Don't forget the good Samaritans whose children were slaughtered for their trouble.

If Wikileaks wants to leak something, leak the names and stateside addresses of the pilots, then their commanding officers.

4/5/2010 7:21:58 PM

You're trolling, but what the fuck do you want the commanding officer to say when he is told that a group of men is walking around with ak-47's and one of them is crouching at a corner with an rpg? He's supposed to say, "wait, let's see what he's going to do with that rpg," right?

4/5/2010 7:26:40 PM

Maybe they'll save the trouble of an investigation and blow their own brains out from guilt. But it's more likely they just use their version of this story to get laid in bars.

----------------------------------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

At 34:45 they clearly see a dude just walking down the sidewalk minding his own business and they blow him away anyway because they'd spent a few minutes setting up the shot and didn't want to waste their permission to engage.

Then as civilians begin to search through the rubble for survivors they fire again.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2010 7:29:13 PM

Gotta get those points man, he was probably really close to his next prestige level and only needed a few more kills.

4/5/2010 8:00:23 PM

Quote :

"No real way to justify this shit, but I'm sure someone will try!"

Nobody's going to justify it, exactly, but I think it's pretty obvious that this was an accident.

Quote :

"Watching the video, it's pretty damn clear that there was no "hostile force" or anything resembling a "fight". "

They thought they were enemy fighters. They killed them. Pretty straightforward...it doesn't have to be an active gunfight to smoke bad guys...unfortunately, they fucked up this time and killed the wrong people.

Quote :

"this kind of awful stuff will happen any time you get in a war, and we need to think long and hard if going to war is worth this kind of atrocity and murder. tragedy."

Quote :

"The part of the video that was the most disturbing to me was when the US military killed the people that were trying to save the wounded. Especially when the gunner said "Come on, pick up a gun," just so he could finish him off. It just struck me as inherently evil. "

I'm not sure about killing the van that came to get the bodies. I don't know all the context leading up to this engagement, or the intel they had, or exactly what they were seeing/hearing. My guess is that they thought they'd just killed some bad guys, and people coming in a van to pick up the bodies (and what they believed to be weapons) would also pretty surely also be enemy.

As far as wanting the wounded guy to pick up a gun, well, if you're an AH-64 pilot, and you think this is a bad guy who's going to continue killing your guys and innocent Iraqis if he lives, well of course you want to finish him off.

Quote :

"If this...is all the evidence it takes to kill 11 people, then I have no idea wtf we are doing in that country. Also, what about firing on the van that arrived to assist the wounded? Even IF they were enemy combatants (which they were not), that would still be wrong. "

That was all the evidence it took to kill people earlier in the war.

Also, as far as shooting the van and its occupants...I'm no lawyer, but:

1. They are not lawful combatants, so they don't enjoy protections under the Geneva Convention. (I don't think that gives us a blank check, to torture them, etc, but it is important, for the exact reason we see in that video...it's very tough to tell who's who.)

2. There's no reason to presume that they're medical personnel. As far as the gunner can tell, they're more fighters.

3. Yes, it's still a tragedy, and depending on the situation, I'd probably buy that more restraint might be in order, but it's hard to armchair quarterback these things at 0 feet, 0 knots, with all the time in the world, the benefit of hindsight, and no chance of anyone getting shot at.

Quote :

" it's important that people see stuff like this so we think long and hard before deploying our killing machine into another country."

I do agree with this on all counts, though. Killing people is an ugly business, and I think that most people have no grasp of it at all. Additionally, stuff like this is absolutely going to happen in war.

Quote :

"I'm not sure there is any, but why celebrate it? Is that a defense mechanism? "FUCKIN A BROSEF YEAH WE MADE SOME ORPHANS TODAY *HIGH FIVE*""

Shit, if I was one of them, and I just annihilated what I thought was a group of people who were out to kill friendly troops and innocent Iraqis, I'd be more excited than these guys were, and rightfully so, as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for them being pleased with their work when their work is killing bad guys.

Quote :

"Military training has to make you a little bit eager/excited to shoot at the enemy or else you wouldn't do it. We've learned this through repeated experience. "

There's some chicken and egg going on, too. The military--particularly the actual killing jobs--attracts a certain personality.

Quote :

"I don't think I'd be able to do it. To know that you are ending everything that someone could ever be, that you are causing pain to innocent people, to his mother, his wife, his children, I couldn't do it. I'm glad we have people that do, I'm just glad that if it comes to it, I'll never have to be the person."

Yep, that's fine, and maybe for the best that there are more people like you than there are people like me.

Quote :

"I imagine the problem here is that the intel didn't let the troops know there were friendlies in the area"

I think in an area like that, it should be pretty obvious that there's always a potential for friendlies.

Quote :

"they were not concerned with being shot at during the entire event, they simply wanted an excuse to engage."

Umm, no shit.

Quote :

""Come on, pick up a gun" was not an issue of practicality, it was a simple excuse to kill."

Whatever, same thing.

Quote :

"Goalielax, you are completely delusional if you think they were acting out of self-preservation."

Again, who said anything about self-preservation?

Quote :

"granted permission from a commanding officer"

Just to clarify, COs don't make calls on stuff like that. Hell, the Apache CO could've been in one of the helos. I was paying more attention to the footage than the captions, and I was watching with the sound turned off, but it sounds like they were talking to a JTAC, and the engagement authority had nothing to do with convincing him that they were indeed bad guys (that much is assumed by the JTAC in this situation). I think it was more of an issue with deconflicting to make sure the shots didn't go towards friendlies operating in the area.

Quote :

"Why don't they put hi-def cameras on helicopter so they can see what the fuck they're shooting? Why are they still using 480i video to decide who to kill when I can see shit better in my living room? "

Imaging pods are pretty good, man. It's zoomed waaaay in...the helo is a good distance away. On top of that, you have vibrations, haze, etc that degrade the image.

...and getting a new toy added to aircraft is generally a rather lengthy process. After all the R&D, funding approval, etc, then you have to wait for it to be flight tested and approved.

Quote :

"I have a feeling the quality of that video is not nearly what it was in the chopper."

I'd guess probably about the same...but again, it's from a greater distance than I think you realize.

Quote :

"If Wikileaks wants to leak something, leak the names and stateside addresses of the pilots, then their commanding officers."

Fuck that.

1. Their COs had nothing to do with it.

2. You want to see what would be a WHOLE LOT worse than an incident like this? Neuter the combat forces to where everyone's scared of taking action.

4/5/2010 8:25:19 PM

Oh, I'm sorry, I must be lost. I was looking for the thread to discuss how our occupation is winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis...

4/5/2010 8:28:31 PM

Yeah, you're lost alright. You're addressing a point that isn't in dispute.

4/5/2010 8:30:41 PM

I say we neuter the combat forces by not letting them leave the borders of the United States.

The Abu Ghraib scandal was an isolated incident. This is an average day of war. At least in Vietnam we could blame atrocities on the human weakness of small units in a hostile jungle. This is just institutionalized, indiscriminate, sanctioned massacre. They can't change protocol and fix this.

Obviously at least some in the military(who leaked this) feel the same way.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:42 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2010 8:37:01 PM

I'll say again what I've been saying for years.

What this country needs is a good god damn proper war on our own soil to wake these dumbass motherfucking children up like smc up.

This whole goddamn country has gone soft. I'm soft too, but at least I know it.

For the record, I opposed the war in Iraq. I still think its wrong, but armchair quarterbacking our servicemen is about the SHITTIEST goddamn selfish immature and childish thing you can possibly do.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:39 PM. Reason : s]

4/5/2010 8:37:42 PM

^ Yes, because Lord knows there's nothing better than brutality. Why, it's a core American value!

4/5/2010 8:40:14 PM

^^

minus the part about wanting any more war, particularly one on U.S. soil.

Quote :

"the human weakness of small units in a hostile jungle."

well what in the fuck is the difference between a jungle and a city? Urban conflict is about the craziest, scariest type of fighting out there.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ^ i don't think anyone is arguing for brutality.]

4/5/2010 8:41:45 PM

I stopped watching the video at 00:40 when the subtitles made the equivocation I knew was coming, "some of the men appear to have been armed"

case closed. It was an honest mistake.


I swear to christ almighty you fucking liberal pieces of shit make me sick

Quote :

"minus the part about wanting any more war, particularly one on U.S. soil."

I don't want war, I'm just frustrated because I know these motherfucking children would be the first ones crying when their wives were getting raped in front of them. And I know that after that happened, their lofty "ideals" wouldn't mean jack shit. They'd be first in line for getting revenge. It's just their selfish nature. In order to wake them up, we practically need a war on our soil. Thankfully, we don't need to wake them up and our country can survive their cancer.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:45 PM. Reason : s]

4/5/2010 8:42:15 PM

a lot of bed-wetting (as usual) going on here.

war is hell.

4/5/2010 8:43:20 PM

Maybe you're right. Firebombing miles of jungle is about the equivalent of using a missile strike on an apartment building while you watch countless unarmed civilians walk by.

-----------------------------
Like here, firearms are legal in Iraq. Only a fool wouldn't carry an AK as permitted by law.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/5/2010 8:45:15 PM

LOLOLOL AMURRICA IS BAD

HEY CAN I GET THAT FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO HUFFINGTON POST NOW?

Quote :

"Everyone is armed in Iraq. Like here, firearms are legal. Only a fool wouldn't carry an AK as permitted by law."

Case closed. It was an honest mistake.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 8:47 PM. Reason : s]

4/5/2010 8:46:15 PM

Eagerly following a wound person with your sights in the hopes that gives you an excuse to finish him off can only be described brutality. Anyone who sees that should be outraged. If this implies softness, I wouldn't want anything else.

4/5/2010 8:51:19 PM

in a war zone, a wounded enemy with a weapon is just as much of a threat as a healthy one.

how in the hell do you make that distinction?

4/5/2010 9:11:10 PM

Not really. Think about what your claim. Who would you favor in a fight, an army of the wounded or one of healthy soldiers? Wounded folks face considerable mental and physical disadvantages.

From my perspective, the visceral horror of the scene should prompt general opposition to war. The distinction I draw is between killing people and satisfying human needs.

4/5/2010 9:21:59 PM

The fact is, they fucked up. Whether by random accident that just happens every now and again, poor rules of engagement (I am more inclined to lean towards that one, especially when they fired on the men who were trying to provide medical care), malicious intent, or whatever...they fucked up, and innocent people died.

It is your responsibility in that situation to MAN THE FUCK UP and admit what happened, and then take whatever lumps come. The fact that this had to be released by someone other than the U.S. government really harms everyone in the military in my mind. If you are preaching codes of honor and defending the rights of others, and yet you clearly knew you fucked up and killed a dozen people and still refused to admit it, how can we trust you?

I like a lot of what you're saying, theDuke866, and although we shouldn't expect people in a combat environment to make the same decisions we would in the comfort of our homes (and with hindsight about the truth), you can expect those people with hindsight to admit what they did.

I'm not a forensic scientist, but I think that within a few minutes of arriving on the scene, the soldiers would have noticed there were no weapons, and seen the camera equipment. A few hours later, they would have found out who the victims were as they investigated more. Maybe a few days at most. Then the first thing they did was look back at this video, if it hadn't already been reviewed several times by then. Within a few weeks, you would know pretty much everything you needed to know to reflect on the incident and start making some fucking mea culpas.

This has been a pattern of behavior by our military, covering up fuckups. War happens. Bad things happen. I know this. We all know this. Friendly fire occurs, and it's bad for everyone involved, but like the Pat Tillman thing, I can't have ANY sympathy for the military in any way if even after they know they killed the wrong people, they refuse to admit it.

At this point I think the military deserves all of the criticism that comes down; it's the price of trying to cover it up for THREE YEARS.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 9:44 PM. Reason : f]

4/5/2010 9:43:20 PM

I bet Solinari is the kind of guy who cheers a brave police officer when he blows the head off some black guy and claims that he was "reaching in his waistband" for a weapon, when it turns out that the guy was just walking down the street at night when the officer surprised him and "surprisingly" had no weapon on him. But we're supposed to trust the officers testimony about the reaching for a weapon which conveniently absolves him. "Honest mistake," he says as he gives the cop a bravery medal. And then it occurs a hundred more fucking times.

Hey, Solinari tell the kid of that Reuters journalist that his dad was blown away by some laughing and high-fiving soldiers sent to protect him and that it was an honest mistake.

No harm, no foul, right?

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 9:47 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2010 9:46:31 PM

Quote :

"Like here, firearms are legal in Iraq. Only a fool wouldn't carry an AK as permitted by law."

4/5/2010 9:49:39 PM

God, war is hell.

there's a reason the constitution doesn't allow soldiers to serve as law enforcement in the civilian population, except under the rarest circumstances.

4/5/2010 10:10:32 PM

Except tons of former soldiers serve as police officers.

4/5/2010 10:12:37 PM

surprisingly, former soldiers != soldiers



I know that this world with its cold realities is frightening to one such as you, God. If you try really hard, you can probably grasp such concepts as "past" and "present".

4/5/2010 10:14:26 PM

If they run, they're Iraqi insurgents. If they don't run, they're well disciplined Iraqi insurgents.




seriously, war sucks, and this was a tragic accident, but that's part of war.

4/5/2010 10:17:32 PM

I guess everyone gets a free pass.

Free passes to everyone, hooray!

By holding no one accountable, surely this will never occur again.

[Edited on April 5, 2010 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

4/5/2010 10:23:31 PM

by punishing these soldiers for doing what they thought was correct in the fog of war, this will surely never happen again.

4/5/2010 10:43:32 PM

How to not have your military forces slaughter civilians? Don't occupy foreign country in the first place! Problem solved!

4/6/2010 12:04:40 AM

if you walk around in a warzone without a uniform carrying things that resemble rpg's and ak-47 while your 'comrades' are out ruthlessly beheading their opponents and there are Apache gunships hovering over...

you aren't exactly asking for a picnic lunch.

So Shrike if you want to think they killed them for fun then go ahead and keep assuming that. I guess you also think you should able to carry a loaded shotgun into a kindergarden class as well and not get your ass taken down.

4/6/2010 12:14:32 AM

because that is an appropriate analogy

4/6/2010 12:18:02 AM

^then go run around in any warzone unmarked with weapons of your choice.

answer you get fucking killed


go to a kindergarden class with a loaded gun and people spot you?

answer you get fucking killed


need more analogies?

oh it's your president that's continuing the war to!!!1111 yaayy!!!!

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 12:20 AM. Reason : 1]

4/6/2010 12:19:49 AM

^ i'm going to declare your house a war zone, then shoot you for looking suspicious. Makes sense, right?

4/6/2010 12:22:52 AM

hey if i'm ruling over 100k's ruthlessly murdering them and invading countries around me and using mustard gas on my own population. THEN BY ALL FUCKING MEANS INVADE ME

you just don't get it. your inbread racism and wishful thinking is even spit upon by your very own president. YOUR VERY OWN BLACK PRESIDENT FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST HIS VERY OWN FATHERS AND GRANDFATHERS RELIGION OF PEACE>

THINK ABOUT THAT.


but yet, i'm your biggest problem. sure.

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 12:27 AM. Reason : 1]

4/6/2010 12:26:19 AM

these weren't people carrying guns, though. they were members of the press. if you paid attention, how are you still drawing any sort of comparison to people carrying guns?

are you saying that members of the press are fair game now, and if they get shot by accident then whatever? i think everyone knows this was an accident, but the point is, was it preventable, and should someone be held accountable?

you seem to be saying that anyone in iraq who gets shot is okay, because they live in a violent country, and shit happens. maybe i'm misunderstanding your point...

4/6/2010 12:33:56 AM

YEH I SAID ANYBODY SHOT IN IRAQ IS OK

dude, rule #1: if you look like your packin AK-47's DONT LOOK LIKE YOUR PACKIN AK47's in a war zone!



you're the one assuming that these facist/conservative/christian/white/anti homosexuals with guns were just out cowboying and having fun killing muslims

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 12:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/6/2010 12:41:24 AM

pack, did you read what i said? it doesn't appear you read my earlier posts.

i read what you said.

Quote :

"if you walk around in a warzone without a uniform carrying things that resemble rpg's and ak-47 while your 'comrades' are out ruthlessly beheading their opponents and there are Apache gunships hovering over... you aren't exactly asking for a picnic lunch."

Quote :

"^then go run around in any warzone unmarked with weapons of your choice. answer you get fucking killed"

the impression i got from those statements was that people who have weapons and people who look like they may have weapons are in the same boat. also, once again, NO ONE HAD WEAPONS. THERE WERE NO "COMRADES". THESE PEOPLE WERE WITH THE PRESS.

how exactly do you "not look like you're packing AK-47s"...these people live in their own damn country. are they supposed to assume that at any time, anywhere, someone is flying overhead and evaluate whether they are presenting themselves as a target?

simply put, was it okay to shoot these guys? if so, then how far can we go and it's still just collateral damage?

4/6/2010 12:52:35 AM

Quote :

"I bet Solinari is the kind of guy who cheers a brave police officer when he blows the head off some black guy and claims that he was "reaching in his waistband" for a weapon, when it turns out that the guy was just walking down the street at night when the officer surprised him and "surprisingly" had no weapon on him."

I can only imagine you laying in bed at night, daydreaming these scenarios, deciding they must be happen all the time IRL, and then posting about them on TWW. I mean, I know that has happened like five times in the last couple of decades, but you really could stand to get a grip on reality one of these days.

4/6/2010 1:02:19 AM

Quote :

"you just don't get it. your inbread racism and wishful thinking is even spit upon by your very own president. YOUR VERY OWN BLACK PRESIDENT FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST HIS VERY OWN FATHERS AND GRANDFATHERS RELIGION OF PEACE> THINK ABOUT THAT."

Has anyone ever mentioned that you might just be a little off your rocker?

4/6/2010 7:35:15 AM

Quote :

"these weren't people carrying guns, though. they were members of the press. if you paid attention, how are you still drawing any sort of comparison to people carrying guns?"

The video itself acknowledges that, "some of the men appear to have been armed"

forty seconds into the video and they admitted that they have no case.

this is all just a bunch of liberal opportunism. a quick and easy chance to shit on our troops

4/6/2010 7:54:20 AM

The pilots made a pretty awful mistake. Hindsight is 20/20, though.

What should be pissing everyone off is the fact that the military attempted to cover it up.

4/6/2010 8:04:25 AM

Ed Wuncler III: Look! He got a weapon!
Gin Rummy: Whoa, wait a minute now. Put the gun down.
Store Owner: Gun? What gun? I'm not holding gun. Guys, it's me. Ed, your father helped me build this store.
Gin Rummy: I don't know you, motherfucker! Now, put down the weapon! Put it down!
Store Owner: There is no weapon! Look!
Gin Rummy: Drop the weapon!
Officer Frank: I... I don't see a weapon!
Huey Freeman: There is no weapon! They're robbin' the store!
Store Owner: I am not holding a weapon! I am not holding a weapon!
Gin Rummy: Officer, this motherfucker's got a gun pointed at you! Do you wanna die?
Officer Frank: What?
Gin Rummy: Do you want to die?
Officer Frank: I... I don't want to die!
Huey Freeman: He does not have a gun!
Gin Rummy: He does have a gun, officer, trust me! The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
Officer Frank: I don't see a gun!
Ed Wuncler III: Man, fuck this shit! Whose side are you on? Mine, or this motherfucker who's obviously of terrorist descent?
Officer Frank: Wait... I think I can see the gun now.
Gin Rummy: Good! Now we all see the weapon! Now you hand over that weapon on the count of three, or I swear to almighty God, I'll blow your fucking head off! One!
Store Owner: I can't give you a weapon I'm not holding! You're thinking of the Korean store, north of here!
Gin Rummy: Two!
Officer Frank: Is he... still holding it?
Huey Freeman: He is not holding a weapon!
Gin Rummy: Time's up!

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 8:23 AM. Reason : whose north]

4/6/2010 8:22:42 AM

Duke, you responded to two of my posts, neither of which were directed at you. I was responding to grumpy and goalielax, read their posts. Perhaps after reading them, you will see their comments in regards to the rationale used as an excuse to kill, and the comment about self-preservation, hence my responses.

Solinari, your blatant attempts to troll me, are as weak as your arguments.

I'll repeat this for good measure, especially for Duke, as it is the truth:

You are completely delusional if you think that the soldiers were acting out of self-preservation. They were "creating the scene" in order to be granted permission from a commanding officer, that was not present, so that they could engage non-hostile targets.

4/6/2010 8:28:07 AM

HEY IF THAT FOUR YEAR OLD KID DIDN'T WANT TO GET SHOT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN WALKIN AROUND WITH SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE AN RPG. THIS IS A WAR ZONE PEOPLE. FAIR GAME.

4/6/2010 8:33:16 AM

^ yes, that pretty much sums it up. except for the fact that these weren't 4 year olds, they were military age men.

4/6/2010 8:48:16 AM

debate the merits of being in Iraq in the first place all you want. would we have gone in without the intel of WMD? probably not. would I have supported the invasion without that intel? probably not.

set that aside as a debate for another thread. it is not relevant here. the fact is, we are there. so we have to debate in reality, that is, the exact situation on the ground.

the exact situation on the ground is that we are at war. we were/are fighting an insurgent force under no flag, wearing no uniform. a force that targets everyone, including civilians. a force that uses women and children as suicide bombers, against their own soft targets/people. those tactics are what caused the pilots to fire upon these guys. just how to do you propose that our guys be able to tell an insurgent dressed as a civilian carrying suspicious equipment and weapons apart from a reporter dressed as a civilian carrying suspicious equipment and weapons 100% of the time? hell, 100% of the time you dont even get all of your pee into the toilet bowl without splashing some on the rim.

every conflict is going to have tragedies like this, unfortunately, the tactics of this enemy (deliberately) encourage them. your Monday a.m. quarterbacking is lame, unrealistic and unproductive.

4/6/2010 9:03:18 AM

That's fine.

But the military covered it up.

And they evaluate themselves for culpability.

Fuck it.

4/6/2010 9:04:20 AM

Quote :

"Not really. Think about what your claim. Who would you favor in a fight, an army of the wounded or one of healthy soldiers? Wounded folks face considerable mental and physical disadvantages."

GoldenViper are you being serious? how can you possibly differentiate between a wounded man pointing a gun at you or a healthy one? they are both pointing a gun at you and threatening you. you can argue one may be in a more advantageous situation as to kill you but you cant argue that one is not a threat.

personally, I would not wait around to assess a wounded enemy's mental and physical "disadvantages" were he to continue to threaten me. I would end the threat. I suspect you would do the same, if self-preservation is an instinct you possess.

4/6/2010 9:08:15 AM

If members of press are embedding themselves with insurgents then they themselves have become insurgents. Sorry to all you bleeding hearts but that's the way it is.

4/6/2010 9:13:45 AM

we have met the enemy and he is us



[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 9:18 AM. Reason : tell it to joe galloway]

4/6/2010 9:16:07 AM

The soldiers believe they are shooting at their enemy, the extremists; the same people who kill their comrades every day. They won't win any humanitarian awards, but I can guess that this is how soldiers in a warzone feel.

4/6/2010 9:19:17 AM