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

[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?

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]

Page 2
Page 3

Do you have a source for this?

[Pandadice]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapc...ape/index.html

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

http://kotaku.com/5506016/why-is-cnn...-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-ep...julian-assange

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

Full interview: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...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.