CENTCOM investigation: Killed Reuters cameramen were in company of armed ins s

[Frame Dragger]

If its not a philosophical debate, then why is it that from 2003 and 2007 the attacks have steadily risen?

March 19 2003, we invaded Iraq. March 30 2003 Donald Rumsfeld knows where the WMDs are. May 1 2003, Bush on the carrier with Mission Accomplished banner. December 13 2003, Saddam captured.

Up to this point, as of Jan 17 2004, 500 US soldiers were killed in Iraq total. April 28 2004, Abu Ghraib revealed. June 28 2004, Bush transfers the sovereignty to Iraq. September 7 2004, 1000 soldiers dead total. Sept 16 2004, the UN secretary states that Iraq war was illegal.

March 3 2005, total of 1500 soldiers dead. October 26 2005, total of 2000 soldiers dead... and so on until today.

Did you identify the point at which the war was in it infancy and still salvagable? It was before April 2004. There was still a chance to withdraw. We entered under false pretenses, billions of dollars went missing on reconstruction work, thousands of lives lost and countless number of innocent civilians killed.


The objectives, as stated prior to invasion of Iraq, were:
-end of Saddam's regime: done
-eliminate whatever WMDs could be found: not there
-eliminate whatever Islamist militants could be found: as it turns out, this is a poorly stated objective
-obtain intelligence on militant networks: probable best left for CIA
-secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure
-assist in creating a representative but compliant government as a model for other Middle East nation


Nothing in this list of objectives talks about Bin Laden or going after the terrorists who were responsible for September 11 attacks. If this was a philosophical debate, then perhaps critical thinking was applied and thousands of lives saved.

Did you miss the many times I've said that the invasion of Iraq was a MASSIVE error, and that war should be AVOIDED?! You seem to be saying that I support the war... I don't. I also don't pretend that because I don't support it, and that it's a waste of life and treasure, that it's going away or that soldiers are not still at risk.

EDIt: Btw, you do realize that chart essentially maps the increasing REAL risk, and therefore a greatly amplified PERCIEVED risk on the part of people in the theatre? You're arguing against the war, but that's not this discussion.

 

[zomgwtf]

cronxeh, I agree with you but so does Frame Dragger. This isn't a discussion on the war in Iraq it's a discussion on a specific event... soo I don't know where you are intending on going but I just thought I'd let you know that.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I just want to point out that I'm not disagreeing with the pilots taking out the enemy ground forces that were perceived to be a threat, nor am I saying anything about the reporters death being anyones fault but their own.

I still feel that the attitude conveyed in the clip by the military personel in my opinion isn't the attitude they should have in their operation. I understand that it is extremely stressfull and I do give the soldiers a lot of credit, you can read through my previous posts I feel very strongly towards these soldiers and am extremely respectful and thankful for what they do. Coming from New Brunswick (I'm not sure if you guys understand Canadian lifestyles or not but anyways) I have a large amount of family members in the Canadian forces. There's been many tragedies that hit close to home, not in my immediate family mind you. I've also had close friends who have been in the American military, some which have been killed in duty over in Iraq.

However generally speaking from what they tell me they all had their heads on properly. They didn't want to see people die, and they certainly didn't get excited when the moment came. They didn't take personal joy in killing enemy combatants in fact it haunts them to this very day.
Do I know that while they were in the moment that they didn't act in such a manner as seen in the video? No, I do not know but I take their words as being honest. There are plenty of soldiers serving however that do act this way though. It's sad to see and in my mind it's quite disgusting. They might be insurgents, or terrorist but they are PEOPLE, living breathing people, with parents and possibly siblings, significant others and maybe children.

In short, you should kill when you have to and leave it at that, even in war. You shouldn't be hoping that on this time out your going to get to shoot someone and watch them die while you laugh at them. That's the general attitude I picked up from the video and I've seen many documentaries on this. Where officers congratulate soldiers on getting their first kill, or where they intentionally kill innocent people in front of their families just because they can and are happy about it. Some will argue (like I believe waht was trying to do) that once they earn the respect they'll receive it, or once they show American troops some respect, they'll receive it. I don't buy these arguments at all.

As well, before people ask me if I'm in the military or try telling me I don't know because I haven't been there. I have actually gone to the recruiting office and was in the process of being enlisted, something came up in my family so I decided to back out. I now have to wait before I can resubmit a new application. I was applying to become either an armoured soldier or infantry, I was also looking at options of Entry officer programs for schooling however I've heard from people that those officers are not really respected in the military due to lack of experience so I'm not sure if I'd want to be 'that guy'.

You're right, but then... it's a LOT easier to distance yourself from those actions and conseqences when you're
1.) Given permission
2.) Trained to kill
3.) In a helicopter looking through scopes and sights.

It's one thing to shoot someone in the head, and laugh over their corpse, and another to "rain death from above". Studies have shown that military aviators are often more seemingly cavaliar about the lives they take because they are (almost) always at a distance. You may not like that either, but again... human nature. It all comes back to circumstances, the type and duration of stress, and many other factors.

As you say, these people don't WANT to kill (initially at least), and then someone says "good boy, yah done well" when they do. The thing is, are they being told, "You just killed someone boy, congratulations!" or is it, "You've done your job, and that job is ultimately killing".

An army as a police force is a disaster, and no more the fault of the soldier than it would be the fault of police officers dying in a war. You refer to training as though it's something that doesn't REALLY effect most people. It DOES. Remember the example of Silloutte training? Since inception of that, soldiers are now about 80%+ likely to fire in an "appropriate situaton", vs. around 33% as of WWII. I don't mean that they exercise MORE restraint, I mean that they are conditioned to shoot before thinking, "I am ending a life, a life that may not be entirely unlike my own." Why is this a good thing in war (when it clearly isn't in other circumstances)?... because hesitation once the order to fire is given costs lives.

EDIT: "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cronxeh, I agree with you but so does Frame Dragger. This isn't a discussion on the war in Iraq it's a discussion on a specific event... soo I don't know where you are intending on going but I just thought I'd let you know that. "

You are absolutely correct. We both see this war as monstrous.

 

[cronxeh]

Did you miss the many times I've said that the invasion of Iraq was a MASSIVE error, and that war should be AVOIDED?! You seem to be saying that I support the war... I don't. I also don't pretend that because I don't support it, and that it's a waste of life and treasure, that it's going away or that soldiers are not still at risk.

EDIt: Btw, you do realize that chart essentially maps the increasing REAL risk, and therefore a greatly amplified PERCIEVED risk on the part of people in the theatre? You're arguing against the war, but that's not this discussion.

Just imagine for a second that these people have a right to carry AK47s and RPG-7s and perhaps stroll around holding hands in a strange homoerotic fashion. What possible reason does sending an Apache helicopter serve? They were not sent to kill that group of people, they requested it. They asked for permission to kill the group and to kill those in the van. There is a matter of unproportionality here.

The commanders knew they did not have enough troops to hold the entire country. They had to choose the battles carefully, and yet this was a military stretched too thin to accomplish the entire objective. When you can't capture those people, you choose to kill them instead? So they don't fight another day? How many people pick up a rifle and fight for vengence when you do that?

The trend to me speaks to this issue. When you kill innocent civilians, their family members seek revenge, and you have an escalating war. Do you think there were thousands of insurgents under Saddam's regime and we all of a sudden just busted a hornet's nest and they attacked us? Those insurgents imported themselves from the places where real terrorists reside. You can't use the Army against insurgents, just ask the Russians.

Edit:

5,000 US soldiers dead
20,000 insurgents dead
100,000 civilians dead

However nice way you want to frame this as, but it looks like the US soldiers and insurgents spent a great deal of time killing civilians there. Whether intentional or unintentional, the statistics remain the same. You can't paint a narrative that includes these figures in any kind of positive light. Its as if in that group of 12 people killed, 10 were innocent civilians, and 2 were insurgents.

 

[Jack21222]

As you say, these people don't WANT to kill (initially at least), and then someone says "good boy, yah done well" when they do. The thing is, are they being told, "You just killed someone boy, congratulations!" or is it, "You've done your job, and that job is ultimately killing".

Yet knowing that their job will be to kill people, including some innocents, people take the job anyway. That blows my mind.

 

[kyleb]

...unless you think they should have waited for nonexistant ground-troops?

I think they should have waited for some demonstration of hostile intent, rather than presuming it on the flimsy grounds that some of the people had what appeared to be weapons, and in flagrant contradiction to the causal manor in which the people were gathered. Besides, as signerror noted, there were ground troops 100 meters away, which along with the choppers in the sky, the presumed hostiles were not demonstrating any hostile intent to.

Also, while you keep citing the general concept of "war" as justification, the war ended long ago and we have moved on to the occupation since then. You seem oblivious to the fact that what you are calling a "warzone" here is a city of millions of people trying to get on with their lives.

 

[NeoDevin]

The war on terror has been a huge undertaking, but it is at least partly responsible for the failure of Al Qaeda to have much of an impact since 2001.

Sorry I'm late to the thread, but I had to respond to this. In the 9 years prior to 2001, how many (successful?) attacks were made by Al Qaeda on US forces/civilians? In the 9 years since then, how many attacks were made by Al Qaeda on US forces/civilians?

(I honestly don't know the numbers, and a quick google doesn't reveal them, the rest of this post proceeds on the assumption that both numbers are similarly low, and that assumption is based on the fact that I haven't heard of any of them. If you have data to refute this, I withdraw the remainder of my comment.)

The absence of an already-rare event does not, in any way, indicate any effect by the war on terror. If the ongoing frequency of notable terrorist attacks is one every 20+ years, then the lack of any events of note for the past 9 years is no indication of success, trying to promote it as such is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Just imagine for a second that these people have a right to carry AK47s and RPG-7s and perhaps stroll around holding hands in a strange homoerotic fashion. What possible reason does sending an Apache helicopter serve? They were not sent to kill that group of people, they requested it. They asked for permission to kill the group and to kill those in the van. There is a matter of unproportionality here.

The commanders knew they did not have enough troops to hold the entire country. They had to choose the battles carefully, and yet this was a military stretched too thin to accomplish the entire objective. When you can't capture those people, you choose to kill them instead? So they don't fight another day? How many people pick up a rifle and fight for vengence when you do that?

The trend to me speaks to this issue. When you kill innocent civilians, their family members seek revenge, and you have an escalating war. Do you think there were thousands of insurgents under Saddam's regime and we all of a sudden just busted a hornet's nest and they attacked us? Those insurgents imported themselves from the places where real terrorists reside. You can't use the Army against insurgents, just ask the Russians.

Edit:

5,000 US soldiers dead
20,000 insurgents dead
100,000 civilians dead

However nice way you want to frame this as, but it looks like the US soldiers and insurgents spent a great deal of time killing civilians there. Whether intentional or unintentional, the statistics remain the same. You can't paint a narrative that includes these figures in any kind of positive light. Its as if in that group of 12 people killed, 10 were innocent civilians, and 2 were insurgents.

I'm not panting ANY narrative, or even saying that the people on the ground MUST have had weapons. Merely the reasonable perception that they did followed the RoE. I would say those painting a "narrative" are the ones making assumptions about those soldiers based on 8 minutes of video in a war. In fact, this post I'm responding to IS trying to create a narrative. Nice try.

As for the rest, you're missing the much larger numbers of people on all sides who are maimed one way or another. You also missed the impact of 10 years of sanctions.

Finally, and again, you seem to missing that I AM NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS WAR. I NEVER was! I've never CLAIMED to be! That said, I don't participate in the fantasy that people in a warzone (created by whatever means) are not taking their lives into their own hands, whatever side they happen to be on, or none. I also wouldn't imagine they have rights, because they are enemies in a war, and war is never fair, or anything but brutal.

By the way, your numbers are FAR too low in terms of those killed, except for the US end of it. Then again, you're ignoring those injured, who if they had been insurgents probably would NOT have survived. I'm not guessing, I've spent time with a friend at WRAIR-PN (Walter Reed) so I've seen the tangible (burns, limb-loss, etc) and the far more common TBI, and massive psychological damage.

PRESUMABLY the Iraqis are faring no better, and have less protection or access to treatment by orders of magnitude. You've ignored the real misery of war, and the events leading up to it in favour a sterile narrative. Other than Jack's "bloodthirsty monsters" I would say that is the other one being sold here.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I think they should have waited for some demonstration of hostile intent, rather than presuming it on the flimsy grounds that some of the people had what appeared to be weapons, and in flagrant contradiction to the causal manor in which the people were gathered. Besides, as signerror noted, there were ground troops 100 meters away, which along with the choppers in the sky, the presumed hostiles were not demonstrating any hostile intent to.

Also, while you keep citing the general concept of "war" as justification, the war ended long ago and we have moved on to the occupation since then. You seem oblivious to the fact that what you are calling a "warzone" here is a city of millions of people trying to get on with their lives.

Re: that in bold : That's why enemy combatants are required to wear uniforms according to the Geneva conventions. In assymetrical conflict, one side may not do that, but it comes with inherent risks.

As for the notion of a threat, please, tell me how you assess this based on the video? I'm also amazed that you think these people would have been "casual" with "weapons" if they KNEW they were being watched.

You see, after the British had their ***es handed to them by a bunch of tax-evaders (I'm joking of course, and no I'm not british) people started wondering if lining up in highly visible ranks was REALLY a wise idea.

Well to be fair, that isn't the genesis of it, but you take my point I hope.

@Jack: That was their job in THAT situation, and yes, it is the ultimate job of any soldier. That said, it's not MOST of what they do, in or out of wartime. That is, unless you mean collective responsiblity, in which case you and I are culpable as well.

Here's a thought however. I see people terribly concerned with this, and the argument is, "This is now, and being done in my name. Don't bother me with the past I was not even around for." Fair enough. Still, why not start closer to home? You're presumably living on stolen land, and some of the people (Indians/Native Americans)... well... the ones that haven't been exterminated over the last 600+ years... could still use help!

If you like, I'd be happy to buy you a ticket to your nearest "Reservation" and you can start to work with the people we're ****ing over at home. That's just one idea... there are many more.

Of course, that requires commitment and conviction beyond that required for brief outrage at a war.

 

[cronxeh]

Re: that in bold : That's why enemy combatants are required to wear uniforms according to the Geneva conventions. In assymetrical conflict, one side may not do that, but it comes with inherent risks.

As for the notion of a threat, please, tell me how you assess this based on the video? I'm also amazed that you think these people would have been "casual" with "weapons" if they KNEW they were being watched.

You see, after the British had their ***es handed to them by a bunch of tax-evaders (I'm joking of course, and no I'm not british) people started wondering if lining up in highly visible ranks was REALLY a wise idea.

Well to be fair, that isn't the genesis of it, but you take my point I hope.

@Jack: That was their job in THAT situation, and yes, it is the ultimate job of any soldier. That said, it's not MOST of what they do, in or out of wartime. That is, unless you mean collective responsiblity, in which case you and I are culpable as well.

Here's a thought however. I see people terribly concerned with this, and the argument is, "This is now, and being done in my name. Don't bother me with the past I was not even around for." Fair enough. Still, why not start closer to home? You're presumably living on stolen land, and some of the people (Indians/Native Americans)... well... the ones that haven't been exterminated over the last 600+ years... could still use help!

If you like, I'd be happy to buy you a ticket to your nearest "Reservation" and you can start to work with the people we're ****ing over at home. That's just one idea... there are many more.

Of course, that requires commitment and conviction beyond that required for brief outrage at a war.

As it stands we don't look back past our own generation, we look at the present and the possible future. Think of it as a Markov process for the state of the world we live in.

I already brought up the issue of the past, and my posts were deleted. It seems if you start looking way back and claim that those who profited from, say, slavery, don't necessarily have to give up their land or good fortunes they enjoy today.

If you examine the current events, or those that happened while you could've done something about it, then you have a real discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Agreed: I see much of the backlash on this issue is people taking out on the troops, their frustrations with the government. It is misplaced.

Why is it reasonable that the government receive the entirety of criticism for its repeated misjudgments but those that volunteer to execute those poor decisions share absolutely no part of the blame?

 

[kyleb]

As for the notion of a threat, please, tell me how you assess this based on the video?

I've been suggesting the opposite; I see no signs in the video of any threat comming from the people on the ground.

I'm also amazed that you think these people would have been "casual" with "weapons" if they KNEW they were being watched.

Rather, I suggested that if they had any interest in engaging in hostilities they surely would have been paying attention to the choppers in the sky and the ground troops down the way, rather than just casually gathering around on the side of the road.

 

[Frame Dragger]

As it stands we don't look back past our own generation, we look at the present and the possible future. Think of it as a Markov process for the state of the world we live in.

I already brought up the issue of the past, and my posts were deleted. It seems if you start looking way back and claim that those who profited from, say, slavery, don't necessarily have to give up their land or good fortunes they enjoy today.

If you examine the current events, or those that happened while you could've done something about it, then you have a real discussion.

Are you doing any of the things you could to aid people in Iraq or here? What is the depth of your humanitarianism? Maybe the issue is hypocrisy, not history.

@Kyleb: You're showing a deep lack of understanding of the basic mechanics of how a mission such as this is carried out. NOTHING, in the air, or on the ground, was going to be readily visible to anyone on the ground. I also keep trying to explain: un-uniformed people with weapons = THREAT. This isn't self-defense, it's war. I'm not making apologies for that, I'm just aware of the reality. I suggest you learn more about this subject before you leap to conclusions.

 

[kyleb]

I'm curious as to how you conclude choppers in the sky would be anything but visible from the ground, along with how anyone how people could be deemed threats simply for carrying what appear to be rifles in a region where http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4344325-surgeons-forced-to-carry-guns.do" , and I'm also interested in hearing an explanation for why you keep refusing to acknowledge the difference between a war and an occupation. Also, your incessant condescension is just a waste of effort, as proof by intimidation doesn't work on me.

 

[Jack21222]

Here's a thought however. I see people terribly concerned with this, and the argument is, "This is now, and being done in my name. Don't bother me with the past I was not even around for." Fair enough. Still, why not start closer to home? You're presumably living on stolen land, and some of the people (Indians/Native Americans)... well... the ones that haven't been exterminated over the last 600+ years... could still use help!

Do you have a TARDIS I could borrow? No? Didn't think so.

 

[Evo]

The video shown by wikileaks, was transcribed and what was said was not completely accurate. Also crucial information was ommited to cause bias.

What could have been the case is identified for the viewer quite readily. What certainly is true, in several key moments, is not. When presenting source media as the core of your argument, it is grossly irresponsible to fail to make known variables not shown within that media. If you are going to take the time to highlight certain things in said media, you should make certain all key elements are brought to the attention of your viewer.

WikiLeaks failed to do these things in this video, happily highlighting the positions and movements of the slain reporter and photographer while ignoring those of their company. It is also, until their arrival on scene, never clear where exactly the ground forces are in reference to Crazyhorse 18 and flight. I can make a pretty good guess, given my background. I would guess the same cannot be said by the vast majority of WikiLeaks’ target audience.

Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable.

At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error.

(note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.)

http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm curious as to how you conclude choppers in the sky would be anything but visible from the ground, along with how anyone how people could be deemed threats simply for carrying what appear to be rifles in a region where http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-4344325-surgeons-forced-to-carry-guns.do" , and I'm also interested in hearing an explanation for why you keep refusing to acknowledge the difference between a war and an occupation. Also, your incessant condescension is just a waste of effort, as proof by intimidation doesn't work on me.

Oh please. You're either obstreperous, ideologically based, or ignorant. I will, out of respect for this forum, not call your intelligence into question. At leat Jack has made his views abundantly clear, while you seem to want to open this debate far beyond the limits of the OP. I'm not interested in your political or personal agenda.

Perhaps you and cronxeh can start a thread where you rail against the this war, occupation, invasion, WHATEVER you choose to call it; under international law, we're still at war. In fact, the UN et all is still at war against NK, I suspect your view of "war vs. occupation" is semantic or political. Either way, I'm not interested. I've had this discussion with people not starting on first principles, so feel free to have whatever last word suits you. If you feel this vindicates you in some way, by all means... I'll reserve my commentary for now. Frankly, I'm just too annoyed by the level of ignorance of some here, contrasted with the staff who seem to have a fairly good grasp of the situation...

It's hard to resolve.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Do you have a TARDIS I could borrow? No? Didn't think so.

I don't, but as it happens there are STILL Native Americans who suffer from the ramifications of that history. As we're currently living on that land and off that treasure, and considering how dire life is for most on reservations, you could do a lot of good!
EDIT: The offer to buy you that one-way ticket to your nearest reservation stands. I'm not joking. You need to see more of the country you live in, and benefit from. Maybe a trip to coal-country, or...

A FARM. Because farming is the most dangerous profession in the USA, per capita. You could also leave the USA, thus no longer paying taxes to support this. I don't generally believe this is a wise idea "the shut up or leave " notion, but if you feel deeply that by being a taxpaying american you're partially pulling the trigger... then it would seem logical to not pay those taxes. Assuming you're not a criminal, that means leaving the country, or being jaild. Again, from a man who calls another a "bloodthirsty monster" I'm finding your rhetoric far more impressive than your convictions.

That, was one example, I'm sure you can think of others. In fact, killing yourself would save the world the impact of your daily intake and output, need for shelter and electricity... unless you're doing more for the world than you take from it? After all, overpopulation is the root problem here. Maybe you and a billion or two people could just submit yourself for rendering and processing. What is that old adage about "glass" and "rocks" and something... hmmmm... That's pretty harsh however, so maybe you should just use a flushless toilet, minimal electricity, and this comoputer and house of yours should be safely recycled. From there, we can set you up in a yurt.

You know, you have a LOT of options, but instead you're just whining here. Again, you're judgemental of others, and have no apparent concept of your own complicity.

EDIT: @Kyleb: Now THAT *pointing above* was me condescending.

EDIT: @Evo: "This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error." In error in hindsight, or at the time? I agree completely with your assessment of the footage, but to me they acted as anyone might given their patrol orders, and the recent attacks. Would you also agree that whether this is a war, an occupation, etc... that region was what any sane individual would consdier "a warzone"?

 

[zomgwtf]

EDIT: @Evo: "This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error." In error in hindsight, or at the time? I agree completely with your assessment of the footage, but to me they acted as anyone might given their patrol orders, and the recent attacks. Would you also agree that whether this is a war, an occupation, etc... that region was what any sane individual would consdier "a warzone"?

Frame Dragger, I think you'd have a different opinion on the matter if it were the other way around and forces were in your homeland going around shooting people and laughing about it + taking joy in it. You'd hardly be calling it 'a fact of war' I'd be hard pressed to not think that you'd think of these people as savages.

I mean like what would have happened if during that speech Obama gave, the one where the people were pararding around with automatic rifles, if the American military deemed these individuals as threats for parading around in relatively close proximity to the President with weapons and cut them all down. Not only do they cut them down but they WANT to kill them, I would be hard pressed to think that people would consider it acceptable? Sure it's not a 'warzone' at the time but it certainly can be made into one by the American military...

 

[Evo]

EDIT: @Evo: "This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error." In error in hindsight, or at the time? I agree completely with your assessment of the footage, but to me they acted as anyone might given their patrol orders, and the recent attacks. Would you also agree that whether this is a war, an occupation, etc... that region was what any sane individual would consdier "a warzone"?

That's not my comment. They had already spotted one RPG and an ak-47, the error, in hindsight, was that an RPG had been aimed at them. You can tell from the transcript that there was no doubt in their minds. Yes, it was a warzone and the helicopter had been calle in by troops on the ground that had been fired upon.

War is terrible, and the video is very disturbing, but they we're certain of what they saw and were given permission to fire. This wasn't a case of misconduct.

 

[Count Iblis]

If we were to escalate the war on drugs and go after drugs dealers with apaches, you would see the same kind of problems. And note that drugs kill a huge number of US civilians, far more than the number of Iraqis who died as a result of violence there, so the same logic do defend any action that leads to civilian casualties can be used (the war zone logic, etc. etc.).

 

[Frame Dragger]

That's not my comment. They had already spotted one RPG and an ak-47, the error, in hindsight, was that an RPG had been aimed at them. You can tell from the transcript that there was no doubt in their minds. Yes, it was a warzone and the helicopter had been calle in by troops on the ground that had been fired upon.

War is terrible, and the video is very disturbing, but they we're certain of what they saw and were given permission to fire. This wasn't a case of misconduct.

100% agreed.

@Count Iblis: Excellent point. Not to mention that it's not just US civilians dying in this "war", and as you say, no gunships involved.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Frame Dragger, I think you'd have a different opinion on the matter if it were the other way around and forces were in your homeland going around shooting people and laughing about it + taking joy in it. You'd hardly be calling it 'a fact of war' I'd be hard pressed to not think that you'd think of these people as savages.

I mean like what would have happened if during that speech Obama gave, the one where the people were pararding around with automatic rifles, if the American military deemed these individuals as threats for parading around in relatively close proximity to the President with weapons and cut them all down. Not only do they cut them down but they WANT to kill them, I would be hard pressed to think that people would consider it acceptable? Sure it's not a 'warzone' at the time but it certainly can be made into one by the American military...

To your first comment, yep, being human I'm sure I'd find it impossible to hold to my impartiality if my life were in danger. Of course, you might want to consider that some of that is happening with this "monster" ****. Someone hits you close to what you care about, morals, people... most lose perspective.

Then again, some don't. "We have finished the job. What shall we do with the tools?" (Haile Selassie) — Telegram to Winston Churchill, 1941. And no, I'm not nor have I ever been "rastafarian". It's merely an excellent point. I also fail to see this level of outrage when our mines and unexploded ordinances kill many more, and those people are again, civilians, not RPG toting fellows in A WARZONE.

EDIT: I forgot about your second comment... I forgot, because it is pure sophistry (in the modern sense in case you're feeling clever).

@conxeh: Supposed expertise... I must have missed the part where I claimed to be in the armed forces. Then again, you don't know what it is that I do (NOT Armed forces for the record), have done, who I know, and where I've been... Oh wait, you DO know that I spent time at Walter Reed... or did you not read that portion? Your continued assumptions about me, the pilot, and virtually everything else from what I've posted, is making you what your mother always told you it would, an ***. And yes, I'm an *** too, the difference is that unlike you, I have some concept of what it is I'm talking about. You, are simply puerile.

EDIt: By the way, do tell me how you manage to type with your lips. I assume it has to do with you being in Stewie's straight-jacket?

 

[zomgwtf]

not RPG toting fellows in A WARZONE.

So if I would like to let out some anger or I want to kill some people I should just head over to an undeveloped country which is in a state of war (there are plenty) and just kill some people? I mean it is a war right... I can kill anyone I want there! Especially when they have a weapon.

I wonder why the American troops get so emotional and angry at the enemy when their own troops are killed but treat these people like 'gun wielding animals' who deserve to be laughed at when dying.

 

[Frame Dragger]

So if I would like to let out some anger or I want to kill some people I should just head over to an undeveloped country which is in a state of war (there are plenty) and just kill some people? I mean it is a war right... I can kill anyone I want there! Especially when they have a weapon.

Yes, you can pick apart sentences an then pretend you haven't read any of my preceeding posts. I'm sure that will fly right under the radar kid.

 

[cronxeh]

@conxeh: Supposed expertise... I must have missed the part where I claimed to be in the armed forces. Then again, you don't know what it is that I do (NOT Armed forces for the record), have done, who I know, and where I've been... Oh wait, you DO know that I spent time at Walter Reed... or did you not read that portion? Your continued assumptions about me, the pilot, and virtually everything else from what I've posted, is making you what your mother always told you it would, an ***. And yes, I'm an *** too, the difference is that unlike you, I have some concept of what it is I'm talking about. You, are simply puerile.

EDIt: By the way, do tell me how you manage to type with your lips. I assume it has to do with you being in Stewie's straight-jacket?

Oh man you put a smile on my face :rofl:

You continue to beat your chest and roar, ignoring the argument. Do you honestly think debates are won by flexing muscle? In your case you have this 'I have talked to [a group of people whos intelligence or experience is not really relevant to this discussion] and have seen [things that are not relevant or important in the grand scheme of things].' You don't know how to argue in a logical, constructive way. Do you know why? It is not because I assume things about you, your upbringing, or perhaps who took your lunch money and made your pants wet. It is because you keep appealing to authority, see your arguments as those superior to others, and provide no logical constructs. A definition of a troll.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Oh man you put a smile on my face :rofl:

You continue to beat your chest and roar, ignoring the argument. Do you honestly think debates are won by flexing muscle? In your case you have this 'I have talked to [a group of people whos intelligence or experience is not really relevant to this discussion] and have seen [things that are not relevant or important in the grand scheme of things].' You don't know how to argue in a logical, constructive way. Do you know why? It is not because I assume things about you, your upbringing, or perhaps who took your lunch money and made your pants wet. It is because you keep appealing to authority, see your arguments as those superior to others, and provide no logical constructs. A definition of a troll.

This isn't a debate to be won, it was a discussion before you, Jack, and to some extent zomgwtf dragged this into a rhetorical pissing contest. Get help.

 

[Evo]

It appears the thread has been discussed as far as it can.

Locked.