|
here's what i think
regardless of the mitigating circumstances of what happened, the soldiers who made the decision to shoot have to be held responsible for their actions. you go off to be a soldier, you know you are going to have to make hard decisions, but it does not been that you can do something morally wrong like killing an innocent without being held accountable for your actions. in that moment, yes what they did may have been the right course action, yes the protocol may have called for it. but that will never make a wrong action right. the military should not have had to have their actions exposed like this, where the families of the killed are calling them out, seeking justice.
this happened a while ago, and i would have hoped that by now they could make things right.
|
Wow that video is appalling. its like a bunch of children playing MW2
Honestly I think it's time for all this shit to come back and bite us in the ass.. I have no words for how ashamed I am right now..
|
When a suspect you have just gunned down are receiving aid from an unknown van, it is obvious that someone will conclude that the van is also a suspect. It's same as a high profile target getting away in a van. However in this case the suspects were journalist, and since the army already assumed they were the insurgents, there is nothing they could've avoided. I say whoever was driving the van are the one who made the unrealistic decision to step in, and the journalist for not wearing the vest. Those were the fatal decision in a war zone.
|
zizou21 United States. April 08 2010 15:11. Posts 3012 PM Profile Quote
Wow that video is appalling. its like a bunch of children playing MW2
Honestly I think it's time for all this shit to come back and bite us in the ass.. I have no words for how ashamed I am right now..
at least one more American exists with sympathy for others ( i thought i was the only one)
i love how these posters keep ignoring the fact that the van was fired upon while clearly removing wounded , while posing absolutely no threat . The first instance of firing is debatable( although the way the soldiers behave makes one think they are just itching to shoot some people with little regard to whom they shoot) the second instance i cannot see how any rational individual cannot see this as cold blooded murder ,,, on the young turks video that was previously posted he makes a very good point , There is no difference if your standing behind them with a handgun and pulling the trigger while they remove the wounded peacefully .. just because they are in a helicopter it is the same thing .... you all can keep ignoring this all you want ..
and now for a short rant ...... since when were iraqi insurgents terrorists ????? you people keep referring to iraqi combatants as terrorists .. so all Arabs that fight America are terrorists ? .. as a matter of fact terrorists never did come from iraq in a even marginal degree ,but i wouldn't be surprised if a whole new generation gets produced there now , its laughable... war on terror? more like we are making them through our illegal occupation and brutal treatment of another sovereign nations people . WMD were never found there , terrorists camps never existed there , we have no right to be there , and we should leave .some of you poeple actually believe we are there just to bring democracy ? lol what a joke we put Saddam in power in the first place , he was freaking usa/cia(bush senior backed? but coincidentally in the largest USA oil crises in history we decide to liberate a random country that just so happens to have some of the largest oil reserves on the planet , oh and one MINOR detail as well they don't freaking want us there !!!!!! hmmmmmmmm let me think , USA stood by and did nothing about the Rwandan genocide a true disaster of enormous historical proportions , but we really cared so much about Iraqi democracy ( cough cough i mean about iraqs oil )
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
Thank you for the relevant, on topic contribution. 
|
From the way it was described, I was really expecting worse. I think situations like this are inevitable when you try to fight a war kilometres away from the action. You make as good a decision as you can with the information you have and according to the mission you are on and you go with it. The lack of respect and "trigger-happiness" makes everyone look bad, but I think it's a natural part of the job when you have to kill people. It's hard to kill people if you see them as real people with real lives and feelings. I'm glad there's no war here. That would really suck.
|
The Young Turks's analysis was really bang on. It's no different then going up to the rescue minivan and shooting these guys in the back of the head.
|
On April 08 2010 12:10 Fruscainte wrote:
You're right. When -I- see explosions randomly on a street shooting up my friends, I just assume it's nothing serious at all and drive my van full of kids to go take the bodies that just got shot up with a bunch of 'random' explosions. And yes, they should have considering they were in a town that was currently fighting US soldiers and all the insurgents in the town were taking part in the battle. This was 3 or 4 years ago when shit like this was still happening in Iraq. So it's not like it was some green zone. It was a town full of Insurgents that was clearly being invaded by US forces (considering the battle was 100 meters away or so) and they see some buddies walking down the street with AK-47's you think they thought it was just a sign from Allah or something and they were supposed to take the bodies? No.
The driver of the van handled this wrong, and I'm sticking to that. He sees his buddies shot up, and I'm positive he knew the source or had an idea that it was the US considering Insurgents dont have that technology. So he brings his van full of kids there to go help them? That's horrible logic.
Read the timeline, there were 4 minutes between them ceasing fire and the van showing up, the van could have been a kilometer away at the time of the shooting.
I don't know exactly, but he was probably en route somewhere, given that his children where inside the car. He saw an injured man crawling around on the street. His first reaction was to pick him up. Now who are you to judge him for that.
These children survived, but they saw their father die right there.
|
I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
|
On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote:
I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work.....
They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in.....
Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable.
IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways?
Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though.....
|
United States10501 Posts
Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
1000 post and here goes:
There's nothing surprising or shocking about the scene. It's a natural part of military indoctrination to dehumanize the enemy so soldiers can be more effective fighters. The euphemism of collateral damage is even used to minimize the horror of killing the innocents caught as long as it was part of the motion to kill the enemy. It's part of the military culture.
My guess is that it is merely a small sample of a systemic problem in the Iraqi "conflict and in the Afghanistan "conflict." Tactically, this is probably the best a uniformed army has to offer against guerilla tactics and a hostile population. Some other accounts of indiscriminate shooting and collateral "damage" from truthout. As long as the US army is determined to fight an determined insurgency, crimes against civilians will happen on a regular and probably daily basis.
It's terribly sad, terribly tragic. The whole affair is. Everybody involved is. Even the soldiers doing the shooting.
|
On April 08 2010 22:11 BlackJack wrote:
Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter.
Shooting at an insurgent with an AK-47 is definitely something they have to do when there is minimal risk for collateral damage. In this situation, there was a lot of potential collateral (400%, which only increased once the van showed up). You can't see a difference there?
An assassination is a completely different ballgame..... They won't blow up the building while he's buying groceries..... They won't fire indiscriminately into a group just to get him.....
|
United States10501 Posts
On April 08 2010 22:29 lMPERVlOUS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 22:11 BlackJack wrote:
Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter. Shooting at an insurgent with an AK-47 is definitely something they have to do when there is minimal risk for collateral damage. In this situation, there was a lot of potential collateral (400%, which only increased once the van showed up). You can't see a difference there? An assassination is a completely different ballgame..... They won't blow up the building while he's buying groceries..... They won't fire indiscriminately into a group just to get him.....
Well if you're okay with shooting an insurgent with an AK-47 then my post obviously wasn't referring to you
|
I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up.
|
On April 08 2010 22:05 lMPERVlOUS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote:
I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly. Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work..... They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in..... Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable. IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways? Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though.....
About the ROE. Was this not in 2007 during the surge, during a period of extensive violence wherein the ROE were if you saw an armed person, you could shoot? Not defending it or anything, but it seems given the context, the soldiers probably shouldn't be the ones held accountable.
|
I was listening to KGO, a newstalk show in California; I'm not sure if it reaches some of you, but anyway..... The host brought up this exact topic in his show, and over the course his show that day, he and various callers debated and discussed this event extensively. I was very intrigued by both the host, Gene Burns, and his caller's points, and here's an archive recording. Begin the clip at slightly before 6 minutes. Advertisements and news are included, so you can just skip those.
This is the first hour:
http://members.kgoradio.com/kgo_archives/player.php?day=3&hour=20
The debate continued throughout the entire show, so for those of you willing to listen to this extremely enlightening show:
http://members.kgoradio.com/kgo_archives/player.php?day=3&hour=21
http://members.kgoradio.com/kgo_archives/player.php?day=3&hour=22
I hope you guys take the time to at least listen to some part of it. It might not have been about the same things you guys were discussing, but I found it to address most of the issues I had been thinking of, and I think the host avoided anything irrelevant to this tragic event.
|
On April 09 2010 04:31 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 22:05 lMPERVlOUS wrote:On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote:
I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly. Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work..... They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in..... Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable. IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways? Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though..... About the ROE. Was this not in 2007 during the surge, during a period of extensive violence wherein the ROE were if you saw an armed person, you could shoot? Not defending it or anything, but it seems given the context, the soldiers probably shouldn't be the ones held accountable.
The only thing that the soldiers would be accountable for would be lying, which caused the unnecessary deaths of innocents. IF the ROE would have allowed them to fire in that situation, with the correct information given, there is something wrong with the ROE and the soldiers wouldn't be accountable for any of the deaths. If that was the case, then there was something seriously wrong with the ROE.
|
On April 09 2010 04:21 Fruscainte wrote:
I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up.
Maybe the reporters wanted a behind-the-scene story?
Regarding the van, I've already explained it. There was a period between the shooting and the van passing by so there's a good chance the driver was NOT aware of a gunship with its sights on him. I don't believe the van was present during the accident, the driver just saw some bodies. The gunship was a mile away, it's not like it was just hovering overhead.
Why do you people automatically assume everyone knows what an Apache gunship is and what armaments it carries. I certainly didn't. Of course you can be a smartass after the incident and criticize the man for not realizing a bunch of trigger happy troops are aiming at him.
The driver's actions are not completely unreasonable given the circumstance... Stop treating him like a nutcase.
|
On April 09 2010 05:59 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 04:21 Fruscainte wrote:
I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up. Maybe the reporters wanted a behind-the-scene story? Regarding the van, I've already explained it. There was a period between the shooting and the van passing by so there's a good chance the driver was NOT aware of a gunship with its sights on him. I don't believe the van was present during the accident, the driver just saw some bodies. The gunship was a mile away, it's not like it was just hovering overhead. Why do you people automatically assume everyone knows what an Apache gunship is and what armaments it carries. I certainly didn't. Of course you can be a smartass after the incident and criticize the man for not realizing a bunch of trigger happy troops are aiming at him. The driver's actions are not completely unreasonable given the circumstance... Stop treating him like a nutcase.
I agree, some people here assume every Iraqi is a war professional, while people there are just busy with their everyday life. And once again there were 4 minutes between the shooting and the arrival of the van, but fruiscante doesn´t seem to read the answers he gets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
