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

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter signerror
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    company Investigation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the investigation by US CENTCOM into the deaths of two Reuters cameramen in Iraq, who were reportedly in the company of armed insurgents at the time of their deaths. Participants explore the implications of the investigation findings, the rules of engagement, and the ethical considerations surrounding the actions taken by military personnel during the incident.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the investigation indicates the Reuters employees were with armed insurgents who were actively engaging US forces, which they argue justifies the military's actions.
  • Others question the rules of engagement that permitted firing on a van attempting to evacuate the wounded, arguing that no weapons were displayed during the extraction.
  • There are claims that the presence of the van could have posed a threat, with some suggesting it could have been a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED).
  • Some participants express concern over the behavior of military personnel, suggesting that there was a despicable eagerness to engage the wounded, which raises ethical questions.
  • Others defend the military's actions as necessary under the pressures of combat, emphasizing the difficulty of making decisions in high-stress situations.
  • A few participants highlight the broader implications of the incident, questioning the motivations behind the military's efforts to prevent the release of the video footage.
  • Some participants argue that the journalists' choice to embed with insurgents should not be viewed with suspicion, while others believe it complicates their role and responsibility.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the justification of the military's actions, the ethical implications of the incident, or the responsibilities of the journalists involved. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources, including the CENTCOM investigation and media reports, but there are differing interpretations of the events and the rules of engagement. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of military ethics, media responsibility, and the realities of combat situations.

  • #91


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.).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92


Evo said:
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.
 
  • #93


zomgwtf said:
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? :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #94


Frame Dragger said:
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.
 
  • #95


zomgwtf said:
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.
 
  • #96


Frame Dragger said:
@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? :biggrin:

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

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.
 
  • #97


cronxeh said:
Oh man you put a smile on my face :smile:

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.
 
Last edited:
  • #98


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

Locked.