"Collateral Murder" - US Soldiers kill civilians/journalists in Iraq

[XanBcoo]

http://collateralmurder.org/


5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

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.

40 minute full, unedited video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

Interview with the children from the van: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_5tZqzwXg

Enhanced video of the targets: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oOPB0jenpQ

MSNBC interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FvRngn81Y&feature=related

~'Cause I'm prouuuud to be an Americaaaaaan~

[Pandadice]

war..... is bad?

old news dog. I watched Gen Kill back in 08 http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8174/shrug.gif

[XanBcoo]

It's more that it's happening and being covered up. Wikileaks had to fight pretty hard to get a hold of that video.

I'm also interested to see how the US media will ignore this.

Edit: In any case, I don't care how much it happens, murdering civilians and journalists is indefensible.

[Carnage]

Yeah, fuck the military

[Assassin]

That right there is how 'terrorists' are born.

[Animeniax]

You guys are being pretty hard on our men in uniform. Consider the conditions under which they are placed, and ask yourself how you'd react in a similar situation. That is, if they put you in a badass Apache attack helicopter and green-lighted you to unload on some muthafuckas, you'd go crazy with the cheesewhiz and see how many points you could score. Each terrorist is 10 pts, each non-White is 5.

All kidding aside, a lot of soldiers are trigger happy cowboys looking to increase their kill totals. But they are also under extreme conditions, constantly under duress and with their lives at risk. In those circumstances, you can see why they'd be a little trigger happy.

[Pandadice]

You guys are being pretty hard on our men in uniform. Consider the conditions under which they are placed, and ask yourself how you'd react in a similar situation. That is, if they put you in a badass Apache attack helicopter and green-lighted you to unload on some muthafuckas, you'd go crazy with the cheesewhiz and see how many points you could score. Each terrorist is 10 pts, each non-White is 5.

All kidding aside, a lot of soldiers are trigger happy cowboys looking to increase their kill totals. But they are also under extreme conditions, constantly under duress and with their lives at risk. In those circumstances, you can see why they'd be a little trigger happy.

Like I said.. watched Gen Kill back in 08 <.<.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsa383a-nuQ

[Sapphire]

Yeah, fuck the military
More like the government as a whole, the same person who authorizes this is the same person who millions of people worship because of "free" healthcare.

[XanBcoo]

You guys are being pretty hard on our men in uniform. Consider the conditions under which they are placed, and ask yourself how you'd react in a similar situation. That is, if they put you in a badass Apache attack helicopter and green-lighted you to unload on some muthafuckas, you'd go crazy with the cheesewhiz and see how many points you could score. Each terrorist is 10 pts, each non-White is 5.

All kidding aside, a lot of soldiers are trigger happy cowboys looking to increase their kill totals. But they are also under extreme conditions, constantly under duress and with their lives at risk. In those circumstances, you can see why they'd be a little trigger happy.
No man. That doesn't excuse it.

But it's a nice little mental exercise trying to understand why someone would beg to open fire on a civilian van trying to help wounded human beings, and then actually do so. That's the definition of Psychopathy and I often wonder what it must be like.

The worst part is that this behavior is trained.

[The Heretic Azazel]

That right there is how 'terrorists' are born.

There were terrorists before this war started, although I agree this sort of thing doesn't help.

I won't assume to know what it's like because I've never been there, but it's really discouraging to see soldiers gleefully picking off people, that action to me suggests a wanton disregard for human life. I'll always support our troops up to a point but they are supposed to hold this country to a higher standard.

[Pandadice]

More like the government as a whole, the same person who authorizes this is the same person who millions of people worship because of "free" healthcare.

oh, right. because this didn't take place in 2007...

[XanBcoo]

oh, right. because this didn't take place in 2007...
And Obama didn't approve sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan...



There were terrorists before this war started, although I agree this sort of thing doesn't help.
Why did those terrorists become terrorists? It's a chicken and egg situation.

[Carnage]

There were terrorists before this war started, although I agree this sort of thing doesn't help.


Yes but its a fact that there's been a sharp rise in terrorist recruitment because of the war in Iraq. If anything things like this really does give them incentive to fight what seems like the "occupation".

[Kraco]

All kidding aside, a lot of soldiers are trigger happy cowboys looking to increase their kill totals.

I've to say I was never that trigger happy even when flying an Apache in Operation Flashpoint or ArmA. It felt strange to watch somebody being so trigger happy in RL. There was no sense of danger there at all. The helicopter leisurely circled the place several times and not one bullet, that I noticed, was shot at them.

But then again, people die in a war. It wouldn't be a war otherwise.

[Assertn]

Ever seen Hurt Locker? Imagine a whole year of that every day and see if it doesn't make you a little edgy. I'm surprised there aren't more cases of soldiers just open-firing on civilians.

[XanBcoo]

You don't invade a country, start murdering innocent human beings, and then claim PTSD and wave away the innocent deaths as "casualties of war".

This kind of thing probably does go on all the time, and no one is held accountable for it. There is no crime in the world that goes completely unpunished because your defense is "Well, I didn't mean to..."

[Dark Dragon]

I think it's easy to judge people and claim anything when you're not in their shoes.
The human mind is rather fragile, and it doesn't take much before your base instinct take over. Soldier face constant danger and stress, so it's not hard to see why they might already on edge. It's probably much harder to conjure up sympathy when you know that you could die at any moment.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not excusing this kind of behavior. These guys should be held responsible for their actions. What they did was wrong and they deserve to be punish for it. I just don't think that civilians who are living comfortable peaceful lives are in a position to judge these guys.

[Assassin]

Then who should? by that logic no one can ever judge anyone else because you haven't walked in their shoes. Contrary to popular belief, certain things in this world are as simple as right and wrong, and firing on unarmed individuals trying to save someones life falls in the latter category.

As for the PTSD issue, i can begrudgingly buy it for troops on the ground in a hotzone, but there's no way you can use the 'on edge' excuse when you're sitting in a military helicopter 30 feet in the air. These guys dont exactly switch jobs every other day....a chopper pilot/gunner has always been a chopper pilot/gunner, so you can't claim stress due to constant exposure to combat.

[animus]

Just because they're in the air, doesn't mean they're completely oblivious to danger.

[XanBcoo]

Just because they're in the air, doesn't mean they're completely oblivious to danger.
Christ. They were inside a helicopter hovering just under 2 miles away, circling non-aggressive civilians and journalists several times before they opened fire on them, killing them. They did this because they thought they had guns.

Then when the wounded photographer crawled around on the ground, the gunner begged to shoot him.

Then they shot the civilian van filled with 2 small children and killed the father who stopped in a vein attempt to help the wounded. Once again, the gunner begged to shoot these people, and did.

Then they killed or injured at least 3 more completely oblivious people after that out of complete negligence.

Why the fuck are some of you trying to justify this?? There's no situation stressful enough that would warrant the murder of so many innocent people. You can't wave this away because "you don't know what it's like". This is murder on an institutional level and it's been covered up by the government. How complacent do you have to be to pretend this isn't wrong?


I just don't think that civilians who are living comfortable peaceful lives are in a position to judge these guys.
Similarly, you are in no place to ignore the fact that a bunch of people got away with murder. I don't care how blase you want to appear on the internet, this is a crime and "war is hell" is a lazy and ridiculous defense.

Edit: That wasn't a knock at you, Dark Dragon, I'm just saying.

Anyway, here's a blog post by a guy who's "been in their shoes" and agrees these guys are nutcases: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

[animus]

No one said it's not wrong, and I'm definitely not saying they're right in opening fire on civilians with such a quick open fire confirmation order. But I'm not going to act like I know what it's like out there. Sure I think this sucks and that they should be held accountable for their actions, but whatever.

And according to that blog entry you posted, they actually did have AKs and an RPG. So, shrug. The van shooting however is an extreme error. But, I'd guess they saw it as insurgents picking up their wounded insurgents and their armaments. So, honestly I don't know.

[darkshadow]

Even if there was an RPG, it's not going to hit an attack helicopter at that range.

This was completely uncalled for, even going as far as saying "shouldn't have brought their kids to battle then" as if somehow that makes it alright.

[animus]

No, of course it doesn't make it alright. But do you honestly think it was a smart idea to drive up your van to where this incident just occurred and somehow expect that there would be no chance that they themselves would get fired upon? And yes, the fault does lie on Crazy Horse 18.

[Dark Dragon]

Why the fuck are some of you trying to justify this?? There's no situation stressful enough that would warrant the murder of so many innocent people. You can't wave this away because "you don't know what it's like". This is murder on an institutional level and it's been covered up by the government. How complacent do you have to be to pretend this isn't wrong? Edit: That wasn't a knock at you, Dark Dragon, I'm just saying.

Anyway, here's a blog post by a guy who's "been in their shoes" and agrees these guys are nutcases: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

I think i was pretty clear in my statement that these guys need to be held responsible and be punished for their action. I'm just saying that all we saw is one video that shows a blatant error in judgement and even as far as dangerous behavior. It might be in everyone best interest if these guys were discharged if they weren't already. I also think they should be court martial, despite what my earlier comment might suggest. I'm not particularly fond of government cover ups either.

At the same time, all we saw is one video. We have no idea what these guys were doing days or week before this event. There have been report of the other side going as far as using the mentally ill in wheel chair as suicide bombs. Hell, for all we know there might have been a similar situation before that led to an ambush.

No one in their right mind is going to argue with you guys that this ISN'T wrong. But at the same time we're not in a viable position with enough information to condemn these guys as monsters or something. I'm not trying to defend these soldier or their action, i'm just saying don't be so quick to judge.

[Sapphire]

I feel like people don't understand or care how serious this matter is.

Life isn't a TV show where you can just kill off dozens of people for a "cause" and make it seem morally justified. They're, like, actual PEOPLE who were murdered, if your defenseless family was murdered would it matter what "psychological state" the murderer was in or that the murderer murdered because he was in a "war"? I also resent the fact that we all have to fund this crap through taxes.

Those military guys => murderers => monsters => condemned by me

(And the polititians glorify this)

[Carnage]

But do you honestly think it was a smart idea to drive up your van to where this incident just occurred and somehow expect that there would be no chance that they themselves would get fired upon? And yes, the fault does lie on Crazy Horse 18.

So let me get this straight. You're criticizing us for judging soldiers because we don't live in their shoes, but you're criticizing civilians over there that live in conditions that you don't live in yourself?

[animus]

When did I criticize anyone? I didn't criticize anyone for judging anything. I just offered to play the Devil's Advocate. Like I said for the millionth time, I don't know what goes on in their heads, I'm not in their position.

[Dark Dragon]

I think a lot of people here missed my point entirely and that was my fault for not clearly elaborating.

You can look at this with the thinking "look they killed civilians, they are monsters, condemn them". Discharge them, court martial them and hell take them down here to Texas and give them the chair. Does that really solve anything? sure the general public will feel better because we punished these "monsters" and the politician can pretend like they did everyone a service by punishing these guys. Everyone would just move on and forget about it until something else happens again.

Or

You can rationalize, and think that might lead a human being into doing something like this. Bear with my insanity for a bit. This is a problem within the military system. It's hard to say where, but it could be the mental training for these guys to not feel for the enemies or even as early as a lack of proper requirement for joining the military. Once you determine what that is, you can attack the problem at the source. If you don't have the expertise to do it then spread this information until sooner or later an expert of the subject will feel the need to research it.

The bottom line is to think this over rationally and take action.


I feel like people don't understand or care how serious this matter is.

I cared enough to informed everyone i know about this video and i believe that anyone who care about this matter should do so too if they haven't already. Words of mouth is a very effective method of distributing information. So what if major news sources won't cover this story? If enough people know about it then they eventually will be forced to. It's certainly better than bitching on an anime forum about the government, military, etc etc.

edit: @ Xanboo

My assessment is based on my experiences in that very theater of operations. I did not see a threat that warranted an engagement at any point. I did, however, see the elements indicating such a threat could develop at any moment. People can make their judgements however they wish, but what is clearly visible is not the entire picture. I’ll also say that I’ve seen Crazyhorse elements do some pretty drastic maneuvers to protect troops and civilians alike. Those pilots have saved the lives of my friends many times, and a bad shoot is not going to ruin them as far as I’m concerned.

That was from the blog you linked. I can't really see where he is calling them nutcases.

[XanBcoo]

You can rationalize, and think that might lead a human being into doing something like this. Bear with my insanity for a bit. This is a problem within the military system. It's hard to say where, but it could be the mental training for these guys to not feel for the enemies or even as early as a lack of proper requirement for joining the military. Once you determine what that is, you can attack the problem at the source. If you don't have the expertise to do it then spread this information until sooner or later an expert of the subject will feel the need to research it.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as saying you didn't think it was wrong. I'm not out for blood, since I agree with you that the heart of the problem is not these individual guys, but the system that trained them to fire at those people without remorse. The same system that covered it up for 3 years. The soldiers deserve every punishment they get, but that's not even the heart of the issue.

I said this early on but got side tracked when it seemed like people were making excuses for the soldiers. Sorry again.



That was from the blog you linked. I can't really see where he is calling them nutcases.
My angry words, not his. Basically he agrees they were at fault and made several errors in judgment.

It bugs the hell out of me that some people (no one here, really) are trying to say that because an AK-47 was visible that it gave Crazyhorse good reason to open fire. If carrying a weapon is cause enough to be fired upon, then the rules of engagement are in need of some serious repair.

[Dark Dragon]

Don't worry, i didn't feel like you targeted me with your argument. My first two post was during breaks between classes so given the time constraint i might have came off as defending those soldiers.

I've learn that there's are people in the world who would be willing to justify any sort of atrocities if it fit their agenda. Sometimes it's just not worth it to get angry at those people.

I kinda got annoyed and sidetracked when all i saw was just a bunch of angry ranting forming into a mob mentality.

[XanBcoo]

It's hard to say where, but it could be the mental training for these guys to not feel for the enemies or even as early as a lack of proper requirement for joining the military.
This seems to be the case:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7041/peterson01.th.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/peterson01.jpg/)
Page 2 (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7422/peterson02.jpg)
Page 3 (http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1971/peterson03.jpg)

Anyway, I can't blame people for having an angry knee-jerk reaction to this. Watch the long version of the video if you haven't. The guy who gets a missile attack as he's just walking down the street is what gets me...

[Sapphire]

I cared enough to informed everyone i know about this video and i believe that anyone who care about this matter should do so too if they haven't already. Words of mouth is a very effective method of distributing information. So what if major news sources won't cover this story? If enough people know about it then they eventually will be forced to. It's certainly better than bitching on an anime forum about the government, military, etc etc.


Good for you, but I was referring to the people who literally believe that this isn't a big deal because the overall outcome is better even if hundreds and thousands (couple million?) people die. There isn't much I can do about it (without getting arrested) other than talk about it to people. If only funding a war was voluntary! (Then sending troops all over the world wouldn't be so FRIVOLOUS and people would be held more accountable) Not only that, but how different would the structuring be? Secrecy would not be nearly as tolerated. A "I'm paying for this, I want to know where my investment is going damn it" mentality would be more common. And If crazy shit was found out their profits would drop phenomenally (instead of being perpetuated).

One of my British friends once commented that she "lives in a society where pizza comes faster than the police". Another person replied to her "well the police get paid regardless so it doesn't really matter if they show up on time now does it". I think the main problem is no one gets held accountable (and people get away with covering shit up for years) is they all get paid regardless. Millions of dollars can be wasted on something that makes no sense, and other than a statement of "OHSHIII----" the same people get to spend all our money on whatever the "majority" feels like. Lulz.

[Pandadice]

This seems to be the case:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7041/peterson01.th.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/peterson01.jpg/)
Page 2 (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7422/peterson02.jpg)
Page 3 (http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1971/peterson03.jpg)


whoa, good find. very interesting read.

[KrayZ33]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/3750/e7c41005d2.gif

and no, these 2 are not reporters
so they have no cameras or whatever

u can clearly see the RPG a little bit later.

and its unimportant whether its a direct threat to the helicopter, a guy with an RPG is obviously a threat to the ground forces.

not saying I understand why they aimed for the people without guns too though (they tried to kill everyone, even the guys without weapons.. u can clearly see that)

I don't understand one thing at all though

when that wounded guy crawled away, he didn't shoot because he had no weapon.. "come on.. all u have to do is pick up a weapon" its not like he cared for that when he began shooting the crowd.

and then the van appears and the guys in the van tried to help/get the wounded guy away from the scene
*WHY* does he want to shoot them? they were not carrying any weapons.

I mean its like he's saying

"ok he has no weapon, I won't shoot him"
Van appears:
"OH NO fuck you, u won't!" *rattarattaratta*

this is so wrong.


This was completely uncalled for, even going as far as saying "shouldn't have brought their kids to battle then" as if somehow that makes it alright.

to be honest I can understand why he said that...
i guess...to stay mental stable u have to say such things in war

[XanBcoo]

The guy in the van who stopped to help was taking his daughters to their tutor. He had no idea what was going on :(.

Edit: Oops, apparently it was his daughter and his son, not 2 daughters.

so they have no cameras or whatever

u can clearly see the RPG a little bit later.

and its unimportant whether its a direct threat to the helicopter, a guy with an RPG is obviously a threat to the ground forces.
It doesn't even matter if he had an RPG. Killing everyone in the area because you see someone with a weapon is not the proper course of action:

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.

[Sapphire]

The guy in the van who stopped to help was taking his daughters to their tutor. He had no idea what was going on :(

That IS very :(

Seems like it actually hitting the media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-FvRngn81Y&feature=related

But for how long?

(Sorry for double post, merge posts please?)

[KrayZ33]

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

the real RPG is seen 3:43 ~ 3:58

the guy at 4:08 etc is a reporter... the guy @ 3:43 however, is not.


Killing everyone in the area because you see someone with a weapon is not the proper course of action:

thats why I said
not saying I understand why they aimed for the people without guns too though (they tried to kill everyone, even the guys without weapons.. u can clearly see that)

[XanBcoo]

The decision and clearance to fire was made upon seeing the camera, which they thought was an RPG.

Regardless, even if they had fired on the guy with the actual RPG, they had no reason to do so. "Carrying a weapon" does not equal "Dirty terrorist" and it's no reason to take out a block full of people.


Seems like it actually hitting the media.

FOX news takes a surprising stance on the issue (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/)

Some of the comments are sane, but most are along these lines:

I love this country and the soldiers that risk their life for us,and it anger me so to see anyone talk bad about them.

[KrayZ33]

Regardless, even if they had fired on the guy with the actual RPG, they had no reason to do so. "Carrying a weapon" does not equal "Dirty terrorist"

carrying such weapons is reason enough to do so
its war after all
not to mention that troops got attacked there earlier which is probably the reason why the Choppers are patrouling there in the first place.

however it doesn't even matter

if they carry weapons, they are allowed to engage.

[XanBcoo]

if they carry weapons, they are allowed to engage.
Nope, sorry.

Even under the immensely stupid assumption that anyone carrying a weapon is a terrorist, shooting first and asking questions later is a tactical blunder not limited to consequences like shooting a guy carrying a camera.

[KrayZ33]

rules of engagement:


1. you have the right to use force against attacks or threats of attacks
RPG+AK = Threat to ground forces -> engage.
since most of them "had weapons" in their opinion everything was "fine"... or lets say "everyone followed the rules"
I don't arrogate to judge whether its obvious that the rest only had cameras etc. instead of AK-47s because I'm not in a situation to do so (Im sitting here at home...able to pause the video as I wish etc. and more important , not paranoid enough ... because I'm not getting shot at - every - single - day)

but:

Vans taking bodies -> no threat
they asked for permission to engage -> permission granted -> they shot

the question is, why did they ask for permission... why did they think it is necessary to destroy that target
second question, why did they even get permission to engage?
all they said is "the van is taking the bodies"
no weapons were mentioned etc.

I don't get it.. as I said "its so wrong"

[Kraco]

Considering how much the leak of this video again damaged the already damaged image of the USA, I'd say cameras are equal to RPGs in destructive power as far the US military is concerned. Information is power, after all.

[Assassin]

1. you have the right to use force against attacks or threats of attacks
RPG+AK = Threat to ground forces -> engage.

At the time the chopper was initially circling the block there were no ground forces present, so there was no threat. And as its already been mentioned, there was no threat to the chopper even if someone was walking around with an RPG.

In anycase, i think we can all agree what the video shows is a horrendous act of violence. Everyone may have thier own take on it, but at the end of the day this is neither new nor unexpected. After 8 years of illegal war and occupation, 12 dead civilians are hardly breaking news. And that in itself is a tragedy.

[Assertn]

At the time the chopper was initially circling the block there were no ground forces present, so there was no threat. And as its already been mentioned, there was no threat to the chopper even if someone was walking around with an RPG.
So what exactly would a circling helicopter go out to look for? Anti-helicopter armaments? If there weren't insurgents walking around with guns, we wouldn't need to have occupation there in the first place.

[Kraco]

So what exactly would a circling helicopter go out to look for?

Disregarding the first attack, which had some basis behind it due to weapons being recognized (it was a war and enemies are to be killed - all the better if they haven't yet spotted you), the second act verified the helicopter was there looking for simple kills. They couldn't let the unarmed civilian van driver save even the one potentially savable life left. In fact it reminded more of those WWII tactics where an enemy soldier was left wounded and withering in the middle of some clearing and then snipers would take out any other enemies trying to save the poor bastard. Nice to see such inhumane tactics are still employed today...

[Animeniax]

I'm not making excuses for the helo pilots, but the attack on the van could be seen as keeping the bad guys from hiding evidence or clearing the crime scene. Who knows, maybe one of the guys killed could have been a high value target, like Osama himself. If the van had been allowed to remove the bodies, there would be no chance to verify who all got killed.

[Kraco]

Oh, the old mercenary "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" stance, Ani?

It's useless to talk about crime scenes, though. There are no crime scenes in a war. There are only battle scenes. After the war is over begins the phase when some battle scenes are labeled crimes against humanity scenes (but only if the guilty one was the loser side). Considering that, the killer trying to keep evidence intact is a dubious idea at best. Let's not forget this whole event would have been only half as bad if they hadn't attacked the second time.

[KrayZ33]

So what exactly would a circling helicopter go out to look for? Anti-helicopter armaments?

:D
seems like they have to sent in tanks to kill the RPG guys
and infantry for the AK-47s
since tanks are not allowed to engange them! *rolleyes*



And as its already been mentioned, there was no threat to the chopper even if someone was walking around with an RPG.

doesn't matter
srsly... if someone walks around with an RPG in his hand he would get shot *EVERYWERE* especially in war(-like) zones. even if he doesn't pull the trigger

he's a threat thats it and nothing can change that fact.

sometimes I wonder why people think someone has to die before military forces are allowed to fight back..



Let's not forget this whole event would have been only half as bad if they hadn't attacked the second time.

I agree

[Assertn]

Sure its unfortunate that good samaritans got caught up in the fray (I'm referring to the van, regardless of whether or not the first round were all innocent civilians), but in the presence of insurgents, the marines are in search to kill. When an insurgent escapes and survives, the objective is a failure. If the man lying on the ground was a key player in the opposition, then what should the marines do if some well-intentioned pedestrian came to rescue him?

I'm just trying to be realistic here. This isn't about, "Should the military occupy Iraq?" or "Did the marines open-fire without reasonable awareness of the threat their targets possessed?", this is about "Were these specific measures taken justified given this formulaic circumstance?"

[Ryllharu]

I read this on a related thread on slashdot, and I thought it was rather appropriate.
Fine, I'll play along. This is because American civilians are repulsed by the idea of causing harm to other people. In fact, they are so repulsed, that they see a video like this one (of soldiers using guns to kill people and break things) and they are repulsed and outraged.

American Soldiers have to be broken down and rebuilt so that they know that killing people and breaking things is what armies are meant to do. That is why we use our army to kill people and break things. The real problems come when we try to use our armies to do things like build things and be nice to people. That's not what it's for.

In fact, American Soldiers are so good at killing people and breaking things, that we get called in all over the world to save the people who think soldiers are like policemen with bigger guns.
You can call it jingoism all you want, we're really good a fucking shit up in a warzone (ambiguity intended).

When things get hairy, or look like they are about to, soldiers will be soldiers, regardless of where they come from. Americans just happen to do most of the fighting, and are the most effective at it.

Morally reprehensible? Yeah, but so is war in general. We get to be morally outraged because our lives are generally so peaceful.

edit: This is also the burden of command. You make a decision given what you know, and if it is wrong (like this one was) you accept and live with the consequences. This one is just a bit more public than usual.

[KrayZ33]

That is why we use our army to kill people and break things. The real problems come when we try to use our armies to do things like build things and be nice to people. That's not what it's for.

a few decades ago you could say he's right
but soldiers arn't trained solely for that purpose anymore



In fact, American Soldiers are so good at killing people and breaking things, that we get called in all over the world to save the people who think soldiers are like policemen with bigger guns.

thats one of their jobs too, and they get trained for that as much as they get trained to shoot things. the difference however is, that they work in much more dangerous places and thus, have to react different from normal "police-forces"

what people don't see however is not that armies make things go "hairy"... the situation over there is already pretty much fucked up when they *get* there
and thats what most viewers at home don't understand.

[XanBcoo]

I don't even know what to say. I'd like to spend an hour typing out a response to some of these posts but I feel like I'd be wasting my time. I've made my points.

I'll post a bit more when I have time, but the bottom line is that the military needs to be held accountable for it's screw ups. This is a huge one. It's not justified, it's not condoned, and it's barely even understandable.

A soldier (especially when occupying a foreign territory) has the responsibility to proceed with caution and not assume the guilt of everyone he sees.

We get to be morally outraged because representatives of our nation are murdering civilians under flimsy assumptions and not being held accountable. It has nothing to do with "war".



I'm just trying to be realistic here. This isn't about, "Should the military occupy Iraq?" or "Did the marines open-fire without reasonable awareness of the threat their targets possessed?", this is about "Were these specific measures taken justified given this formulaic circumstance?"
No, they were not. The world doesn't operate under the assumption (morally and legally) that you are allowed to assume everyone is guilty unless proven innocent and exact justice at your own discretion.

I that really the argument you're making, or am I misunderstanding?

[Ryllharu]

a few decades ago you could say he's right
but soldiers arn't trained solely for that purpose anymore

thats one of their jobs too, and they get trained for that as much as they get trained to shoot things.I might be inclined to agree with that, except that the U.S. also has the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve. Those two branches of the U.S. Army are specialized in and are used for those things far more than the Infantry and other combat divisions.

So it really depends.


the bottom line is that the military needs to be held accountable for it's screw ups. This is a huge one. It's not justified, it's not condoned, and it's barely even understandable.

A soldier (especially when occupying a foreign territory) has the responsibility to proceed with caution and not assume the guilt of everyone he sees.

The world doesn't operate under the assumption (morally and legally) that you are allowed to assume everyone is guilty unless proven innocent and exact justice at your own discretion.

I that really the argument you're making, or am I misunderstanding?Command has a choice to make. Do you have them open fire on someone you are not 100% certain of and when you might not have 100% awareness of the situtation? Or do you explain to your own people's families on why you allowed them to get shot or blown up?

This is a choice they have to make, often on a daily basis, particularly in an urban environment where the time you have to react and decide can be reduced to seconds.

It isn't a choice I could easily make, but it is one that these soldiers and their chain of command have to live with now.

[XanBcoo]

Command has a choice to make. Do you have them open fire on someone you are not 100% certain of and when you might not have 100% awareness of the situtation?
No, of course not. That's what leads to situations like "Collateral Murder".

At the very least the military needs to be held accountable for its mistakes and not have them waved away because "war is hell". Doing anything less is, as I said before, complacence to the murder of innocent human beings.

The nature of war makes it even more imperative that human life is respected. It's not an excuse to allow for indiscriminate violence.


Or do you explain to your own people's families on why you allowed them to get shot or blown up?
Isn't the implicit argument here that it's better to risk killing many (in this case, unarmed) civilians based insufficient evidence than it is to let them go and possibly have more soldiers die in the future? That's making a judgment on the value of someone's life, which is something a soldier does not have any say in.

And I know we're speaking very generally now, but let's remember the specific case we're discussing. These weren't guys who made a sound judgment call. They flew in, made assumptions about the intent and level of danger the targets presented and took great pleasure in sinking bullets into every brown man they saw.

Edit: Added links to the OP

[Carnage]

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7041/peterson01.th.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/peterson01.jpg/)
Page 2 (http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7422/peterson02.jpg)
Page 3 (http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1971/peterson03.jpg)


Do you have a source for this?

[Pandadice]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/30/japan.video.game.rape/index.html

lol. did anyone see this the other day on CNN?

http://kotaku.com/5506016/why-is-cnn-talking-about-rapelay

i guess by now it's kinda old news. But it's just so ridiculous xD

I like how you moved this post into the this thread....

[XanBcoo]

Thanks for the heads up. I've moved it to the right thread.

Do you have a source for this?
I did but It'd take a while for me to search for it. It was from some University magazine, possibly the one listed below the title.

[Sapphire]

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-12-2010-julian-assange

The "sort of founder" of Wikileaks discusses the video with colbert

Full interview: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange

[XanBcoo]

Yeah, I saw that last night. The interview went from funny to deathly serious very quickly. You could cut the tension with a knife, and I think Colbert was genuinely upset about the fact that Wikileaks edited the video.

I actually agree, but I feel it's beside the point. There's still a lot of misinformation about the video going around and lots of people who are grasping at straws to make excuses for the nutjobs responsible.

Despite the political slant of the original video, I feel satisfied that they released the 40 minute unedited one as well.

[Animeniax]

Was the full interview the 7:04? Because from that clip alone I'm not feeling the tension and/or upset that you're describing Xan. It seemed like Colbert was being droll and playing devil's advocate by describing a conservative or apologist's view of the video.

[XanBcoo]

The on-air version was edited for time slightly, it seems. You're right that most of the time Stephen was in character, but I think from about 2:45 to around 4:00 in, Stephen was speaking as himself. It's subtle, but his criticism seems genuine and is completely legitimate.

I do like that Assange was able to articulate his points and not backtrack, while still laughing and enjoying himself on the show.