|
On April 06 2010 15:30 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 15:22 uiCk wrote:On April 06 2010 14:47 EvilTeletubby wrote:
Thanks lowbright... pretty much sums everything up correctly IMO. dont blame all military personel, but if there is an error of judgment based on not completing procedures (lack of information, assesment of the situation), acting on stress as they say, is not a reason for them not to assume responsability for the result, since if there is clear error in the process of the assesment, someone is to blame. Not sure if you meant to quote me or the article itself; I'm not saying no one is to blame by any means... I'd be curious to know what the leadership had done in this situation... were they overstressing/overworking the men? Not continuously reinforcing the RoE's as they should have? A little too eager to give the authority themselves with partial information?
was disagreeing with some aspect with the article, as to te writer seemed to take this attack on all military personel (hes probably trying to fend of the haters who blame it on all on every amrymen) hence disagreeing with your opinion that it sums it up correctly. imo :D i just think someone must be blamed here (im no military expert, far from it). all error needs correction of some kind, if no it gets repeated, and the way the article is written, only one to blame is the war itself. the later article made good points of the possibilty of error that could have been prevented, and im sure its not absurd that these situations can be avoided.
in no way do i assume you are defending the "collateral murder" as only possible outcome.
|
I'm still surprised that people didn't understand that this is what the realities of warfare against an insurgency actually is. It was like this in Vietnam and its like this now, and it always has been this way.
The war in the middle-east can't be reduced to combat between American uniformed troops and 20 to 50 year old Arab men with long bears screaming "Death to America" as they shoot AK47s, its about human shields, dirty tricks, people of indeterminate hostility and firefights in crowded areas. Its about very little time to think and much potential danger. This has always been how these wars are.
If it was as easy as fighting off Arabs burning American flags in one hand and shooting guns with the left people would be able to survive it much more easily. There is a reason real combat veterans almost never talk about it, why "war is hell" and why combat changes a person. This is why, and this is war.
|
On April 06 2010 15:52 cz wrote:
I'm still surprised that people didn't understand that this is what the realities of warfare against an insurgency actually is. It was like this in Vietnam and its like this now, and it always has been this way.
The war in the middle-east can't be reduced to combat between American uniformed troops and 20 to 50 year old Arab men with long bears screaming "Death to America" as they shoot AK47s, its about human shields, dirty tricks, people of indeterminate hostility and firefights in crowded areas. Its about very little time to think and much potential danger. This has always been how these wars are.
seems you know alot about warfare, and what do you do? your "reduction" seems more like a scene from counter strike game.
|
Im glad to see that someone came back in here and reeled this thread back in. It was getting out of hand.
I have been working hard to try and find some background on the subject and i finally found some. This situation really needs some context to really understand possibly what their rules of engagement were. According to the reports and the huffington post, there was a fire fight in the area about 2 hours before hand and it was considered a hot zone. They had humvees deployed on the ground and the Apache was providing cover.
The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group
Stuff like this helps to maybe put it into perspective that it is very dangerous for camera men to be accompanying armed men in a hot zone hours after fierce fighting.
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
On April 06 2010 16:03 lightrise wrote:
Im glad to see that someone came back in here and reeled this thread back in. It was getting out of hand.
Not to side-track, but in all seriousness that's what I'm here for. If anyone ever sees a thread go so far OT like that, please don't hesitate to PM me.
|
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I don't see reason for outrage here.
I agree. The whole reason they were there is people on the ground were being shot at from that area. 20 minutes later there are inarguably men with weapons walking into a building nearby. Assuming they were weapons really wasn't a big deal.
|
Are you guys daft?
The ROE were not followed.
The deaths were intentionally covered up the by the military when Reuters requested a FOIA on the deaths of their reporters.
Think about how this is not a unique incident, this shit has been happening for 8 years.
"oh, deaths like this are unfortunate but hey it's the price of war." But why are they at war? Why are the soldiers there to begin with? For what noble purpose does the US military continue its occupation?
edit: yeah it's totally not a big deal that we killed some civilians. happens all the time bro. nevermind the fact that Iraq never had WMDs or had anything to do with the 9/11 WTC. hey it's their fault they were walking around where our helicopters were!
all of the above sentences are things people say to shift the uncomfortable feeling of partial responsibility. what does it take to say "yeah, we fucked up really bad this time. we'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again." do you see the fundamental dischord here? it places the blame on the victim for being shot at, rather than on the army for shooting the victim. If the goal of the U.S. army is to peacefully rebuild Iraq into a democratic nation that is friendly towards the West, as is oft said, they are doing a terrible job of it by killing peoples' neighbors.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Baltimore, USA22259 Posts
Since people are apparently blind... reposting:
Public warning to all - This thread is NOT about Nationalism or blind hatred towards any nationality, American or otherwise. It is also not about the war itself and the justifications (or lack thereof) for the reasons behind it.
It is about a very specific incident that occurred; and if you can't keep yourself on that topic, please do not post in this thread.
|
So am I the only one that thinks it's acceptable for soldiers to celebrate when they kill the enemy? Maybe not in this case since the enemy isn't clearly identified and they weren't much of a threat, but if I was in a firefight and I killed someone shooting at me, I would be slightly happy that I ended a serious threat to my life. I don't even blame insurgents for celebrating when their IED goes off and kills a bunch of people. You're supposed to be pumped up about killing your enemy, at least that's what I've taken from Braveheart.
|
Hmm watched the video and don't really understand why they fired at the truck picking up the wounded. Some people here have said it might've been dangerous, but was there any reason to think it was? I mean, atleast they saw the group of people carrying some weeapons before shooting them, but with the car... was there anything that suggested that they were hostiles besides that they could've been?
|
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
|
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote:
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
|
On April 06 2010 18:10 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote:
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
No, fighting with knife = no innocent children get wounded.
|
On April 06 2010 18:15 Liquid_Turbo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 18:10 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote:
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons. No, fighting with knife = no innocent children get wounded. Fighting with knives means 50-100% casualties amongst combatants. Comparing an insurgency and civil war to a war is a bit murky though. You might be able to save a few kids. Unless of course you don't have modern communications either, which would make it impossible to control or regulate anything soldiers on the ground did. Think that wouldn't result it dead kids?
|
On April 06 2010 18:10 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote:
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
Maybe, but that would require that you actually kill a man with your own hands and not just pull the trigger from a long distance away. I have huge issues with young redneck soldiers shooting down arab men from a chopper with their counter-strike skills. It's pretty fucked up
|
On April 06 2010 18:27 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 18:10 Romantic wrote:On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote:
Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons. Maybe, but that would require that you actually kill a man with your own hands and not just pull the trigger from a long distance away. I have huge issues with young redneck soldiers shooting down arab men from a chopper with their counter-strike skills. It's pretty fucked up I think we should just all be angry at the people who sent them there 
|
I actually agree with Focault on here. Civilian Casualties were always on the same level, until WW1 and have risen ever since. Instead of risking the lives of people who are paid to fight and possibly die the civilian life has become more expendable.
1. If civilians die, you get political backup due to the outrage in your own population. (This thread is a good example lol)
2. Civilians aren't as expensive as soldiers, talking of western standards, they were trained for years and carry expensive equipment.
Of course it's a bit difficult when at war in poor countries which can't afford a real army, because combatants there are almost always "civilians". Iraq is such a country, so let's not forget western soldiers there face an insane amount of pressure, not knowing who's a threat or not.
|
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
Best Seller Hot
|
i wouldn't consider this to be "murder" because these kinds of mistakes happen during war time. being a war journalist is risky business and there are just so many ways for you to die.
|
United States43823 Posts
On April 06 2010 18:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:
I actually agree with Focault on here. Civilian Casualties were always on the same level, until WW1 and have risen ever since. Instead of risking the lives of people who are paid to fight and possibly die the civilian life has become more expendable.
1. If civilians die, you get political backup due to the outrage in your own population. (This thread is a good example lol)
2. Civilians aren't as expensive as soldiers, talking of western standards, they were trained for years and carry expensive equipment.
Of course it's a bit difficult when at war in poor countries which can't afford a real army, because combatants there are almost always "civilians". Iraq is such a country, so let's not forget western soldiers there face an insane amount of pressure, not knowing who's a threat or not.
Civilian casualties used to be much higher in the less civilised wars where cities would be levelled for resistance. But yes, there was a brief paradigm in which the country that would lose a war thought it was a good idea to put all their soldiers in uniform and line them up where the stronger invader could find them. That was never a historical standard because it's a really stupid idea. Civilians haven't become more expendable because of the invader, it's the intelligence of the defender that created this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
