|
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote:
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
|
On April 09 2010 07:01 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote:
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too. You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that? I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
Ok, so what is your proposed new system?
|
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/04/video_of_errant_us_shootings_o.html
This is a link to a discussion that was on npr didn't see it skimming though the place.
Personally this is just an issue on how US forces engage and how reliable information coming up to their air attacks.
+ Show Spoiler +
An investigation into the 2007 killing in Baghdad of 12 civilians -- including two employed by the Reuters news agency -- by soldiers firing from a U.S. Army helicopter revealed that there were some weapons with the group, NPR's Tom Bowman reported today on Morning Edition. Investigators said there was an assault rifle, rocket propelled grenades and an RPG launcher, Tom says.
But a video of the incident, which was leaked yesterday, still shows the "horrific" nature of war and the danger to civilians, Tom adds. At one point, a van that turned out to have at least two children inside was fired on by the helicopter crew.
Here is the discussion Tom had earlier with ME host Renee Montagne:
Update at 12:12 p.m. ET. The New York Times writes that:
"Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail.
"The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees 'made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.' "
Update at 4:15 p.m. ET. "Reporter: Hard To See How Tragedy On Leaked Video Could Have Been Avoided."
Our original post -- "Video Of Errant U.S. Shootings Of Iraqis, Newsmen Made Public":
[ their audio discussion]
[the shorted video]
Chilling classified video of a 2007 collateral damage incident in which U.S. Army Apache helicopter crews apparently mistook Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists for insurgents was made public by a watchdog group.
According to WikiLeaks, which made the video public on its WikiLeaks.org website, the video shows the mistaken killing of two Reuters journalists, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. The site has posted the video on YouTube with the title "Collateral Murder."
The video appears to show two men walking along a Baghdad street with what looked to the helicopter crews to be weapons but what are said by WikiLeaks to actually be cameras. On the audio, the U.S. crews discuss targeting, with their 50-caliber machine guns, of what they assume to be a group of insurgents.
After the initial bursts of helicopter gunship fire take down the journalists, WikiLeaks says civilians can be seen coming in a van to the aid of the wounded journalists, only to be targeted themselves.
Among those killed and injured were two children in the van who were seriously wounded.
The video's authenticity was confirmed by a Defense Department official according to Reuters.
WikiLeaks said:
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
An excerpt of a Reuters report:
Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents.
"We regret the loss of innocent life, but this incident was promptly investigated and there was never any attempt to cover up any aspect of this engagement," Turner said.
The helicopter gunsight video, with an audio track of conversation between the fliers, made public for the first time a stark view of one bloody incident in the seven-year war in Iraq.
Reuters issued a statement in response to the video:
"The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognise the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news. "The video released today via Wikileaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result."
The video is the rare chance to see a wartime instance of collateral damage, the deaths of non-combatants.
It is truly troubling, riveting and sad. It is some of the hardest video to watch coming out of the Iraq War.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125731952
a follow up on talk of the nation
|
I think the video needs more cowbell.
|
On April 09 2010 07:10 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 07:01 old times sake wrote:On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote:
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too. You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that? I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me. Ok, so what is your proposed new system?
I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives. I am not a military general nor a commander in chief, so I suspect that the changes could best be proposed by someone more like that.
However, I can think of two changes that would make an incident like this (in my estimation) much less likely. One would be if all of the facts of incidents like this, including videos, tapes, etc. were released to the public in a timely manner (i.e., as soon as releasing them does not directly reveal vital things like troop movement, etc.). We should not, as a country, need to hide from the public the killing that is done in our name. If letting us see it would undermine it, then maybe we should be allowed to see it anyways, hm? That would be the "free society" approach wouldn't it?
Second, we can stop putting the lives of our military personnel above the lives of civilians. In legal warfare, you are supposed to put your military personnel at risk in order to kill enemy personnel. It seems that we are putting civilians of the country we are occupying--their lives--very low on our list of priorities. It should not be worth it to us to kill one civilian in order to kill one enemy, or to kill one civilian in order to avoid the death of one of our soldiers. Granted, if the enemy puts civilians in harm's way, then we might in some cases be forced to not give in to such tactics. However, a situation where we can easily confuse normal civilians doing normal civilian things with "taking out the enemy" is an unacceptable state of affairs. We should abstain from "taking out the enemy" in such situations unless we have no other choice but to partake in such tactics (no other choice meaning that the war is a matter of survival of civilians and that we can't fight it without such tactics--I do not believe this is the case in Iraq).
Basically in war you have battles, where both sides know they are fighting, and then you have assassinations, where you find the enemy and strike them while they're chillin'. I do not believe that taking people out while they are chillin' needs to be such a staple. Sure, if you come across Bin Laden, then you may go for it. But you don't go around shooting every tall guy with a beard, especially if they're in crowds that might even be unarmed. I think that setting a reasonable standard for this kind of assassination or "sniping" or whatever you want to call it, should be quite possible.
It seems like the U.S. is overusing this method because it means less risk to themselves, and that's not fair to civilians. If you choose to go to war, you should take some of the risk, not pass it on to civilians. Now I know the soldiers are brave. I'm talking about the country's policy. I think the U.S. is too scared that losing troops will hurt the American public's "will to fight"--their approval of the war. They are afraid of having another situation like Vietnam where support for the war falls through before they can "achieve victory." They teach this in their officer schools. This is a big part of how they think about wars. They actively have a strategy for keeping the American public in support of the war, and this seems to involve keeping unfavorable videos from getting out. This is why they have the whole "embedded journalist" thing, for instance. I think this whole enterprise of "hiding the truth so that we can win the war even if we would be against it were we to know (or be able to see and feel) the truth" is inherently unethical. It is precisely the kind of approach that allows things like war crimes to become not only feasible, but over a long enough period of time, expected. Manipulating the public's opinions by obfuscation and omission, especially when it comes to people doing harm in "our name", should be considered a serious crime.
|
On April 09 2010 08:33 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 07:10 Romantic wrote:On April 09 2010 07:01 old times sake wrote:On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote:
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too. You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that? I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me. Ok, so what is your proposed new system? I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives. (edited for length i read all of it)
I'm not being a dick by saying it, I am just try to spark some conversation on what can be done to change the rules. Indiscriminate air power use was one of the reasons Vietnamese people never really liked the United States, and one of the reasons Operation Rolling Thunder failed.
The military sees this high-tech assassination as progress, but I am sure they understand the risk. You become police man, judge, juror, and executioner all in one.
I can see why they use the checks they have in place rather than an alternative. Baghdad is just about as foggy as war gets. Dozens of different groups with different or similar goals with different approaches as to how to achieve them. The "coalition" if you can still call it that, has to weigh potential damage of using weapons in a city where errors can easily happen, versus letting potential combatants live and endangering civilian and coalition troops (by allowing future\present threats to live). You're right, politics is a huge part, both in the United States and in Iraq\Afghanistan. Hell, it is important to win over countries like Iran, Israel, UK, Russia, everyone all at the same time. It isn't a clear balancing act either so I'm not too quick to condemn current rules.
In this specific case I do not see any attempt by the pilots to just shoot journalists for fun. Some of them clearly weren't armed, I can see that. Still, the reason they were there is they were told ground forces were being shot at from that area, perhaps the courtyard itself. They got there, found people with a mix of guns, cameras (mistaken for guns), nothing, and restrained firing until they pointed what looked like a weapon at US troops on the ground. Killed everyone in the courtyard, most of whom were probably innocent aside from hanging around at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Then, acting on previous intelligence that a van had been picking up and dropping off fighters, shot at a van killing more innocent people and injuring kids. To be clear, insurgents regularly try to pick up wounded or retrieve weapons after a fight, sometimes even killing their own survivors so they can't be interrogated. It isn't as if this is the first time the situation has arose.
How would you look at this situation if they WERE all guns and these people ended up killing US\Iraqi troops\civilians because the pilots had to jump through too many hoops before firing? Worth considering.
Since Obama's presidency a lot of policies are changing for the better, like not threatening to nuke every country if they do so much as spit on your shoes. In Afghanistan, at least, NATO has taken to trying to win over the population more than they have in the past. High-tech assassinations play a part in pissing people off, but they also play a part in preventing people from dying by killing people who may or may not kill them. Little confusing, eh? There will always be times where we will get the balance wrong. We could send a cruise missile into a house and kill a nice little family that never would have hurt anyone. Likewise, we decide not to blow the house to pieces and let a Taliban leader who ends up ordering a dozen suicide bombings to live.
I am not pretending to know what the right balance is, but I am quite sure saying there is an absolute right or wrong answer for every situation isn't likely the right way to go. I was particularly pissed off when they shot a Hellfire into a building as a civilian stood right next to the building. Would it have hurt to have waited 10 seconds for him to walk away? Hell, even if they left the building you could use the 30mm which would be less deadly to nearby innocents. THAT is definitely something I think sways too far into the, "I don't give a fuck just fire so that these SOBs don't attack us in the future" side.
|
On April 09 2010 07:01 old times sake wrote:~~~
I think your post is pretty on the ball. Similarly, because it's just a sensible tame post, it's liable to mostly be washed under many posts that are more provocative than good.
|
On April 09 2010 09:05 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2010 08:33 old times sake wrote:On April 09 2010 07:10 Romantic wrote:On April 09 2010 07:01 old times sake wrote:On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote:
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too. You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that? I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me. Ok, so what is your proposed new system? I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives. (edited for length i read all of it) I'm not being a dick by saying it, I am just try to spark some conversation on what can be done to change the rules. Indiscriminate air power use was one of the reasons Vietnamese people never really liked the United States, and one of the reasons Operation Rolling Thunder failed. The military sees this high-tech assassination as progress, but I am sure they understand the risk. You become police man, judge, juror, and executioner all in one. I can see why they use the checks they have in place rather than an alternative. Baghdad is just about as foggy as war gets. Dozens of different groups with different or similar goals with different approaches as to how to achieve them. The "coalition" if you can still call it that, has to weigh potential damage of using weapons in a city where errors can easily happen, versus letting potential combatants live and endangering civilian and coalition troops (by allowing future\present threats to live). You're right, politics is a huge part, both in the United States and in Iraq\Afghanistan. Hell, it is important to win over countries like Iran, Israel, UK, Russia, everyone all at the same time. It isn't a clear balancing act either so I'm not too quick to condemn current rules. In this specific case I do not see any attempt by the pilots to just shoot journalists for fun. Some of them clearly weren't armed, I can see that. Still, the reason they were there is they were told ground forces were being shot at from that area, perhaps the courtyard itself. They got there, found people with a mix of guns, cameras (mistaken for guns), nothing, and restrained firing until they pointed what looked like a weapon at US troops on the ground. Killed everyone in the courtyard, most of whom were probably innocent aside from hanging around at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Then, acting on previous intelligence that a van had been picking up and dropping off fighters, shot at a van killing more innocent people and injuring kids. To be clear, insurgents regularly try to pick up wounded or retrieve weapons after a fight, sometimes even killing their own survivors so they can't be interrogated. It isn't as if this is the first time the situation has arose. How would you look at this situation if they WERE all guns and these people ended up killing US\Iraqi troops\civilians because the pilots had to jump through too many hoops before firing? Worth considering. Since Obama's presidency a lot of policies are changing for the better, like not threatening to nuke every country if they do so much as spit on your shoes. In Afghanistan, at least, NATO has taken to trying to win over the population more than they have in the past. High-tech assassinations play a part in pissing people off, but they also play a part in preventing people from dying by killing people who may or may not kill them. Little confusing, eh? There will always be times where we will get the balance wrong. We could send a cruise missile into a house and kill a nice little family that never would have hurt anyone. Likewise, we decide not to blow the house to pieces and let a Taliban leader who ends up ordering a dozen suicide bombings to live. I am not pretending to know what the right balance is, but I am quite sure saying there is an absolute right or wrong answer for every situation isn't likely the right way to go. I was particularly pissed off when they shot a Hellfire into a building as a civilian stood right next to the building. Would it have hurt to have waited 10 seconds for him to walk away? Hell, even if they left the building you could use the 30mm which would be less deadly to nearby innocents. THAT is definitely something I think sways too far into the, "I don't give a fuck just fire so that these SOBs don't attack us in the future" side.
Okay, that's a reasonable response. I am pleasantly surprised to read your post. My sense is that if we aren't sure what the right balance should be, we should err towards making the war riskier for the professional soldiers and our equipment rather than putting that risk on civilians. After all it's we who are fighting the war, not the civilians. If we aren't willing to go there on foot, or at least let videos of what we're doing get out, that should be a warning sign that we might not be doing things right. Some "intelligence" shouldn't be a free pass to shoot up any crowd of people (even if some have guns! that doesn't mean they're "enemy combatants", as convenient as it would be were we allowed to make this assumption). It seems to me that innocent people are being murdered to make the war a little easier, and yeah I tend to feel this is wrong. I don't believe that the life of one U.S. soldier is worth 10 Iraqi civilians, as our policies seem to.
|
Generally speaking, putting your military assets in harm's way when you don't need to is a no-no so far as basic military strategy goes. This is why invading a country under the premise of liberating and protecting its' citizens from themselves is absurd and why this kind of war is unwinnable... We should just pack up our gear and leave. The fact is incidents like this are a regular occurance not because soldiers are evil, but they're in a conflict where the enemy is indistinguishable from the people you are supposedly there to protect. I would like to see someone who doesn't become paranoid with prolonged exposure to that kind of setting. This is not to say this kind of thing is excusable, but rather to say it's understandable and regrettable.
No amount of changes to ROE or policy will fix this because the screwed up part is the situation itself. These guys are stuck in a place where they don't know what they need to shoot.
|
Yeah, the problem is the military's duty isn't to put its soldiers in harms way. Kinda like how a defense lawyer isn't going to actively try to risk his client's safety, even if he is guilty.
|
On April 09 2010 10:21 HeartOfTofu wrote:
Generally speaking, putting your military assets in harm's way when you don't need to is a no-no so far as basic military strategy goes. This is why invading a country under the premise of liberating and protecting its' citizens from themselves is absurd and why this kind of war is unwinnable... We should just pack up our gear and leave. The fact is incidents like this are a regular occurance not because soldiers are evil, but they're in a conflict where the enemy is indistinguishable from the people you are supposedly there to protect. I would like to see someone who doesn't become paranoid with prolonged exposure to that kind of setting. This is not to say this kind of thing is excusable, but rather to say it's understandable and regrettable.
No amount of changes to ROE or policy will fix this because the screwed up part is the situation itself. These guys are stuck in a place where they don't know what they need to shoot.
Yeah, I wouldn't consider this a war that can be won through military action. It's like using a sledgehammer to drive in a nail. As a side note, I'd like to mention that the US military action actually promotes more civilians to take arms against the foreign intrusion.
Because of the blurring between civilians and insurgents, civilian casualties cannot be avoided. And this in turn, spurs more civilians to fight, creating more collateral damage. It's a vicious cycle, the US is more or less creating and sustaining their own enemies.
|
For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years?
|
On April 10 2010 17:29 EmeraldSparks wrote:
For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years? As far as I know, they do not release ANY guncams or combat footage unless it is a specific press release or leaked by military personnel. It would be a misconception to say they actively stopped it from being released; they do not release anything, wrongdoing or not.
That said, the actions of the pilots shows a side of war they don't want people to see. They still hide things from WW2. Initial reactions are always to suppress suspect events. Take the World War 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari. The United States had a cargo ship full of mustard gas in a port called Bari where it was attacked and hit by German bombers trying to disrupt supplies to Allied troops in Italy. It took the UK government in 1987 to finally admit the Allies had brought chemical weapons to Europe in case they were needed.
The soldiers in the video followed the rules, got permission, and fired. Did they mistake cameras for guns? Yes, to a degree. To say this was more than an unfortunate incident is to say that there was a giant conspiracy with cloaks and daggers to kill innocent people for absolutely no reason between 2 helicopters, ground crew, AND military intelligence\command. They did their own investigation when it happened and decided the soldiers did not act incorrectly.
|
The video is blurry but the people in the helicopter didn't have blurry vision.
|
On April 10 2010 18:00 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2010 17:29 EmeraldSparks wrote:
For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years? As far as I know, they do not release ANY guncams or combat footage unless it is a specific press release or leaked by military personnel. It would be a misconception to say they actively stopped it from being released; they do not release anything, wrongdoing or not. That said, the actions of the pilots shows a side of war they don't want people to see. They still hide things from WW2. Initial reactions are always to suppress suspect events. Take the World War 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari. The United States had a cargo ship full of mustard gas in a port called Bari where it was attacked and hit by German bombers trying to disrupt supplies to Allied troops in Italy. It took the UK government in 1987 to finally admit the Allies had brought chemical weapons to Europe in case they were needed. The soldiers in the video followed the rules, got permission, and fired. Did they mistake cameras for guns? Yes, to a degree. To say this was more than an unfortunate incident is to say that there was a giant conspiracy with cloaks and daggers to kill innocent people for absolutely no reason between 2 helicopters, ground crew, AND military intelligence\command. They did their own investigation when it happened and decided the soldiers did not act incorrectly.
The soldiers didn't act correctly, but America is acting incorrectly.
|
They didn't hide it, but why should they go out of their way to show it to everybody?
|
On April 06 2010 02:17 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 02:12 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 06 2010 02:04 EtherealDeath wrote:
I understand that once the firing begins, firing on a van that comes to pick the wounded up may be necessary wat? so when innocents get shot and other innocents try to help them its ok to kill em? wow... And how do you know that they are innocent. Usually innocent people don't run into a battle, however one sided that one was. Edit: and as the above poster mentioned, the helicopter trooped lied about the van peoples' actions, such that it portrayed an image which suggested insurgent reinforcements to the people back at command who then gave them clearance to engage.
yes innocent people stand to be shot at to prove their innocence
|
Julian Assange (co-founder of wikileaks) was on Colbert Report last night and agreed that it appears at least one person in the group has an AK-47 and one person in the group has an RPG. He also admitted that the video was slanted and edited in a way to maximize political impact and that only 1 in 10 people watch the full unedited video.
|
Damn, that was an interesting interview
|
These soldiers are probably, from their christian believes, opposed to idea that we're related to monkeys through evolution. I'm opposed to the idea that I should be related to the soldiers.
How did we come to this? How are we gonna get out of it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
