hahahaha just a peaceful morning walking the children to elementary school, huh?

ITT smc tacitly admits to being a troll

4/11/2010 6:49:33 PM

Out of the mouth of babestrolls...

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2010 8:44:17 PM

Page 10 is lacking some serious truths...

Quote :

"I love how we are now on page nineten, and despite the complete lack of any additional evidence, the group of people in the video are now 100% verified to be armed insurgents who deserved to be slaughtered. I swear, the mental gymnastics you people are capable of is astonishing to me."

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 9:06 PM. Reason : .]

4/11/2010 9:06:23 PM

Quote :

"I love how since page 1, despite the complete lack of any evidence, the soldiers have been condemned as war criminals guilty of carrying out "atrocities" on iraqis who were just out for a sunday afternoon stroll. I swear, the mental gymnastics you people are capable of is astonishing to me."

I mean, we could probably convince qntmfred to go ahead and duplicate pages 1-10 into pages 11-20

4/11/2010 9:08:17 PM

All armed, including the children and the good samaritan ambulance drivers.

4/11/2010 9:08:26 PM

lol, yea they were about as much good samaritans as an american soldier is

4/11/2010 9:12:05 PM

It would seem that no American really cares if Iraqi civilians live or die. There have been stories of horrible deaths since the onset of the war, largely ignored or marginalized. The consensus among the american public seems to be that the victims all have the gross misfortune of being in the wrong place. If it's true that no Americans really give a shit about Iraqis, why are we there at all?

4/11/2010 9:17:55 PM

When you send 18 year olds with million dollar weapons into the middle of a war zone in a fucking desert, this is what you get. They saw what they thought were weapons and it was an "us or them" moment. The Monday-morning QBs in this thread are certain they see cameras. I wouldn't be so convinced without the big white arrow pointing at it saying "camera" (or whatever it says). In which case, I'm shooting. I'm not gonna fucking die out there.

I don't blame the pilots. If you want to blame someone for the deaths of innocent civilians, blame the assholes who took us to war in the first place: Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush.

4/11/2010 9:39:04 PM

^that's a fair and cynical synopsis.

but it's also heavily critiquing the first shoot-out. there seems to be a heavy consensus that it was a mistake and not much more. the question is about the shoot-out with the van. some on here are content with assuming they were insurgents, while others are giving them the benefit of the doubt. that's really where the difference lies.

it was earlier stated that the military pretty much makes decisions based on a 70% information standard. we know that the two children were not insurgents, so...if there were 4 other confirmed insurgents in the van, then it passes the 70% test. if there were not, then it leaves it open for discussion. obviously, you can't expect a pilot to be able to do the math in his head during the heat of the moment. i also don't think these guys need to be tried for war crimes or persecuted, but the situation does warrant review (and the last thing we need is to adopt an attitude that nothing the military does is subject to investigation).

this is an opportunity for the military to revise its tactics in order to minimize collateral damage. in this specific case, when the pilots were not under fire, the methods of engagement should probably allow for more time to be taken before committing to the decision to engage. it's not fair to the citizens who die, obviously. but it's also not fair for our soldiers to go over to battle, and then come back with the burden of knowing that they may have killed innocent civilians/women/children, etc because of faulty information or decisions made in haste. i'm aware that this is idealistic, but there's no reason to believe that we can't continually strive to approach this ideal, especially when new details (case studies, really) come to light that give us another opportunity to analyze and revise our codes of conduct.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2010 10:07:48 PM

Quote :

"but it's also heavily critiquing the first shoot-out. there seems to be a heavy consensus that it was a mistake and not much more."

no, the consensus is that it was too bad there was a photographer embedded with the insurgents. but it wasn't a mistake to kill the armed men they were with.

Quote :

"we know that the two children were not insurgents, so...if there were 4 other confirmed insurgents in the van, then it passes the 70% test."

you know there was no way to know there were kids in that van. the 70% has nothing to do with the ratio of enemy to non-enemy in a crowd. but I'm 70% sure you're just trolling with that anyway

Quote :

"(and the last thing we need is to adopt an attitude that nothing the military does is subject to investigation)."

THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION. you just don't like the results because you obviously have some grudge against the service

Quote :

"this is an opportunity for the military to revise its tactics in order to minimize collateral damage. in this specific case, when the pilots were not under fire"

no they weren't under fire. but the troops on the ground a few hundred yards away from the guys on the ground who got killed were. do you not understand that this apache attack was a close air support mission in response to guys on the ground getting shot at? this wasn't just some random group of people in a random area that the apache happened upon.

Quote :

"the methods of engagement should probably allow for more time to be taken before committing to the decision to engage. it's not fair to the citizens who die, obviously."

when you embed yourself with insurgents, you lose all right to fairness if you get killed. and how much more time? do you want these guys to be able to round that corner and engage the friendlies we have nearby before you shoot on them? fuck that. they took the time to identify AK's and and RPG. no more time is needed

Quote :

"i'm aware that this is idealistic, but there's no reason to believe that we can't continually strive to approach this ideal"

yes there is. it's called paralysis by analysis.

you've shown you don't don't really care about anything other than crucifying whoever you can...except for the photog embedded with terrorists and other people who drag kids into a battle...because we should have known there were reuters photographers in the group and kids stashed inside the van? that about right?

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ,]

4/12/2010 12:30:37 AM

^welp, looks like you mis-understood me. i have said repeatedly that i think the photographer killing was an accident. an honest mistake, and that not much more needs to be investigated on that wave of shooting. i really don't know why you're harping on about that information. i also conceded that you couldn't tell that there were kids in the van as well as stating that if the adults were in fact enemy, they're bastards for bringing children into the area. and yes, i was being facetious with the 70% remark. the only argument i've really tried to make is that civilians deserve the benefit of the doubt, and that they should not have the burden of proof put on them to prove their innocence. if you wanna make the paralysis by analysis argument, then go on right ahead, that's a fair side to take. i just happen to disagree, great country, isn't it? i personally think that action is not always a better strategy than inaction. but that's just me.

Quote :

"THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION."

i'm aware of this. and i'm glad that there was an investigation. i'm satisfied with the results. i'm just simply stating that these investigations are a good thing, whether further action or not is taken.


but from what i could see, the guys in the van were not shooting at the apache crew, nor were they shooting at anyone at that moment. that's why i think that in this particular situation, more time could have been afforded. but whatever, i could personally welcome back every single soldier with a capri sun and apple pie, take them all out to a baseball game while singing the national anthem, and you'd still be convinced that i hate my country just because i don't see eye to eye with you on this subject.

[Edited on April 12, 2010 at 1:03 AM. Reason : ]

4/12/2010 12:54:00 AM

Quote :

"When you send 18 year olds with million dollar weapons into the middle of a war zone in a fucking desert, this is what you get."

18-year olds don't fly Apaches. Ever.

There are probably a few rare instances where you have, say, a 22 year old WO, but that's probably because he was exceptional, had a significant amount of college under his belt, etc. Other than that, I'd say that 25 years old would be a young aviator, and he'd be a wingman, under the charge of a more experienced flight lead.

More likely, these were a couple of 30-something year old guys. Good chance they're college grads (in all the other services, ALL aviators are commissioned officers with college degrees), and they almost certainly have some college. Hell, a master's wouldn't be very unusual. The flight lead is probably on at least his 2nd or 3rd combat deployment...the wingman, maybe his 1st or 2nd.

Quote :

"They saw what they thought were weapons and it was an "us or them" moment. The Monday-morning QBs in this thread are certain they see cameras. I wouldn't be so convinced without the big white arrow pointing at it saying "camera" (or whatever it says). In which case, I'm shooting. I'm not gonna fucking die out there."

No, they were probably far enough away that the insurgents weren't that much of a threat to them. This wasn't a kill-or-be-killed scenario. They wouldn't sit there and orbit over and over again around something that might reasonable kill them.

Quote :

" there seems to be a heavy consensus that it was a mistake and not much more. "

No, there's not even a consensus that it was a mistake. There's a consensus among people who know what they're talking about and aren't fucking crazy that they did exactly what they should've done. The mistake was the poor judgement that the Reuters camera crew had to saddle up with insurgent fighters.

Quote :

"the question is about the shoot-out with the van. some on here are content with assuming they were insurgents, while others are giving them the benefit of the doubt. that's really where the difference lies."

This is a valid statement. I personally wouldn't fault the pilots for not destroying the van, but I think they probably made the right call based on the information that they had. My personal view is that they probably weren't just good Samaritans. I'll bet that they were either insurgents, or at least knew who they were helping and chose to get involved..the fact that they brought a couple of kids along is, again, fucked up on their part, and a freak thing that there's no possible way the pilots could've foreseen or been aware of.

Quote :

" in this specific case, when the pilots were not under fire, the methods of engagement should probably allow for more time to be taken before committing to the decision to engage."

They found the enemy and killed them. What more information did they need? The only thing that could've been done differently would be not to have fired on the van, but that had nothing to do with not taking their time...that had to do with, you know, not being able to see through fucking vans.

4/12/2010 12:11:15 PM

I think that we as a nation need to start a dialogue about seeing through fucking vans /HUR

4/12/2010 1:12:54 PM

I mean we can put a man on the moon, but a Ford Econoline we just can't penetrate visually. Sad, really.

4/12/2010 1:15:41 PM

Quote :

"No, there's not even a consensus that it was a mistake. There's a consensus among people who know what they're talking about and aren't fucking crazy that they did exactly what they should've done. The mistake was the poor judgement that the Reuters camera crew had to saddle up with insurgent fighters."

lol, crazy way of thinking but whatever...

4/12/2010 2:17:46 PM

Why does a camera automatically mean press? Don't enemy combatants routinely take pictures and video? I submit that even if the apache gunner had correctly identified the camera equipment the situation would have remained unchanged. Uhh, we've got guys with rpgs and aks down here, and a couple of cameras.

Oh shit, cameras! Pull out, do not engage!

4/12/2010 2:48:38 PM

Actually I'm really just trolling. I'm a full supporter of engaging and killing civilians in combat. That is the only way you can keep these people in check. Just look at Iraq with Saddam in power and post-Saddam.

4/12/2010 2:52:48 PM

If they'd been smart they would have noticed that the Apache had a camera too and would have returned fire, or at least tagged it on facebook.

4/12/2010 4:08:30 PM

haha. 30MM cannons are really just a military version of a friend request. they were accepted, in this case.

4/12/2010 4:25:03 PM

dead insurgents truly are the friends of marines

4/12/2010 4:31:30 PM

Quote :

"If they'd been smart they would have noticed that the Apache had a camera too and would have returned fire, or at least tagged it on facebook."

winner.

4/12/2010 5:43:05 PM

Quote :

"Don't enemy combatants routinely take pictures and video?"

hell yeah, as best as I can tell, they take pictures and video of just about everything they do.

and no, recognizing video cameras among the AKs and RPGs would not have changed anything, I'm 99.999% sure. It certainly wouldn't have if I'd been the one on the trigger.

4/12/2010 10:32:57 PM

this might have been said already but the Wikileaks guy is on colbert

4/12/2010 11:55:19 PM

how many of our reporters in the combat zones have been killed or wounded.....quite a few. if you are a journalist going into a war zone, you know the risk. you are not magically immune from the threat around you.

4/13/2010 12:52:25 AM

shit, at least the ones from American cable and broadcast news networks have the benefit of being with the U.S. military, rather than snuggling up to the ones we're killing.

If you're embedding yourself with an insurgent group out looking for an attack on U.S. troops, you'd better have a damn compelling reason (i.e., something really important to report on). If not, you're not being brave...you're being an idiot.

Here in the USMC (where we pretty much have being "hard" down to a science), we have a saying..."It's easy to be hard. It's hard to be smart."

4/13/2010 1:03:17 AM

The fact that the US military lies in its press releases and censors what embedded reporters can say is a compelling enough reason for true journalists.

4/13/2010 9:23:51 AM

GET YER TINFOIL HATS

4/13/2010 11:04:29 AM

BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!!

4/13/2010 11:18:15 AM

ITT smc devolves into a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist

salisburyboy exposed?

4/13/2010 11:30:09 AM

Quote :

"shit, at least the ones from American cable and broadcast news networks have the benefit of being with the U.S. military, rather than snuggling up to the ones we're killing."

Well jeewizz, son...who'd want BOTH sides of the story anyway?

US Journalists still die by the same guns that kill the ones embedded with other 'groups'...its just called 'friendly fire' although there is nothing friendly about that.

4/13/2010 12:42:02 PM

fact: insurgents have never killed any journalists
fact: al-quaeda has never killed any journalists
fact: taliban has never killed any journalists

fact: american forces deliberately targeted the journalist in this clip for assassination.

4/13/2010 12:51:27 PM

^^yes, let's be sure to put reporters with the people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians on a weekly basis so we can get their side of the story - because I'm sure it's very compelling and will make us understand them better

4/13/2010 1:27:08 PM

When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

The military learned their lesson in Vietnam and have been very careful about the news they allow out of today's wars.

[Edited on April 13, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2010 1:42:32 PM

tell me more oh great feng shui

4/13/2010 1:45:10 PM

We seem to be stuck in a troll feedback loop.

4/13/2010 1:47:32 PM

it is the predestined end of every soapbox thread.

4/13/2010 1:48:41 PM

Nah, theduke will be here in a moment to defend the baby killers and we can start all over again.

4/13/2010 1:51:05 PM

he is a part of the life cycle just as we are. one can not fight destiny, one can only shape it.

4/13/2010 1:58:46 PM

Quote :

"Nah, theduke will be here in a moment to defend the baby killers and we can start all over again"

I have no problems with soldiers defending themselves from armed women and children even if they were forced against their will to strap explosives to their body. I don't consider this baby killing at all.

Also, scenarios like Vietnam where you don't even know what you are shooting at half the time until its too late, I don't consider this intentional baby killing. Anyone in that sort of situation would react the same way.

However, hovering 100's of feet above the ground in an attack helicopter while shooting the shit with your pilot and begging for permission to open fire on civilians is another story all together.

4/13/2010 3:06:17 PM

That seems like a reasonable, well-thought out compromise arriving at an acceptable centrist view.

4/13/2010 3:15:04 PM

sure, except the people that were visible were obviously insurgents not civilians.

but yea other than that

4/13/2010 3:52:46 PM

Obviously? Really? hmm...

4/13/2010 4:01:23 PM

If I was an Iraqi kid and that was my family who was just murdered for nothing other than standing outside and/or try to help my wounded innocent neighbors... i'd be plotting my revenge against America by the time I was 13.

4/13/2010 4:23:04 PM

What you are insinuating is a strategy that revolves around 'winning their hearts and minds.'

The US military would much rather have them by the balls instead. Let the insurgents worry about winning the civilian populations hearts and minds.

4/13/2010 4:30:23 PM

Quote :

"Obviously? Really? hmm..."

Yeah I'd say the RPG one of 'em was holding, the AK another was holding and the fact that the van had been spotted previously dropping of insurgents kinda qualifies the statement.

Quote :

"Let the insurgents worry about winning the civilian populations hearts and minds."

And they're doing a bang up job of that with the ACTUAL indiscriminate killing of civilians. I guess the Sunni awakening backlash in EYERACK was just a bridge club.

[Edited on April 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM. Reason : *]

4/13/2010 5:33:49 PM

Quote :

"and the fact that the van had been spotted previously dropping of insurgents"

ROFL

*pilot*: Can I get a check on a red van with license plate J*I*H*A*D*I*S*T* over

*base*: Roger that

*static*

*Pilot*: Please tell me thats the same fuckin van that dropped off some civilians insurgents earlier today, let me shoot already! over

*base*: Just got a hit from the Insurgent DMV...van was reported dropping off insurgents. Engage!

*pilot*: pew pew pew

-----------------------

That was all edited out of the video by wikileaks in order to pain the soldiers in a negative light to further their political agenda.

4/13/2010 8:40:57 PM

^ ?

4/13/2010 9:13:18 PM

Quote :

"yes, let's be sure to put reporters with the people who strap bombs to themselves and blow up civilians on a weekly basis so we can get their side of the story - because I'm sure it's very compelling and will make us understand them better"

Ehh, I've read plenty of interviews by Western reporters with various types of Iraqi and Afghan insurgents. I'm all for interviewing them, but jumping into combat alongside them is a recipe for getting killed, and that ought to be obvious to any idiot.

Quote :

"The military learned their lesson in Vietnam and have been very careful about the news they allow out of today's wars."

Oh really? That's why the military allows far more media involvement than ever before?

Quote :

"Also, scenarios like Vietnam where you don't even know what you are shooting at half the time until its too late, I don't consider this intentional baby killing. Anyone in that sort of situation would react the same way."

What exactly do you mean, here? Give me an example

Quote :

"The US military would much rather have them by the balls instead. Let the insurgents worry about winning the civilian populations hearts and minds."

Well shit, let me look up the email addresses of some generals for you. Sounds like we need some help with rewriting our COIN doctrine.

A little recent history for you: the turnaround in Iraq, starting with the Anbar Awakening, was largely due to the insurgents fucking away the winning of hearts and minds, and an increasing number of people turning to the U.S.

Half the fucking strategy of insurgents in Iraq is to spark and fuel sectarian warfare.

4/13/2010 9:34:26 PM

Quote :

"That was all edited out of the video by wikileaks in order to pain the soldiers in a negative light to further their political agenda."

That's actually true.
If they didn't have an agenda, they wouldn't have prefaced the leaked video with 3 minutes of commentary. Also, this was released at the same time as their collateral murder:

Quote :

" Collateral Murder 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. For further information please visit the special project website http://www.collateralmurder.com. Fundraising drive We have received hundreds of thousands of pages from corrupt banks, the US detainee system, the Iraq war, China, the UN and many others that we do not currently have the resources to release to a world audience. You can change that and by doing so, change the world. Even $10 will pay to put one of these reports into another ten thousand hands and $1000, a million. We have raised just over $370,000 for this year (our yearly budget is around $600,000.). The Sunshine Press (WikiLeaks) is an non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners, investigative journalists, technologists and the general public. Through your support we have exposed significant injustice around the world— successfully fighting off over 100 legal attacks in the process. Although our work produces reforms daily and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards, including the 2008 Index on Censorship-Economist Freedom of Expression Award as well as the 2009 Amnesty International New Media Award, these accolades do not pay the bills. Nor can we accept government or corporate funding and maintain our absolute integrity. It is your strong support alone that preserves our continued independence and strength. We are releasing some time sensitive disclosures on this page until the moment of our re-launch. "

Before you ask, I am suggesting that WikiLeaks is spinning this video by narrating only the cameras and not the clearly visible weapons. And they're doing it to drum up donations for their operating costs (probably successfully).

They did release the full feed (long video) along with their edited copy. Why release an edited copy if you're an organization interested in getting the truth out?

[Edited on April 14, 2010 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2010 8:50:56 AM

--->

4/20/2010 1:17:40 PM