out to be civilians, a journalist, and some children.

    Now i have my opinions on this that are quite strong, and i know people can argue about the rules of engagement and how the first attack may have been defendable, but the second attack in the van i do not think can be remotely defended. I know Wikileaks has some overly biased coverage on the video but any rational observer can still make their mind up.

    I hope this is not indicative of the way Americans pursue so called "insurgents" in Iraq.
    Are there any British army officers/members that can clarify how a UK soldier would handle it? as we know the Americans have a bad record of killing their allied soldiers and bombing journalists. (including reuters and BBC journalists) probably due to poor detection of threats such as this.
    [/url]


    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Dont watch if your easily upset, it is thermal video and audio from an American Apache gunship in Iraq attacking a group of what they believe are insurgents, but the majority of which turn out to be civilians, a journalist, and some children.
    harvestein; It has been reported, by virtually every US news media (Radio/TV/Newspaper) and probably many times. It's also been shown and discussed on every political forum or like blogs. To my limited knowledge, no one is or could condone this example, the several others incidents or the accusations of hundreds of others, including a good many friendly fire deaths which have happened in this war or frankly EVERY war in human history.

    Urban warfare is not a simple task, for any military or where an enemy militant simply escape into the civilian population and in this case where a flying craft has a target and may have misjudged his/her target. To demonstrate this, imagine the traditional European Style Warfare, up to at least the 18th Century where they lined up (both sides) and one or both sides attacked. One side however places a line of civilians (even if volunteered) ahead of the armed military, leading the attack. In my cold minded opinion, this is no different and I strongly contest the idea of innocents in many cases. If you are knowingly in the midst of a known combatants (out of uniform), reporters or civilians, even children, it should not be the responsibility of one side to cease the objective goal. Factually many missions are aborted. I'll guarantee you today, in the US, if an Aircraft is figured/determined to be heading for a target (civilian/military) and in the control of terrorist, that plane, with full knowledge of every civilian on board, will be shot down.

    I do understand, two wrongs will not equal a right, but your talking about an enemy, that has no trouble, sending their own civilians (women/children) into crowds of people, often their own people, simply to kill as many as possible. It is still my opinion, years from now, the people of Iraq, possibly Afghanistan and most (if not all) Muslim States, will be grateful, some Nations made the effort to stamp out the radical extremist of their society.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    It is important, with any negative event, to distinguish between intent and incompetence. IIRC in the First Gulf War the British lost more men to friendly fire by the Americans than they did to the Iraquis. Jackson, I think, is voting for the incompetence side of the spectrum. I'm with him on that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Clearly with friendly fire it is incompetance, im not sure if you also mean that this was purely incompetance which i think is only partly true.

    Nobody knows why we are there anymore, the enemy and purpose have become blurred by continual propaganda and bullshit to cover up the stupidity of going there in the first place. One leaked video, shows a callous disregard for rules of engagement. Yes the war is asymmetric, some terrible tactics are in place and accidents happen, but that does not excuse this, otherwise we are as bad as them.

    Also, the actions in the video are not the only issue. The fact that the american military gave false information after the event and stuck to it, despite the evidence.

    I dont think this is a winnable war, and never have. Incidents like this just prove that. This incident alone probably caused multiple times more people to pick up weapons and become "insurgents". If we need to lose our principals and look like animals to win the war then why the hell are we doing it?

    In regards to friendly fire, yes, incompetance, but it is not helped by this burning hatred a large part of americans have towards the middle east that causes such recklessness and disregard for life.

    That is not to say that the UK does not have some recklessness, but the british army have been dealing with urban warfare in NI for 50 years, and the middle east for nearly a century.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    This is clearly a tragic case of misidentification. Without knowing the specifics of why the Apache was overwatching this area and what type of threats had been encountered here prior to this incident, it is clear that the helicopter pilots are ensuring the security of nearby Humvees and at least two Bradleys. The individuals on the ground are suspiciously carrying equipment that looks very much like rifles and RPG's. At one point, the cameraman takes cover behind a wall and peeps out, exposing only his camera. Keep in mind that cameras may from a distance, appear to be commonly used weapons like explosives and car batteries. Despite the title, when watching the video for the first time I really did think that these individuals were insurgents. I find no real fault with the pilots. They thought they were doing the right thing in protecting the lives of Americans who were in imminent danger. They exercised restraint in not attacking the crawling wounded man who had no weapon. The pilots followed procedure when they requested permission to engage the van which oddly arrived on scene immediately following the attack. The intent was to prevent the escape of perceived enemy personnel and weapons. The medics who arrived on scene shortly after showed genuine concern in treating the wounded girls.

    One thing that receives a lot attention in forums is the cold radio chatter. This is merely an emotional distance developed by those who live in a warrior culture. Grim humor is one way of coping despite living in warzones for years and seeing urban catastrophe firsthand. Had they been mocking civilian casualties, that would indeed be cause for serious concern. The fact is that until the end, the pilots believed that they had attacked insurgents, who intended to ambush their friends.


    Here is the full, unedited version:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    It is important, with any negative event, to distinguish between intent and incompetence. IIRC in the First Gulf War the British lost more men to friendly fire by the Americans than they did to the Iraquis. Jackson, I think, is voting for the incompetence side of the spectrum. I'm with him on that.
    Many coalition friendly fire incidents are a result of equipment failures. IFF transmitter issues and communication breakdowns are the culprits of some high profile incidents, but this usually isn't relayed by the media.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    I think that the guys in the chopper were acting in a very professional manner, to say that they are incompetent beggars belief.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    I think that the guys in the chopper were acting in a very professional manner, to say that they are incompetent beggars belief.
    Wow. I guess the rules of war are only for politicians then? We just let soldiers do what they want.

    The attack on the van is clearly a violation of the rules of engagement (all of which are also on the website). I have seen three blog posts from army generals who have said that the attack on the van is clearly unnecessary and posed no threat at the time of its arrival.

    And about the radio chatter, fair enough it might help them, but it doesnt exactly help with their trigger happy stereotype.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Haverstein said,

    "Wow. I guess the rules of war are only for politicians then? "

    Politicians do not actually fight wars.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    ...... The individuals on the ground are suspiciously carrying equipment that looks very much like rifles and RPG's.
    Come on, confusing an RPG or Rifle with a camera, is like confusing a chihuahua with a Saint Bernard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    At one point, the cameraman takes cover behind a wall and peeps out, exposing only his camera. Keep in mind that cameras may from a distance, appear to be commonly used weapons like explosives and car batteries.
    Yes, but before hiding behind a wall, they were in the middle of a street for almost 2 minutes all the time clearly visible from everywhere, without taking any cover in a war zone, confidently walking, as anybody that doesn`t fear of being shot (kind of odd attitude for a warrior). The choppers, circled around them 2 times before firing their guns, and only in the moment prior to their attack, one guy took cover behind a wall. Is that enough justification to wipe them all of existence ?. Is it sane to keep on shooting at a clearly wounded man crawling trying to escape from where it is being fired. (I would do the same, as I think anybody would). Do you expect that he should stand up and raise his arms and surrender ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    I find no real fault with the pilots. They thought they were doing the right thing in protecting the lives of Americans who were in imminent danger. They exercised restraint in not attacking the crawling wounded man who had no weapon. The pilots followed procedure when they requested permission to engage the van which oddly arrived on scene immediately following the attack. The intent was to prevent the escape of perceived enemy personnel and weapons. The medics who arrived on scene shortly after showed genuine concern in treating the wounded girls.
    The pilots were psychopats who wanted to kill and use their weapons against anybody, only thing in their favor, is that they were obbedient soldiers, they waited till they allowed them to do so, after their own "psychic madness explanation" of the situation they wanted to tell. They did not restrain themselves against the people picking up a wounded man, firing at them(no war rule anywhere, allows such an action, its inmoral). During the whole scene they laugh and make cheers on their action, and they even found it funny when the first vehicle arrived passed over one of the dead bodies (a very sad moment in war, inevitable).

    They are not incompetent, they followed their true nature of sick people. If there is anybody incompetent here, it is those who put these psycho`s on charge of sophysticated and deadly weapons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    The only thing unusual about this it that it bypassed censorship and made its way to the media. Lookup the testimonies of the "Winter Soldiers" and you see massacres of civilians by the invading American occupation army are a dime a dozen, they even carry "drop weapons" to put on the dead bodies of unarmed civilians they have massacred.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    The attack on the van is clearly a violation of the rules of engagement (all of which are also on the website).
    What rules of engagement were infringed? Indeed, the van posed no threat, but do you think it reasonable to allow combatants to walk off the battlefield at will?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    Come on, confusing an RPG or Rifle with a camera, is like confusing a chihuahua with a Saint Bernard.
    I am reasonably sure that at least two of the individuals featured in this video were carrying rifles. They were likely hired security for the reporters. Having the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to say that were you in their place, would have identified them as noncombatants. Things aren't as easy as that in reality. Using night vision optics, I have personally been convinced that my observation post was being approached by multiple backpack wearing, weapon carrying individuals who later turned out to be deer. My night vision googles have at times collected light from a blade of grass in my field of view, which looked surprisingly like a person pointing a rifle in my direction. Better observation equipment will help to prevent these accidents in the future. Punishing these soldiers won't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    The choppers, circled around them 2 times before firing their guns, and only in the moment prior to their attack, one guy took cover behind a wall.
    The reporters and crew were unaware of the helicopter. It was really far away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    They did not restrain themselves against the people picking up a wounded man, firing at them(no war rule anywhere, allows such an action, its inmoral).
    But it is legal. This was not marked by either the red cross or red crescent of islam, thus not a Medical Evacuation Vehicle (medevac). Thus it would have been considered a Casualty Evacuation Vehicle (casevac) and unprotected by the international laws of war.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    Is it sane to keep on shooting at a clearly wounded man crawling trying to escape from where it is being fired. (I would do the same, as I think anybody would). Do you expect that he should stand up and raise his arms and surrender ?
    From the chopper pilots:
    "One-eight, we also have one individual, uh, appears to be wounded trying to crawl away."
    "Roger, we'll cease fire."
    "Roger, we won't shoot anymore."

    These guys are psychopaths? Really?
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    What rules of engagement were infringed? Indeed, the van posed no threat, but do you think it reasonable to allow combatants to walk off the battlefield at will?
    absalutely, the rules of engagment were indeed different in 2007, it would be a war crime as of now (but then again is it really a war crime if its commited against terrorists)
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Long distance combat, especially from the air, has always been more impersonal than ground combat, especially hand-to-hand. High technology, with its fast videogame-like controls and remote-controlled unmanned vehicles, makes its even more impersonal. I can understand incorrectly “perceiving” weapons during the tensions of combat.

    I have seen death. The audio disturbs me much more than the video because it reveals the thoughts of these soldiers. The gunner’s trigger-happy “Dirty Harry” wish for the seriously wounded man to pick up a weapon. The shooting of non-combatants retrieving the seriously wounded man. The cavalier joking about running over a wounded person/dead body (we’ll never know which it was). We can chalk it up to the vagarities of war, but if the soldiers aren’t “writing home” about this stuff (“Hey Dad, guess what? I ran over a body yesterday!”), then they’re not being honest with themselves.

    I would not use 30mm high-rate high-accuracy airborne cannons as anti-personnel weapons. These projectiles have a caliber greater than 1 inch and a weight that’s probably about 1¼ pounds. It’s like getting hit by the heads of several 20-oz hammers at Mach 2. Imagine what they do to a human body.

    I don’t like the dichotomy between the “official stance” of the US compared to the acts actually committed by the troops and especially the cover-ups to conceal these discrepancies. Anyone remember the troops playing capture the flag at the start of the war where “we” took down the Iraqi flag, and raised an American one? The wedding party massacre of more than 40 civilians, including children. Also various murders and/or rapes. The friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman. And let’s not forget Abu Ghraib. And has the US ever officially admitted that it killed these two Reuters employees?

    We invaded a sovereign nation, caused 100,000 civilian deaths, failed to find even one WMD, and have taken longer than our participation in World Wars One and Two combined -- with no end in sight.

    Contrary to the rest of the civilized world, the USA (along with Morocco, Iran and Afghanistan) have failed, for more than 30 years, to ratify Protocols I and II of the Geneva Conventions as regards the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    absalutely, the rules of engagment were indeed different in 2007, it would be a war crime as of now (but then again is it really a war crime if its commited against terrorists)
    You don't know what you're talking about. Rules of engagement differ depending on the location, unit and mission. There is no single rule set that has changed since 2007 and you failed to describe the exact violations.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    I would not use 30mm high-rate high-accuracy airborne cannons as anti-personnel weapons. These projectiles have a caliber greater than 1 inch and a weight that’s probably about 1¼ pounds. It’s like getting hit by the heads of several 20-oz hammers at Mach 2. Imagine what they do to a human body.
    Most of this is fiction and an exaggeration of the effects of the M230 cannon. By "high rate" I think you mean high rate of fire. It actually has a relatively sluggish rate of fire at 625rpm. Nor is the projectile weight "about 1 1/4 pounds." The entire 30mm NATO cartridge is around 350gr. or 1/2 pound. Here, you're just playing around: "It's like getting hit by the heads of several 20-oz hammers at Mach 2." Besides, what does it matter if it aggressively destroys the human body. The debate here is how weapons should be directed, not how effective they might be.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    I don’t like the dichotomy between the “official stance” of the US compared to the acts actually committed by the troops and especially the cover-ups to conceal these discrepancies. Anyone remember the troops playing capture the flag at the start of the war where “we” took down the Iraqi flag, and raised an American one? The wedding party massacre of more than 40 civilians, including children. Also various murders and/or rapes. The friendly fire that killed Pat Tillman. And let’s not forget Abu Ghraib.
    Was there talk of a cover-up in this incident? The rest of this statement is a bit off topic. And what's wrong with taking down an Iraqi flag and raising an American one? It's a time honored expression of pride after a successful military action.

    You describe the effects of the 30mm cannon, then allude to unrelated embarrassments throughout the long conflict. It really sounds like you are trying to paint a distasteful image of the war by appealing to emotion, rather than discussing this particular event.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Wow..

    So many misconceptions, but that's to be expected with the lies, slander, and propaganda surrounding the situation. The Apache pilots were a forward unit securing a path for troop movements behind them. They came across these people, setting up an ambush.

    There was both a guy with an RPG and a guy with a camera. The Iraqi's did fire first. Reporters embedded with the enemy can expect to be shot at like the enemy.

    Wikileak obtained video

    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    ...Indeed, the van posed no threat, but do you think it reasonable to allow combatants to walk off the battlefield at will?
    How about being carried, due to mayor injuries, by others who also are unarmed, into the van, which never made any movement as leaving from the place ?. It never had the chance to show its intentions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    I am reasonably sure that at least two of the individuals featured in this video were carrying rifles. They were likely hired security for the reporters. Having the benefit of hindsight, it's easy to say that were you in their place, would have identified them as noncombatants.
    Two guys with an Ak-47, sure a big threat for a Bradley, and the 10 others that didn`t carry any weapons, sure were able to infringe serious damage to the US soldiers ears, with their sharp tongue. I am no military expert, but by the refered video it is clearly visible that there were no RPG`s, besides there were 2 choppers at least in the place, and the professionals in them, never even doubted, giving them a little of credibility, that they did have them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Things aren't as easy as that in reality. Using night vision optics, I have personally been convinced that my observation post was being approached by multiple backpack wearing, weapon carrying individuals who later turned out to be deer. My night vision googles have at times collected light from a blade of grass in my field of view, which looked surprisingly like a person pointing a rifle in my direction.
    It was at plain daylight, no night vision optics needed in this case, in which case you could probably be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    The reporters and crew were unaware of the helicopter. It was really far away.
    Who knows for sure ?, by the time taken by the chopper who had to circle round the suspects and considering the Apache`s top speed of 350 km/hr., which wasn`t been used at the time, I think it was pretty close. Enough to be seen perfectly clear by the suspects, who in chance never suspected they were being aimed at.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    But it is legal. This was not marked by either the red cross or red crescent of islam, thus not a Medical Evacuation Vehicle (medevac). Thus it would have been considered a Casualty Evacuation Vehicle (casevac) and unprotected by the international laws of war.
    We are talking about a combat zone within a city, where most of who is in it, are civilians, with civilian vehicles. In there, you must have common sense. More than 99,9 % of the vehicles there, will not have any markings at all. With your kind of rationalizing, next time you see a guy with one gun surrounded by 10 others, gives you the right to suspect that he is a criminal, and allows you to wipe them all out ?. What if this happens in Washington D.C. ?
    Come on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    From the chopper pilots:
    "One-eight, we also have one individual, uh, appears to be wounded trying to crawl away."
    "Roger, we'll cease fire."
    "Roger, we won't shoot anymore."

    These guys are psychopaths? Really?
    You could also hear the pilot, begging that the wounded guy grab a weapon or anything like it, and as seeing the images where you can see all the deads, say more than once "Nice" and laughter about the whole situation, specially related of how the guys got killed and how they were spread around the place, and after a while, even though they ceased fire for a while, they begged repeatedly for permission to start shooting once again, which finaly was granted. Very intelligent and "normal" attitude, and after the rest of the troops arrived, started blaming the poor guys of the van about being responsible for taking the children there. Those people lived there. What do you expect ?, that they leave their children alone, where bullets are being fired. The least that any smart minded person can expect, is that some wacked minded psycopaths aboard an Apache helicopter of one of the most civilized modern nations, as it calls itself, is going to pulverize them, when they are trying to help a wounded person, without making any movement as if they were going to attack back. It is sad and a very shameful situation.

    This whole chapter is one of the reasons why war will always be bad, and thats why I said it is inevitable, things like this will always happen in war. And what most worses the issue, is that agressors here, tried to diminish what happened as it never did, blaming others of their own guilt.
    Will your country ever learn ?......
    I hope so, it does.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Contrary to the rest of the civilized world, the USA (along with Morocco, Iran and Afghanistan) have failed, for more than 30 years, to ratify Protocols I and II of the Geneva Conventions as regards the protection of victims of international and non-international armed conflicts.
    jrmonroe; Not material and unenforceable, take your choice and many of those signers, since have broken there word, where the Allied Forces in Iraq, have been complying to the spirit of the Protocols, the best they can, under the CIRCUMSTANCES.

    According to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997, a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.[1]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

    We invaded a sovereign nation, caused 100,000 civilian deaths, failed to find even one WMD, and have taken longer than our participation in World Wars One and Two combined -- with no end in sight.
    Well, some claim many more deaths of Civilians have died than 100k, 99+% at the hands of other, than the US Forces. Once there, however you argue that point, we have and had the responsibility to see it through until a stable Government and environment exist, which is also "International Law". For the record, were still heavily involved in Korea and have installations in Japan and all over Europe 60 years later. We will be in Iraq 20 years from now and probably Afghanistan.

    I have seen death. The audio disturbs me much more than the video because it reveals the thoughts of these soldiers. The gunner’s trigger-happy “Dirty Harry” wish for the seriously wounded man to pick up a weapon. The shooting of non-combatants retrieving the seriously wounded man. The cavalier joking about running over a wounded person/dead body (we’ll never know which it was). We can chalk it up to the vagarities of war, but if the soldiers aren’t “writing home” about this stuff (“Hey Dad, guess what? I ran over a body yesterday!”), then they’re not being honest with themselves.
    jrmonroe; I'm sure there are some 'just bad people', in our Military, it's almost inconceivable that with a 2 million member total, there were not. But to judge, as you are, the entire Military, is simply improper, incorrect and very disturbing. Most of those volunteers have mom's, pop's, wives/husbands/kid or their own families and doing a very tough job. Your welcome to pick on the politicians, if you think they are there for unjust reasons, but not them, whatever your experiences were in combat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    101
    My first thoughts are as follows without reading any prior posts.

    1. I've been taught not to shoot until you can see the whites of their eyes, that goes for scopes and other weaponry.
    2. However, this does not apply to such a situation in a chopper gunner raining down upon suspected terrorists.
    3. We will need to look back at the rules of engagement, which is to fire only if fired upon.
    4. However, that is one of the first rules and i'm sure they go much deeper in context.
    5. RPG's could have been slung of the shoulder with a strap even though they may never be carried in such way.
    6. It's an accident, obviously.
    7. The only disturbing part is the fact that the soldiers said 'nice' and 'good kill' which they appeared to enjoy.
    8. War has changed in such a way that it is a video game to a certain extent, especially when given a trigger from above.
    9. I don't agree with any of this, but cases will most likely occur and a verdict in the court of law will be dealt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Compared to older 30mm cannons, 625 rpm (a one second burst produces 10 rounds) is fast; compared to Aegis’ 6,000 rpm rate and Metal Storm’s 36-barrel 1,620,000 rpm rate, 625 rpm is “slow”. I had weighed a .50 caliber projectile at 685 grains, and assuming the same proportions/ogive/etc, I extrapolated this to a 30mm caliber and obtained 9,029 grains which I rounded down to 1¼ pounds or 20 ounces. I just now did some further research, and found the M230’s 30mm projectile weighs 0.3 kg (10.6 oz). So, I apologize for the misinformation ... it’s like the heads of ten 10-oz hammers flying at you at Mach 2 every second. And I still would not use such massive firepower as anti-personnel weapons.

    This Wikileaks video is all about cover-up, and this forum topic is on the military behavior in Iraq, and that the Reuters employees were victims of this armed conflict. I have yet to read/hear that the US government has admitted to killing the Reuters employees, running over the body of one of them, and killing the civilians trying to rescue the other one. From what I can find, the US seems to say that these employees ‘were killed’ during hostile actions — a conveniently vague use of the passive tense.

    The US immediately apologized for playing “capture the flag” and stated that the soldiers who played “capture the flag” were not authorized to do so.

    Every American has their First Amendment right to criticize their government, including the voluntary members of the armed forces. No constitution, statute or case law exempts any branch or member of the government from this right. Unlike some undemocratic dictatorships, the US government serves at the pleasure of its the people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    At 4:07 in the video, you see a guy with a long tube, who turns and points it in the air just as the guy's position is coming out of view. I've never seen a camera with a tube that long, but I don't know a lot about cameras. 4:07-4:23 is probably most of the reason they engaged.


    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein

    The attack on the van is clearly a violation of the rules of engagement (all of which are also on the website). I have seen three blog posts from army generals who have said that the attack on the van is clearly unnecessary and posed no threat at the time of its arrival.

    .
    Listening to the chatter, I think the guys in the helicopter were afraid the van would remove evidence. I'm sure it's a big fear for any soldier to shoot an armed combatant and then have on of his buddies remove the gun so it looks like a bad kill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Every American has their First Amendment right to criticize their government, including the voluntary members of the armed forces. No constitution, statute or case law exempts any branch or member of the government from this right. Unlike some undemocratic dictatorships, the US government serves at the pleasure of its the people.
    That's 100% correct jrmonroe and I for one am interested in your opinions or anyone else's, especially since you "have seen death", assuming under the heading, been in combat. I just don't feel 99+% of those that volunteer to serve in the US Armed Forces, would deliberately kill innocents, whether in this minor incident or the thousands that have happened over time. Frankly I worry, more about the opposite, where hesitation gets too many killed, or in this case, the JOB sent to do, done.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I have seen death outside of military combat, so the video doesn't bother me, but the audio does.

    Jackson, I agree that ~99+% of our armed forces, voluntary or otherwise, would not (and have not) deliberately kill innocents.

    I see the brass concealing wrongdoings (intentional or unintentional) in order to preserve: 1) its international prestige, 2) its internal morale, and 3) its operational momentum. For example, I have worked with classified documents, and I don't see what made this video Top Secret (except to "bury it").

    This half-baked Iraq War has gone on longer than the US involvement in WW1 and WW2 combined, and it's not even a world war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    This half-baked Iraq War has gone on longer than the US involvement in WW1 and WW2 combined, and it's not even a world war.
    If the purpose of the War, was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, for whatever reason, the war was over in days. With out international law, we could have left and been done with it. What your probably indirectly correct on was the aftermath, both in the revenge internal fighting of different ethnic groups and then the insurgency.

    I see the brass concealing wrongdoings (intentional or unintentional) in order to preserve: 1) its international prestige, 2) its internal morale, and 3) its operational momentum. For example, I have worked with classified documents, and I don't see what made this video Top Secret (except to "bury it").
    You just gave three reasons, to justify preserving secrecy, not to mention the political wrangling going on in the US. If the release was political, I have no reason to believe it was not, then their is nothing admirable, in it's release.

    Jackson, I agree that ~99+% of our armed forces, voluntary or otherwise, would not (and have not) deliberately kill innocents.
    Fair enough, I didn't think you were....

    On handling classified/secret/top secret documents, you must then know how much really classified junk, has no acceptable reason to be classified in the first place, other than to preserve the innocence of a person or some agenda. I have strong feelings on public trial, via media of anything past tense in Government. This goes to what I call the dignity of the office and has absolutely nothing to do with any person. I have no doubt, every US President, along with most of their immediate Staff, could be found quilty of high crimes by the general public, but see no reason for having prisons full of former politicians we elected to do what THEY felt best in their time and with the information, privy to those offices.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I have no doubt, every US President, along with most of their immediate Staff, could be found quilty of high crimes by the general public, but see no reason for having prisons full of former politicians we elected to do what THEY felt best in their time and with the information, privy to those offices.
    Then what disincentive would exist against them making serious abuses? You only need to go immediately south of the US border to find a place where politicians routinely do what "they felt best in their time and with the information privy to those offices." It often involves a lot of money changing hands.


    There is no way to prevent people with criminal tendencies from obtaining high offices. You would have to know something about them that only a psychic can know. So, only the fear of punishment can keep people from getting and then abusing power. Relying on the "honor system" is about as reliable as relying on pacifism to protect one's national borders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri

    One thing that receives a lot attention in forums is the cold radio chatter. This is merely an emotional distance developed by those who live in a warrior culture. Grim humor is one way of coping despite living in warzones for years and seeing urban catastrophe firsthand. Had they been mocking civilian casualties, that would indeed be cause for serious concern. The fact is that until the end, the pilots believed that they had attacked insurgents, who intended to ambush their friends.
    Yeah. I was once in a hospital emergency room with a gash in my forehead that went clear to the skull. Upon seeing this, the nurse attending me began chattering excitedly and went and grabbed several of her friends telling them "I have skull! I have skull!", and then brought them over so they could get a look. (I'm sure that's a very small injury compared to what you've seen. I just thought it was funny that the nurse reacted the way she did.)

    I wouldn't mistake her intentions as being psychotic. I certainly wouldn't go a step further and suggest that she had joined the medical profession just for the blood, or because she likes cutting people up.

    So, why do we assume this about soldiers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    Two guys with an Ak-47, sure a big threat for a Bradley, and the 10 others that didn`t carry any weapons, sure were able to infringe serious damage to the US soldiers ears, with their sharp tongue.
    But the cell phones in their pockets could detonate IED's, killing the whole convoy. Should the Bradley drivers dismount and challenge insurgents to a duel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    Who knows for sure ?, by the time taken by the chopper who had to circle round the suspects and considering the Apache`s top speed of 350 km/hr., which wasn`t been used at the time, I think it was pretty close. Enough to be seen perfectly clear by the suspects, who in chance never suspected they were being aimed at.
    This assumes a lot. Oftentimes, individuals on the ground are unaware of the helicopter until they are attacked. Here are a few examples:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riiqo5Ggau0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beuTCOWzhaw&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL2EC...eature=related

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Compared to older 30mm cannons, 625 rpm (a one second burst produces 10 rounds) is fast
    No, it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    And I still would not use such massive firepower as anti-personnel weapons.
    Why? Does this weapon kill people deader than alternatives?

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    This Wikileaks video is all about cover-up
    I'm trying to impress upon you the importance of being specific and direct in your statements. Don't just vaguely suggest there was a cover-up. Exactly how did the the US military conceal this information beyond normal operational security? These videos were obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, Reuters says this option was helpfully put forward by members of the US military.

    "U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day."
    - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100405

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Every American has their First Amendment right to criticize their government, including the voluntary members of the armed forces. No constitution, statute or case law exempts any branch or member of the government from this right.
    Who tried to stop you?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yeah. I was once in a hospital emergency room with a gash in my forehead that went clear to the skull. Upon seeing this, the nurse attending me began chattering excitedly and went and grabbed several of her friends telling them "I have skull! I have skull!", and then brought them over so they could get a look. (I'm sure that's a very small injury compared to what you've seen. I just thought it was funny that the nurse reacted the way she did.)

    I wouldn't mistake her intentions as being psychotic. I certainly wouldn't go a step further and suggest that she had joined the medical profession just for the blood, or because she likes cutting people up.
    Ha. I've probably done the same once or twice with my patients. If you're passionate about your work, it should excite you, whether you are a nurse, an artist or a soldier.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    Two guys with an Ak-47, sure a big threat for a Bradley, and the 10 others that didn`t carry any weapons, sure were able to infringe serious damage to the US soldiers ears, with their sharp tongue.
    But the cell phones in their pockets could detonate IED's, killing the whole convoy. Should the Bradley drivers dismount and challenge insurgents to a duel?
    With this find of thinking, anyone talking or having a cell phone, can be considered a potential terrorist that is deserved to be killed in the act. Maybe some of the US soldiers, that have cell phones are also terrorists.
    I wonder how many "potential terrorists" like this, live in the USA ?

    Come on, if you want to defend your soldiers attitude in this incident, go ahead it`s your choice, but try to make more plausible sense in your arguments.

    Maybe, you`re next argument, is that one man in the van "probably" had a lighter in his pocket, not for lighting cigarretes, but to light a fuse of something.
    COME ON.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Then what disincentive would exist against them making serious abuses? You only need to go immediately south of the US border to find a place where politicians routinely do what "they felt best in their time and with the information privy to those offices." It often involves a lot of money changing hands.
    kojax; An educated electorate. The original intent for the choosing of the Executive and the Senators in Congress, was via State Legislatures, who it could be assumed were up to date on the needs of their States. On the other hand, the 'Peoples House' was intended to express the views of their districts, by people with VESTED INTERST with in that district, land and/or property owners (only eligible voters). Even then legislation by the House, was heavily subject to the approval of both the Senate and the Executive.

    The entire system, Representatives of those mentioned, was to do what was then best for themselves and supposed interest of the Republic, UNION OF STATES.

    Today, everyone is allowed to vote, from the dependent in society on Government, to the uneducated or questionable mentally competent. Young folks that will be 18, can register and vote, in many cases based on taught principles offered the same day of an election.

    There is no way to prevent people with criminal tendencies from obtaining high offices. You would have to know something about them that only a psychic can know. So, only the fear of punishment can keep people from getting and then abusing power. Relying on the "honor system" is about as reliable as relying on pacifism to protect one's national borders.
    Actually there are several ways to recall or rid government of any tyrannical or criminal person in high office, even the President of the US. Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson (about 1867) were impeached for going beyond Congressional approval (not Convicted or removed from office) and of course Nixon and his VP Agnew, simply stepped down from office. I have no idea how many in Congress today are under investigation for something and Governors routinely are ousted from office. Then there is the old fashion way, by simply not re-electing a person...

    kojax, in giving your questions honest answers, I don't promote, going back to the original system for choosing high office holders. Democracy (public voting) however can be very dangerous, often used by politicians where agenda is not always mentioned during the primary or general election campaigning. That's where experience should be used by the voter, often misleading by good speakers or those with 'so called' star power.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Compared to older 30mm cannons, 625 rpm (a one second burst produces 10 rounds) is fast
    No, it’s not.
    For example: British Mk44 Bushmaster, German Mk 101 autocannon, Soviet Shipunov 2A42 autocannon, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    And I still would not use such massive firepower as anti-personnel weapons.
    Why? Does this weapon kill people deader than alternatives?
    Military intelligence likes to interrogate prisoners, which saves many lives. Interrogating prisoners is very hard to do after one or two 10-oz hammerheads have plowed through their chests and/or abdomens … that is, if you can find all the pieces. If the objective is body count, then we can always drop a bucket of sunshine on them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    This Wikileaks video is all about cover-up
    I’m trying to impress upon you the importance of being specific and direct in your statements. Don’t just vaguely suggest there was a cover-up. Exactly how did the the US military conceal this information beyond normal operational security?
    It is common knowledge that, according to WikiLeaks, this surreptitiously-obtained video, entitled “Collateral Murder”, proves the US military covered up that it knew it had killed two Reuters staff and that it knew how the children in the van were injured.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    These videos were obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, Reuters says this option was helpfully put forward by members of the US military.
    WikiLeaks obtained this classified US military video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    “U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.”
    - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6344FW20100405
    Reuters never obtained the video. From the above-referenced Reuters website (emphasis added): “Video of the incident from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.” That is, the briefing officially "never happened". This is not "obtaining" the video.

    Reuters has been trying, without success, to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act for three years since the time of the attack. The US Govt apparently claims that the video is "Top Secret", meaning that, if released, it would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security. I have experience with military intelligence classification, and I can't see what's so Top Secret about this video, except to cover up the truth. No one seems concerned about the "spies" in the military who leaked this allegedly "Top Secret" video? Maybe they're really heroes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Every American has their First Amendment right to criticize their government, including the voluntary members of the armed forces. No constitution, statute or case law exempts any branch or member of the government from this right.
    Who tried to stop you?
    Jackson33 as per below:
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    jrmonroe; …. Your welcome to pick on the politicians, if you think they are there for unjust reasons, but not them [ie, the [military] volunteers [who] have mom’s, pop’s, wives/husbands/kid or their own families and [who are] doing a very tough job] …
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    im just kind of wondering does anyone here even care? I mean it really wont effect anyone in the civilized world as long as the media leaves military affairs alone. :?

    frankly who cares?
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    For example: British Mk44 Bushmaster, German Mk 101 autocannon, Soviet Shipunov 2A42 autocannon, etc.
    Of that list, the 24A2 autocannon is the only one used in this role. It has a variable firing rate of up to 550 rpm. The other two are mainly utilized in ground vehicles or on maritime platforms. A cannon with a significantly slower rate of fire would be inappropriate for use on an attack helicopter.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Military intelligence likes to interrogate prisoners, which saves many lives. Interrogating prisoners is very hard to do after one or two 10-oz hammerheads have plowed through their chests and/or abdomens … that is, if you can find all the pieces. If the objective is body count, then we can always drop a bucket of sunshine on them.
    Not sure how buckets of sunshine would kill people. If you intend to capture a combatant, you don't shoot him and hope he'll survive for interrogation. When you pull a trigger, you want something dead. Movies where people shoot for the legs so as not to kill the target have no root in reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    It is common knowledge that, according to WikiLeaks, this surreptitiously-obtained video, entitled “Collateral Murder”, proves the US military covered up that it knew it had killed two Reuters staff and that it knew how the children in the van were injured.
    Well i'm sure WikiLeaks said they proved a US military cover-up, but it's still very unclear how. Are you speaking of the military's reluctance to give up footage of a real tactical engagement that takes place during an ongoing war, detailing radio communication as well as optics and weapon capabilities? That sounds like customary operational security to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    These videos were obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, Reuters says this option was helpfully put forward by members of the US military.
    WikiLeaks obtained this classified US military video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers.
    Excuse me, I misworded that. Reuters is in the process of getting official access to these videos through the FOIA but have not yet been successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Who tried to stop you?
    Jackson33 as per below:
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Your welcome to pick on the politicians, if you think they are there for unjust reasons, but not them [ie, the [military] volunteers [who] have mom’s, pop’s, wives/husbands/kid or their own families and [who are] doing a very tough job] …
    So your spiel about free speech was in response to jackson33's polite reminder about the imprudence of verbally abusing servicemen? What an oppressive Orwellian society.


    Here is some footage that was left out of the "Collateral Murder" videos:
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

    I am now convinced that one of the Reuters employee's entourage carried an RPG.

    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    im just kind of wondering does anyone here even care? I mean it really wont effect anyone in the civilized world as long as the media leaves military affairs alone.

    frankly who cares?
    Oh, just hush up.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Well i'm sure WikiLeaks said they proved a US military cover-up, but it's still very unclear how. Are you speaking of the military's was reluctance to give up footage of a real tactical engagement that takes place during an ongoing war, detailing radio communication as well as optics and weapon capabilities? That sounds like customary operational security to me.
    The military can keep their footage. The civilians want the truth instead of a cover up. The truth goes something like this:

    We shot the two Reuters guys and ran over one of them (but we think he was already dead). Then we shot and killed the seriously injured Reuters guy when unarmed people tried to rescue him. We shot his rescuers dead too, and we injured the two kids in the rescue van.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    It does seem that " Reuters " is very quick to have a go at the military out in Iraq and Afghanistan too. What better prey than a Western military organisation that is open to scrutiny, and just happens to accidentally kill some Reuter`s hack, out doing what hacks do. Servicemen are dying on a daily basis, doing the bidding of their respective governments, it is what they get paid to do, and unfortunately death comes with the job. The same could be said of war correspondents ( doing the bidding of their respective news organisations ) , who are very quick to criticize our military but not the bad guys. Here is an example of Reuters selective reporting ( from 2005 ) regarding the " Palestinian Hotel " in Iraq


    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...rs_the_pal.php
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Then what disincentive would exist against them making serious abuses? You only need to go immediately south of the US border to find a place where politicians routinely do what "they felt best in their time and with the information privy to those offices." It often involves a lot of money changing hands.
    kojax; An educated electorate.
    That's a myth. You can't read the newspaper for 5, maybe 10 minutes per day and then be "educated" enough to always know every time a politician abuses their position or power. You've got to punish them severely on those few occasions where you catch them. That puts the odds in favor of the house. (Low probability of catching is balanced by high cost of being caught.) Then only politicians too stupid to weigh the odds will commit crimes. (And how much harm will they do, if they're not even smart enough to weigh odds?)

    There is no way to prevent people with criminal tendencies from obtaining high offices. You would have to know something about them that only a psychic can know. So, only the fear of punishment can keep people from getting and then abusing power. Relying on the "honor system" is about as reliable as relying on pacifism to protect one's national borders.
    Actually there are several ways to recall or rid government of any tyrannical or criminal person in high office, even the President of the US. Both Clinton and Andrew Johnson (about 1867) were impeached for going beyond Congressional approval (not Convicted or removed from office) and of course Nixon and his VP Agnew, simply stepped down from office. I have no idea how many in Congress today are under investigation for something and Governors routinely are ousted from office. Then there is the old fashion way, by simply not re-electing a person...
    Yeah, but that only happens after they've already done their evil.

    With all the levels of secrecy involved in war and national security, many times the specific actions of an individual will never be known to the public, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't hurt you. Bad top secret decisions don't make you any less jobless, or ruin the economy any less just because they're made in secret. Just look at Enron. The public never knew anything until the whole cataclysm was already done unfolding.


    kojax, in giving your questions honest answers, I don't promote, going back to the original system for choosing high office holders. Democracy (public voting) however can be very dangerous, often used by politicians where agenda is not always mentioned during the primary or general election campaigning. That's where experience should be used by the voter, often misleading by good speakers or those with 'so called' star power.
    I like that you honestly express your views. I certainly don't agree with them, but I appreciate your integrity and passion toward them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    . The same could be said of war correspondents ( doing the bidding of their respective news organisations )

    I get a kick out of the idea that people can knowingly walk onto a battlefield and then expect that, just because they're unarmed, everyone is going to know that and not shoot them.

    I think we should discard the "armed/unarmed" distinction all together, and work off the basis of location. As long as civilians are given the opportunity to evacuate the area before an attack, their choice to stay or leave should determine their combatant/non-combatant status. That would make human shields a lot less complicated. If they stay by choice, they're a volunteer. If they're compelled they're a conscript.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax quotes;
    That's a myth. You can't read the newspaper for 5, maybe 10 minutes per day and then be "educated" enough to always know every time a politician abuses their position or power.
    Oh, I wished it were a myth. Everyday it seems some poll or survey will show more people know who Hanna Montana is, than Obama/Bush/Reagan and there are all kinds of polls, indicating where Americans get their news, the internet the only rising star and you know exactly how subjective that can be. I won't bother you with media bias, but does exist, both sides any issue.

    Then only politicians too stupid to weigh the odds will commit crimes. (And how much harm will they do, if they're not even smart enough to weigh odds?)
    I don't question a desire to promote a 'Political Agenda' (don't think that's wrong) or to even achieve that goal subverting the system (going on today IMO) but to deliberately break laws for personal gain, seems a little over board, considering what it take to achieve high office.

    Yeah, but that only happens after they've already done their evil.
    Is that any different with any segment of society. Man meets woman, each judging the other, they marry and man kills wife. Person runs for office, usually against several others, ten of thousand or maybe millions, chose a winner from actions and words spoken, seems would be harder to achieve if the goal were criminal intent.

    With all the levels of secrecy involved in war and national security, many times the specific actions of an individual will never be known to the public, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't hurt you.
    A couple points here; Even if secrecy was not required to achieve a victory over an enemy, what should never happen is was has happened far too often from Vietnam to the Gulf Wars, are the internal struggles to the decisions needed. I feel sure, somewhat having studied the Bush Administration Advisors, there was never a 100% agreement on any action. Rumsfeld, Chaney, Powell and Bush himself probably had four different ideas on most issues and for different reasons. Then add media and the public and you have and had a mess, not only in the operation of war, but public perception, which the perceived enemy played very well, not to mention political or ideology advocates. This very thread is a very good example...

    Bad top secret decisions don't make you any less jobless, or ruin the economy any less just because they're made in secret. Just look at Enron. The public never knew anything until the whole cataclysm was already done unfolding.
    I don't like equating Business and Government, but they do each have there system for checks and balance. Employees, Board of Directors, along with what should be a common sense, investor class. The Executive Branch has their own employees, advisors and with the exception of War Time, held to strict standards/transparency, just to get financing and cooperation from Congress.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [quote="jackson33"]

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Then only politicians too stupid to weigh the odds will commit crimes. (And how much harm will they do, if they're not even smart enough to weigh odds?)
    I don't question a desire to promote a 'Political Agenda' (don't think that's wrong) or to even achieve that goal subverting the system (going on today IMO) but to deliberately break laws for personal gain, seems a little over board, considering what it take to achieve high office.
    What happens is they get addicted to being in office, often to the point where they're willing to break laws in order to stay in. That was the downfall of Richard Nixon. He didn't send thugs into the HQ of the Democratic National Committee in order to secure any personal gain. At least not money.


    Yeah, but that only happens after they've already done their evil.
    Is that any different with any segment of society. Man meets woman, each judging the other, they marry and man kills wife. Person runs for office, usually against several others, ten of thousand or maybe millions, chose a winner from actions and words spoken, seems would be harder to achieve if the goal were criminal intent.
    ....... which is exactly why it is important to punish that man severely.

    We can't prevent him from killing her, but the fear of punishment afterward might motivate him to choose not to. Same with politicians.


    With all the levels of secrecy involved in war and national security, many times the specific actions of an individual will never be known to the public, but just because you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't hurt you.
    A couple points here; Even if secrecy was not required to achieve a victory over an enemy, what should never happen is was has happened far too often from Vietnam to the Gulf Wars, are the internal struggles to the decisions needed. I feel sure, somewhat having studied the Bush Administration Advisors, there was never a 100% agreement on any action. Rumsfeld, Chaney, Powell and Bush himself probably had four different ideas on most issues and for different reasons. Then add media and the public and you have and had a mess, not only in the operation of war, but public perception, which the perceived enemy played very well, not to mention political or ideology advocates. This very thread is a very good example...
    So, your worry is that too much scrutiny prevents consensus? I agree that sometimes there are no good options, and any move you make will be seen as criminal.

    Peoples' voting records in Congress often get thrown in their face during discussions about the deficit. The truth is that every year congress has to pass a budget, and if everyone who disagreed with it voted against it, the bill wouldn't pass and US government would get shut down. I remember it happened one year during the Clinton administration.

    So my point is: a person who is very strongly against deficit spending might still vote "yes" on a budget that includes deficit spending, just because it's in the overall best interests of the country not to kill the bill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    I agree that war is very gruesome and its difficult to be objective with things like this, especially if you hold issue with the war in the first place.

    the point of this is how the military can say some people were killed during operations, when the reality is that innocent people are being killed every day for a pointless war that cannot be won. The public are kept away from the harsh realities and become climatized to the war.

    Regarding engaging the van.I am not the only one of that opinion, even some of the videos harshest critics do not agree that it was even reasonable to attack it. Remember also someone within the pentagon also took issue and leaked it in the first place. There may have been some small arms fire that day, but this is a suburb of a major city containing millions of people.
    You can guarantee the British army would not have got away with an identical engagement during the urban warfare in northern Ireland.

    Not all of this is anger generated by the horrors of war (although some of it is). There are serious concerns about the way in which the Americans engaged, how easily the mistake was made, and the response of the military when questioned about the death of the reporters.
    Just because the public are not in the army and not adept at killing does not mean their judgement on matters like this are completely irrelevant. At the end of the day, this is occuring in their name.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Harvestein,
    You are beginning to sound a little bit like Tam Dalyell MP, over the sinking of the Argentinian ship " Belgrano " during the Falkland War. Shit happens, even if you think that it is not in your name.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    What happens is they get addicted to being in office, often to the point where they're willing to break laws in order to stay in. That was the downfall of Richard Nixon. He didn't send thugs into the HQ of the Democratic National Committee in order to secure any personal gain. At least not money.
    kojax; In his time, in this Country, Nixon was probably the best person, to have there. I have admired many of his actions, disliking others. He was going to be 'Impeached', probably felt like he might be convicted or thrown out of office, by the Senate and simply quit, however the charge was 'cover up' not planning or activating 'Watergate'....

    On 'addictive to the office', I'd think addictive to power, might work better in this discussion, but I don't believe Nixon had either problem. For those that might have had motivation, preservation of jobs (pay and/or power) works no less than money....

    which is exactly why it is important to punish that man severely.

    We can't prevent him from killing her, but the fear of punishment afterward might motivate him to choose not to. Same with politicians.
    Yes, I understand your point and after the fact the man (the woman misjudged 1 person), should be punished. To equate this to a popularly picked President, (millions of voters) and for relatively minor crimes, is not worth the international mess, I believe will be created. We don't IMO, take revenge on politicians we might ideologically disagree with, under any excuse of mis-conduct.

    So, your worry is that too much scrutiny prevents consensus? I agree that sometimes there are no good options, and any move you make will be seen as criminal.
    NO, any scrutiny promoted and advanced for any agenda, can be constructive. No one was or will be charged, in this one incident, or should they be. It always bothers peacenics, when I say this, but in the military, you are going to follow orders. The enemy is not going to cease fire, while some objector to a policy takes the issue to the Supreme Court or even for advise from the Commander In Chief. Decisions are simply never going to be perfect, even when judging years later, after some action. For all I know, this mission, may have ended with the saving of hundreds of innocents.

    Peoples' voting records in Congress often get thrown in their face during discussions about the deficit. The truth is that every year congress has to pass a budget, and if everyone who disagreed with it voted against it, the bill wouldn't pass and US government would get shut down. I remember it happened one year during the Clinton administration.

    So my point is: a person who is very strongly against deficit spending might still vote "yes" on a budget that includes deficit spending, just because it's in the overall best interests of the country not to kill the bill.
    My, we do bounce around on the issues; It's my opinion, Representatives should represent their constituents as closely as possible and if they do vote in good conscience for or against a bill, that they feel may hurt national interest, it will either be judged correct or incorrect, by those concerned, they still may pay the price. I'll add shutting down Government, or some mention of cutting services, schools police etc, are generally signs of begging for higher taxes, a ploy...


    I agree that war is very gruesome and its difficult to be objective with things like this, especially if you hold issue with the war in the first place.
    harvestein, forget the reason the short Iraq war to overthrow Hussein began. From the time it did, it was the obligation of those involved, UK, US and others to stay there until the Country recovered a viable government and maintain their own peace. Hussein, was a member of the minority and his followers were the most aggressive, the end result if we had left, could have been very bad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Shit happens
    Dave with that logic on life there is not much point having an opinion about anything.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Harvestein said,
    " Dave with that logic on life there is not much point having an opinion about anything. "

    I am not entirely certain if you are talking about yourself or both of us. You started this topic, which in my opinion has a very contentious title to it. The people that disagree with your allegations have shown remarkable restraint in their replies to your topic. That is only my opinion , you understand.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    which is exactly why it is important to punish that man severely.

    We can't prevent him from killing her, but the fear of punishment afterward might motivate him to choose not to. Same with politicians.
    Yes, I understand your point and after the fact the man (the woman misjudged 1 person), should be punished. To equate this to a popularly picked President, (millions of voters) and for relatively minor crimes, is not worth the international mess, I believe will be created. We don't IMO, take revenge on politicians we might ideologically disagree with, under any excuse of mis-conduct.
    You won't get any argument from me on the small crimes issue. I think it was unbecoming to try and impeach Clinton for lying about sex, of all things. It really put a mark on the dignity of the office, and the dignity of congress.

    However, if a few decades from now, declassified documents reveal that the WMD argument prior to invasion of Iraq was in any way the result of deliberate fraud, rather than mere incompetence, I have no objection to seeing members of the Bush administration tried, sentenced to prison, or maybe even executed for their crimes. I think that would send the right message.

    The right to classify information and withhold it from the public is a sacred trust.



    So, your worry is that too much scrutiny prevents consensus? I agree that sometimes there are no good options, and any move you make will be seen as criminal.
    NO, any scrutiny promoted and advanced for any agenda, can be constructive. No one was or will be charged, in this one incident, or should they be. It always bothers peacenics, when I say this, but in the military, you are going to follow orders. The enemy is not going to cease fire, while some objector to a policy takes the issue to the Supreme Court or even for advise from the Commander In Chief. Decisions are simply never going to be perfect, even when judging years later, after some action. For all I know, this mission, may have ended with the saving of hundreds of innocents.
    Yeah. I think it's really funny to see people on the internet showing enhanced, very carefully analyzed shots that reveal the two children sitting in the mini-van, and then try and say that, since they see the kids, (using a combination of hindsight, and carefully rewinding the tape several times to see it), the soldiers must have known there were kids in the vehicle.

    Of course... we all contribute to it. How many views do you think that website has gotten now, since they posted this story?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046

    So, your worry is that too much scrutiny prevents consensus? I agree that sometimes there are no good options, and any move you make will be seen as criminal.
    NO, any scrutiny promoted and advanced for any agenda, can be constructive. No one was or will be charged, in this one incident, or should they be. It always bothers peacenics, when I say this, but in the military, you are going to follow orders. The enemy is not going to cease fire, while some objector to a policy takes the issue to the Supreme Court or even for advise from the Commander In Chief. Decisions are simply never going to be perfect, even when judging years later, after some action. For all I know, this mission, may have ended with the saving of hundreds of innocents.
    Yeah. I think it's really funny to see people on the internet showing enhanced, very carefully analyzed shots that reveal the two children sitting in the mini-van, and then try and say that, since they see the kids, (using a combination of hindsight, and carefully rewinding the tape several times to see it), the soldiers must have known there were kids in the vehicle.

    Of course... we all contribute to it. How many views do you think that website has gotten now, since they posted this story?


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    which is exactly why it is important to punish that man severely.

    We can't prevent him from killing her, but the fear of punishment afterward might motivate him to choose not to. Same with politicians.
    Yes, I understand your point and after the fact the man (the woman misjudged 1 person), should be punished. To equate this to a popularly picked President, (millions of voters) and for relatively minor crimes, is not worth the international mess, I believe will be created. We don't IMO, take revenge on politicians we might ideologically disagree with, under any excuse of mis-conduct.
    You won't get any argument from me on the small crimes issue. I think it was unbecoming to try and impeach Clinton for lying about sex, of all things. It really put a mark on the dignity of the office, and the dignity of congress.

    However, if a few decades from now, declassified documents reveal that the WMD argument prior to invasion of Iraq was in any way the result of deliberate fraud, rather than mere incompetence, I have no objection to seeing members of the Bush administration tried, sentenced to prison, or maybe even executed for their crimes. I think that would send the right message.

    The right to classify information and withhold it from the public is a sacred trust.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    I am not entirely certain if you are talking about yourself or both of us. You started this topic, which in my opinion has a very contentious title to it.
    Firstly i meant "shit happens" is not a legitimate opinion. Its more of a form of trolling than anything else. It shows a lack of interest or ignorance of the subject which kind of begs the question of why you bothered to share it.

    secondly the title is contentious, but it simply describes the name of the website and the content of the video. It is not an allegation made by me, which most people seem to have noticed except you.
    Maybe by your logic perhaps i should have added some sort of disclaimer that the title of the website is not a reflection of my opinion. Like i said i have mixed view on this, and I dont agree that it can be called murder, certainly in a premeditated intentional sense. it is more blatant and gross negligence (regarding the van). Which was the main thing i was bringing to attention. Obviously from the beginning i expected some people not to agree with that.

    And about people "holding restraint" what is that meant to mean? What are they restraining from? calling me names? These are not my allegations, the point of the post was to dicuss the allegation made by Wikileaks. people have no need to restrain anything if it contributes to the post.

    plenty of people here have discussed varying and interesting points, which is what forums are about.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    You won't get any argument from me on the small crimes issue. I think it was unbecoming to try and impeach Clinton for lying about sex, of all things. It really put a mark on the dignity of the office, and the dignity of congress.
    kojax; To clarify meanings for those not from the US, Clinton, WAS impeached (accused), by our lower chamber, the House of Representatives, for lying under oath, not having an affair with an intern (Monica Lewinsky). He was tried in the Senate (their version of a trail), where a 2/3rd's vote would be needed for conviction or removal from office (only), which was NOT accomplished. If removed from office, in theory the Justice Department could have filed charges for lying under oath and could have resulted (think 5-10 years) a maximum of a few years in prison, a fine or both. (happens all the time, think Martha Stewart)

    However, if a few decades from now, declassified documents reveal that the WMD argument prior to invasion of Iraq was in any way the result of deliberate fraud, rather than mere incompetence, I have no objection to seeing members of the Bush administration tried, sentenced to prison, or maybe even executed for their crimes. I think that would send the right message.
    Oh my; Well, what if they accepted the intelligence from Tony Blare's administration in the UK, or from the Clinton Administration in the US, or a dozen of former Hussein's inner circle in Iraq (all did advocate such weapons), where would you place the blame. I suppose we could go back to the good old days, when a leader was overthrown, we simply chopped off the head (King Louie of France). How about the US Congress, which signed onto the war and financed, should they be held responsible, even those that voted against it, quilt by association.

    If none of that changes your mind, would you wish an elected President by a majority, to FEAR making a decision, on any grounds, especially if it might mean his/her own life. Then what about real loss of life and where later stuff comes out, some pretty bad stuff....

    Cap Arcona incident - Although it did not involve troops in combat, this incident has been referred to as "the worst friendly-fire incident in history"[22] On May 3, 1945, the three ships Cap Arcona, Thielbek, and the SS Deutschland in Lübeck Harbour were sunk in four separate, but synchronized attacks with bombs, rockets, and cannons by the Royal Air Force, resulting in the death of over 7,000 Jewish concentration camp survivors and Russian prisoners of war, along with POWs from several other allies.[22][23] The British pilots were unaware that these ships carried POW's and concentration camp survivors,[24] although British documents were released in the 1970s that state the Swedish government had informed the RAF command of the risk prior to the attack.[25][26]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    However, if a few decades from now, declassified documents reveal that the WMD argument prior to invasion of Iraq was in any way the result of deliberate fraud, rather than mere incompetence, I have no objection to seeing members of the Bush administration tried, sentenced to prison, or maybe even executed for their crimes. I think that would send the right message.
    Oh my; Well, what if they accepted the intelligence from Tony Blare's administration in the UK, or from the Clinton Administration in the US, or a dozen of former Hussein's inner circle in Iraq (all did advocate such weapons), where would you place the blame. I suppose we could go back to the good old days, when a leader was overthrown, we simply chopped off the head (King Louie of France). How about the US Congress, which signed onto the war and financed, should they be held responsible, even those that voted against it, quilt by association.

    If none of that changes your mind, would you wish an elected President by a majority, to FEAR making a decision, on any grounds, especially if it might mean his/her own life. Then what about real loss of life and where later stuff comes out, some pretty bad stuff....
    If what you say is true, then the evidence will not indicated any intent to deceive. No president should be too afraid of being wrong, but they should be afraid to intentionally manipulate the public with data they know to be false. (They should be absolutely terrified to do that.)

    After Iran-Contra, Reagan got away with just taking responsibility and doing a sort of "mea culpa", but he hadn't put our entire nation at war. If similar evidence emerges against GW and his people, I don't want them to be able to do the same. I want us to send a message to them that they're aren't entitled to make those kinds of judgment calls unless they are confident that the public would agree with them, were public privy to the information they are privy to.

    They are our servants. Their right to a freedom of conscience does not exceed ours. They are obligated to do what we want (or what we would want), no matter they feel about it. If they cannot, then the only alternative they should entertain is to tender their own resignation, not go over the peoples' heads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    kojax; Several years ago a contingency plan memoranda was mysteriously released, from the JFK administration. Basically the idea was to blame the Cubans for attacks on American Interest, by Americans, to create the need for freeing the Cuban people of Castro. It's been used to blame certain groups for the Assassination of Kennedy, yet there are other theories that J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI was actually instrumental. I could take you back to WWII, WWI, Spanish American War 1897, the Civil War itself (which may not have been needed, killed 620,000) or even some theory on the War for Independent or the follow up War of 1812. I could take you through the Progressive Movements late 1800's into the 1930's, dead set on corrupting the US Constitution and did do a pretty good job of it. Some covert activity (99% never known) has been released, cleared for public viewing, general by little leaks with in the bureaucracy (lifetime employees) distasteful of some in a current Administration. I'm not suggesting anything is right or wrong, there will always be more that I'll never know about, but to believe Government is pure as the 'wind driven snow' is simply not realistic.


    Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...orthwoods.html

    They are our servants. Their right to a freedom of conscience does not exceed ours. They are obligated to do what we want (or what we would want), no matter they feel about it. If they cannot, then the only alternative they should entertain is to tender their own resignation, not go over the peoples' heads.
    They are your REPRESNTATIVES and you or us as a collective of States have placed our trust in them, with our vote. I'm sorry, but they are above the laws most the rest of us live under and must be (IMO). We normally don't make one decision in our lifetime, any President, his staff or many in Congress might make on a daily basis, the Executive branch hundreds of times everyday. Your State, may have 'recall power' (many don't) on the three only you elect (two Senators/One District House Member, adding it started out that one District HM only). Said another way you or I have control over 3 of the maybe 500 people, that control the American Government today, normally only by elections.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Harvestein said,
    "Firstly i meant "shit happens" is not a legitimate opinion. Its more of a form of trolling than anything else. It shows a lack of interest or ignorance of the subject which kind of begs the question of why you bothered to share it. "

    If two words " shit happens " is a form of trolling, so be it.
    "Lack of interest" to your OP is being shown by others.
    "Ignorance of the subject", well perhaps. I am not an armchair General, and I have only watched the video once.
    The War On Terror goes on, and so do video clips of coalition troops allegedly doing wrong. I must dash, as I have to read a couple of blogs before I can form a proper opinion.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    They are our servants. Their right to a freedom of conscience does not exceed ours. They are obligated to do what we want (or what we would want), no matter they feel about it. If they cannot, then the only alternative they should entertain is to tender their own resignation, not go over the peoples' heads.
    They are your REPRESNTATIVES and you or us as a collective of States have placed our trust in them, with our vote. I'm sorry, but they are above the laws most the rest of us live under and must be (IMO). We normally don't make one decision in our lifetime, any President, his staff or many in Congress might make on a daily basis, the Executive branch hundreds of times everyday. Your State, may have 'recall power' (many don't) on the three only you elect (two Senators/One District House Member, adding it started out that one District HM only). Said another way you or I have control over 3 of the maybe 500 people, that control the American Government today, normally only by elections.
    I don't mind having them above laws in general. (I know Senators/Congressmen are totally immune to the misdemeanor code.) But there should be one law they are never above, and that is loyalty to their own office.

    We pay them with our own money. It's probably less than a lot of them could make elsewhere, but it makes them our employees. Our "public servants". I see their relationship to us as being the same as a CEO's relationship to the stockholders. We own everything they are in charge of. The tax money they spend to do stuff is our money. The CIA is our CIA, not their CIA. They didn't pay for it, so if they misuse it, then they're stealing from us, and we ought to put them in prison.

    I think if you let the government take on an entitlement of its own, you'll end up with Mexico. Government employees start feeling entitled to divert public funds into private accounts only they have access to. At first, it's just to avoid scrutiny. It's a "slush fund" they don't have to report to anybody. How long do you think it takes to get from that stage to the outright embezzlement stage? (I know it's a "slippery slope" argument, but how often are those false when you apply them to governmental corruption?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49 Collaterall Murder 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3
    I just watched the wikileaks video 'collaterall murder' and it broke my heart. I am an arab and I felt the hatred directed by the apache helicopter pilot at the group of men on the ground. I felt that the delight shown bow the pilots and gunners at the fear and death of the men was due to the fact that these men were iraqis, that is arabs and this has shaken my conscience to the core. I want to cry in a anger and fear and despair and sadness to the voices I hear coming from the cockpit of the apache helicopter, anxious to to kill and revelling in the human destruction. I want to cry out ,to them stop, please stop. Don’t they see human beings? Don’t they know that we love our children more than life itself? Don’t they understand that their crime against those two little children is a crime against every child on earth? A crime against even their own children?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50 Re: Collaterall Murder 
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by lunerius
    I just watched the wikileaks video 'collaterall murder' and it broke my heart. I am an arab and I felt the hatred directed by the apache helicopter pilot at the group of men on the ground. I felt that the delight shown bow the pilots and gunners at the fear and death of the men was due to the fact that these men were iraqis, that is arabs and this has shaken my conscience to the core. I want to cry in a anger and fear and despair and sadness to the voices I hear coming from the cockpit of the apache helicopter, anxious to to kill and revelling in the human destruction. I want to cry out ,to them stop, please stop. Don’t they see human beings? Don’t they know that we love our children more than life itself? Don’t they understand that their crime against those two little children is a crime against every child on earth? A crime against even their own children?
    Lunerius,
    Perhaps you may like to watch the video, of the brutul beheading, of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley, by some of your Arab friends.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Seems most questions are about shoot technique. I can't understand...
    My question is why USA army is there?
    Evidences showed Iraq hadn't support terrorists. But USA president said yes they did that. So the army got there. USA gov and its intelligence agencies
    is the ones should be responsible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52 Re: Collaterall Murder 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson
    Quote Originally Posted by lunerius
    I just watched the wikileaks video 'collaterall murder' and it broke my heart. I am an arab and I felt the hatred directed by the apache helicopter pilot at the group of men on the ground. I felt that the delight shown bow the pilots and gunners at the fear and death of the men was due to the fact that these men were iraqis, that is arabs and this has shaken my conscience to the core. I want to cry in a anger and fear and despair and sadness to the voices I hear coming from the cockpit of the apache helicopter, anxious to to kill and revelling in the human destruction. I want to cry out ,to them stop, please stop. Don’t they see human beings? Don’t they know that we love our children more than life itself? Don’t they understand that their crime against those two little children is a crime against every child on earth? A crime against even their own children?
    Lunerius,
    Perhaps you may like to watch the video, of the brutul beheading, of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley, by some of your Arab friends.
    So strange...
    Some crazy people killed one innocent person. Then you got the rights to kill the people which has the same ethnic?
    In the history of my country this kind of revenge happened too many times.
    Now we are all shame of the old history. But you civilized people get into it again. Strange! I don't know what to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53 Dave Wilson wrote - collaterall murder 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3
    Dave Wilson wrote

    Lunerius,
    Perhaps you may like to watch the video, of the brutul beheading, of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley, by some of your Arab friends.

    _________________

    The brutal beheading of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley was disgusting. People like that are not my friends. My friends are Australians, Americans, Brits ect. Do you think because these people who committed the heinous act against Kenneth Bigley were Arabs that this means every single one of us supports and agrees with it? Im sure you more intelligent than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54 Dave Wilson wrote - collaterall murder 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3
    Dave Wilson wrote

    Lunerius,
    Perhaps you may like to watch the video, of the brutul beheading, of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley, by some of your Arab friends.

    _________________


    And another thing Dave Wilson, I have Arab friends as well. If you judge an entire ethnic group on the actions of some crazed individuals then shame on you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55 Re: Dave Wilson wrote - collaterall murder 
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by lunerius
    Dave Wilson wrote

    Lunerius,
    Perhaps you may like to watch the video, of the brutul beheading, of the British hostage Kenneth Bigley, by some of your Arab friends.

    _________________


    And another thing Dave Wilson, I have Arab friends as well. If you judge an entire ethnic group on the actions of some crazed individuals then shame on you.
    Perhaps you may want to examine the flowery language, used in your first post on this subject, before you attempt to bring shame on me.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56 Re: Collaterall Murder 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by lunerius
    I just watched the wikileaks video 'collaterall murder' and it broke my heart. I am an arab and I felt the hatred directed by the apache helicopter pilot at the group of men on the ground. I felt that the delight shown bow the pilots and gunners at the fear and death of the men was due to the fact that these men were iraqis, that is arabs and this has shaken my conscience to the core. I want to cry in a anger and fear and despair and sadness to the voices I hear coming from the cockpit of the apache helicopter, anxious to to kill and revelling in the human destruction. I want to cry out ,to them stop, please stop. Don’t they see human beings? Don’t they know that we love our children more than life itself? Don’t they understand that their crime against those two little children is a crime against every child on earth? A crime against even their own children?
    US soldiers have been trained to keep those thoughts out of their head. This is a deliberate goal of their training. During the Vietnam conflict, it was observed that a large number of American soldiers were missing on purpose when they shot at their enemies, because they were reluctant to kill, and this caused a lot of American soldiers to die, so the US military started to change the way it trained them so they would emotionally feel more comfortable killing people.

    The grim, semi-hateful mentality is necessary to their survival. They can't afford to hesitate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i was watching c-span the other day. the conference was about biological and cybernetic technologies and their applications to "national security"

    there was an ethical objection by a military official who said that his(and the military's) doctrine was and is "return as deployed". of course that is an arguement against biologically augmenting soldiers to improve their capabilities. however the psychological affects not only of war, but of their training before soldiers are even in war violate this doctrine at a fundamental level.

    soldiers do not enter the military without some reluctance to kill(these sadistic people are generally rejected). however they leave the military with a completely different view of killing, it becomes natural to them.

    the training you just mentioned shows it, as does the apparent lack of consideration by the soldiers in this video (in the OP).
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The question is: how should the military be training them?

    During the Vietnam era, our soldiers retained their empathy, but they were also more difficult to control/keep in discipline and often committed atrocities against the local population despite orders against it. Empathy is a double edged sword. It can make you more brutal just as easily as it can soften you.

    In their current state, they are detached and uncaring (at least superficially), but they always do as they are told, and only kill civilians when operational protocall requires it, or at least allows for it. (Though I'm sure professionalism plays a role in this as well, since the army is composed of volunteers instead of draftees.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •