|
On April 06 2010 07:32 endGame wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:27 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote:
I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____< Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag. I'm just saying. Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so. Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
|
On April 06 2010 07:36 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:19 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't see reason for outrage here. Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens. You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death is okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like those matter you know when human lives are at stake.
If you are a journalist in a war zone, you accept some serious fucking risks. Especially when walking around with people carrying AK-47's.
The crew of the apache definitely could have handled themselves better, but the decisions they made did not seem inappropriate to me in any way based on what they thought they saw.
|
On April 06 2010 07:40 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:36 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 07:19 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't see reason for outrage here. Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens. You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death is okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like those matter you know when human lives are at stake. If you are a journalist in a war zone, you accept some serious fucking risks. Especially when walking around with people carrying AK-47's. The crew of the apache definitely could have handled themselves better, but the decisions they made did not seem inappropriate to me in any way based on what they thought they saw.
I agree with this mostly. Insurgents don't wear uniforms, and they actively do all they can to disguise themselves as innocents. You have people making 50k a year making snap decisions after having people they know killed in situations just like this, and you expect something else?
This is the reality of war against a non-uniformed, insurgent force.
|
On April 06 2010 06:06 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:01 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:55 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:48 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote:
So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents? Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address. On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there. Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions: the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper? also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat?? Did you miss my entire point about how they showed no awareness of the Apache or the fact that it doesn't even look like one? I meant, yeah it's great that you can bring up "They got AK-47's and RPG's and are looking to kill some Americans" but doesn't that argument sound awfully close to the "THEY GOT WMD'S!!!"
Aware or not, is someone with a gun and/or rpg a threat? Perhaps the marines were going to micro on the ground! It's not that hard of a question 
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 07:36 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:19 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't see reason for outrage here. Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens. You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job, and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death its all okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like a wrong call matters when human lives are at stake.
Of course it matters. Nobody is saying this is a good thing. Innocent lives were lost. People were saying it was an acceptable thing. Always going to happen. Nature of warfare. etc etc
It's not okay. It just is.
|
Maybe we shouldn't be fucking flying around there anyway. FUck this war man
|
On April 06 2010 07:45 Hypnosis wrote:
Maybe we shouldn't be fucking flying around there anyway. FUck this war man
My thoughts exactly. None of this would be happening if America stayed the fuck out of another countries business.
On April 06 2010 07:52 KwarK wrote:
That's a whole different debate.
Its not really even a debate its a fact that I stated.
But, I'm not going to derail this thread so I'll stop posting.
|
United States44113 Posts
That's a whole different debate.
|
Anybody have statistics on reporters in war zones with non-uniform fighters? Maybe something about Vietnam War reporters? I'd bet that fatalities like this are fairly common in places like that.
Additionally, I freak out and focus fire the bengal tiger things thinking it's a zergling. Who knows what somebody would do if his life were actually in danger?
|
Norway28817 Posts
I think the idea that you can decide to invade a country and then justify atrocious acts through just stating "war is dirty you gotta do what you gotta do" is ridiculous. it's not like this knowledge (war is dirty) wasn't available prior to the decision to invade.
now, the culprits of this particular incident might not be crucifiable, but these sorts of acts are certainly valid arguements against warfare. Hopefully at some point people in charge will realize that horrible acts during war are inevitable, and hopefully people electing those in charge won't be willing to accept warfare for exactly this reason.
|
|
|
Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth.
|
Absolutely sickening. We should never have even gone into Iraq in the fucking first place.
End American Imperialism and the Warfare State now!
Where are the principled Chomskyites to come together with us Anti-State Market Libertarians to hold mass protests? Fuck Obama and Fuck Bush. Fuck unjustified violence.
|
On April 06 2010 08:06 Lycaeus wrote:
Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth.
Doesn't make it right, or legitimate, or less wrong. Of course lying to get us into war has always happened. From Lusitania, to Japanese Embargoes, to Gulf of Tonkin, and the 'Iraqi WMD'. We shouldn't even be there in the first place!
Using your argument, slavery had always existed when abolitionists sought to end slavery. Why even be outraged and try to end slavery, it's always existed; it's the truth.
Ass Backwards.
|
On April 06 2010 07:40 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:32 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:27 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote:
I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____< Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag. I'm just saying. Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so. Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information. What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat? This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual. There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways.
As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
|
Difference between US and foreign news...wow
Love how they are trying to cover shit up
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 08:18 endGame wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:40 cz wrote:On April 06 2010 07:32 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:27 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote:
I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____< Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag. I'm just saying. Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so. Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information. What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat? This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual. There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year. I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways. As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
You talk about people deserving the responsibility that being a soldier brings. It's not about who deserves the responsibility of being an infantryman. They give the responsibility to anyone stupid enough to ask for it. The people with the intellectual capacity to properly respect the power given to them have better things to do with their time.
It's unfortunate but the way it is.
|
On April 06 2010 08:17 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:06 Lycaeus wrote:
Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth. Doesn't make it right, or legitimate, or less wrong. Of course lying to get us into war has always happened. From Lusitania, to Japanese Embargoes, to Gulf of Tonkin, and the 'Iraqi WMD'. We shouldn't even be there in the first place! Using your argument, slavery had always existed when abolitionists sought to end slavery. Why even be outraged and try to end slavery, it's always existed; it's the truth. Ass Backwards.
Bad analogy. Nobody here is saying, "Nobody cares about this. Accidental deaths make us want to jerk off with glee." People simply accept that it's part of the mess that is war. If a better solution prevented itself, other than simply stating, "Don't go to war.", I'm sure the public would be all ears to avoid such mishaps.
Most people who are "ok" with this simply don't wish to see the soldiers of these actions vilified or condemned over what was simply a bad accident.
|
On April 06 2010 08:26 Amnesia wrote:Difference between US and foreign news...wow Love how they are trying to cover shit up
Yeah. Nobody wants to be seen as the news organization that "doesn't love America". Also, counter-image.
|
Al Jazeera is one of the best news sources out there. It's a shame more people do not read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NVih0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/Spm1fE1ZQJI/AAAAAAAAZ24/4pQIvKW2d1g/s400/FoxNewsWeDeceiveYouBelieve.jpg)
