I once heard of a survey done in prisons... Apparently something like 95% of all prisoners are actually innocent!

lol

4/9/2010 8:29:52 PM

Thats hilarious, must be a similar survey as the one I saw about users on TWW. 95% of them are trolls.

4/9/2010 8:35:55 PM

A recent survey showed that 95% of iraqi insurgents admit that those motherfuckers in the video got what they had comin

4/9/2010 8:42:35 PM

4/9/2010 8:51:26 PM

WATCH OUT HE'S GOT A LEAFBLOWER!!!!!!

I don't care about the journalists.

The United States Military killed individuals and children providing medical aid. They knew they were just providing medical aid. That the pilots said they were "collecting weapons" on the intercom doesn't make it so. They destroyed a building surrounded by civilians then bombed the people searching in rubble for survivors.

These aren't extraordinary events. It's another typical day in our little wars.

If they're enemy soldiers these are war crimes.

If they're civilians it's murder.

If you try to classify them as some other bullshit term that allows you to skirt the laws you know you're grasping for straws.

We're better than this shit.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 8:54:04 PM

holy

fuck

why are we still arguing this?

how in the hell can you expect the Apache guys to have handled this any differently?


now do you see why they don't release shit like this routinely? even in an instance where there's nothing to hide, people act like it's fucking My Lai, because they can't stomach the nastiness of warfare.

Iraq is as clean of a fight as can be waged. Without our willingness to throw a nearly blank check at things, and our ability to make it a very large blank check, it wouldn't even be possible to fight so cleanly.



Here are the gripes I'm seeing:

1. They're happy about killing people! Oh my God!

2. They killed/wounded noncombatants who were walking in a group with insurgent fighters who were definitely armed and who had probably just been shooting at an American patrol a couple hundred yards away.

3. They killed people who came to pick up the bodies, wounded, and weapons left by them.


Am I missing anything? Are there any other things you guys are bent out of shape about?

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 9:07:27 PM

You forgot this one...

3. America is a strong nation and capable of handling its shit across the globe.



(this really burns up those liberals who want to knock our nation down a few pegs so that we become better behaved "citizens of the world")

4/9/2010 9:12:58 PM

cold-blooded murdering of innocent civilians is the "nastiness of warfare"? yeah, I guess.. if you're the bad guys

4/9/2010 9:38:04 PM

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf

Statements from pilots. One is caught in a lie by the interviewer when he claims the van was armed. The other admits he's "tired of talking about rules of engagement".

4/9/2010 9:40:28 PM

did you see my link on the previous page...the one where it's talking about the missing half hour of video? the one where the sworn statements from the helo guys in question specifically say they didn't engage other targets of opportunity because 1) there were children near in one instance and 2) in another instance they could not PID any weapons?

see, i can find sworn statements from the same people that you are trying to quote that have the opposite effect you want to have happen

4/9/2010 9:46:02 PM

Quote :

"why are we still arguing this?"

because there are some here who are incapable of either admitting they were wrong about something or have no ability to look at a warzone and place realistic expectations on the people fighting therein

4/9/2010 9:47:05 PM

^^^ can you blame him though?

Put yourself in an active war zone where your job is stop people you know from getting shot at or killed, or stop yourself from getting shot at or killed. there is going to be a line, and reasonably so, you approach where your emotions over-take what the rules say you should do.

When the pres makes the decision to go to war, it’s known these things are going to happen. It’s the nature of humanity. Until robots take over the dirty work, this is how things are.

The difference between the good guys and bad guys is how do we respond to these unfortunate circumstances.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 9:47:27 PM

I've not murdered children at the bus stop plenty of times. But run over one little toddler that was standing too close to the street anyway and suddenly I'm the bad guy.

Quote :

"The difference between the good guys and bad guys is how do we respond to these unfortunate circumstances. "

AHAHAHAHAA We cover it up for three years, ignore repeated requests from the victims familes for more information, then use secret police to follow the journalists that expose it. I guess that makes us the good guys. AHAHAHAAHHAHAHAH

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 9:49:05 PM

because most of you can't be bothered to actually read something on another site, here

4/9/2010 9:49:34 PM

^ that’s a weak argument, really

when your job involves killing people, doing it right 3 times doesn’t mistake being sloppy a 4th.

4/9/2010 9:51:59 PM

The pilots lied in their statements. Their testimony is not reliable. The missing footage was not provided to wikileaks. Why doesn't the government release it and clear all this up?

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 9:53:48 PM

that's easy to say from your cushy office chair drinking a beer on a friday night watching youtubes of our soldiers fighting for their lives.

4/9/2010 9:54:32 PM

My office chair is quite uncomfortable actually. And you're my favorite TWW user.

4/9/2010 9:56:15 PM

Quote :

"The missing footage was not provided to wikileaks"

Why do you assume this? Why would the government give them an abridged version of the footage, when giving them the entire tape would paint the situation in a better light, given that some of the missing footage actually shows the US soldiers doing things like holding off on attacks on insurgents because there were children in the area? Why would they withhold footage that makes them look better? It makes no sense, your argument is weaksauce.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 9:59 PM. Reason : /]

4/9/2010 9:57:22 PM

wikileaks has said it was not provided...and clearly we should believe them

4/9/2010 9:58:41 PM

I have to take them at their word. It's up to the government to release more information if they want to clear their name.

4/9/2010 9:59:08 PM

Quote :

"I have to take them at their word"

You take a youtube link on its "word" that they didn't receive footage that would actually make the US soldiers look better?

"Hey I'm the US Govt, I have this tape of killing some civilians and news media that I have to give up, here let me cut out the "good parts" that show us killing bad guys, and not firing when there are civilians in the way"

4/9/2010 10:01:19 PM

the govt. doesn't need to clear its name you stinking liberal hippy douchebag.

this is a tempest in a teapot, with only the dailykoss crowd paying attention to it, along with the few rational people who have to deal with you idiots.

4/9/2010 10:01:30 PM

lol - but when someone provides documents, the people say "THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE LIES" or "THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH" or some other shit

4/9/2010 10:01:51 PM

Quote :

"I have to take them at their word. It's up to the government to release more information if they want to clear their name."

guilty till proven innocent eh?

4/9/2010 10:02:59 PM

I don't trust anyone. Show me video, and I'll base my views on that video. Want to change my views? Show me more video.

4/9/2010 10:06:04 PM

If you don't trust anyone, you'd still be kind of skeptical on this story instead of already having made up your mind

4/9/2010 10:07:55 PM

Quote :

"then use secret police to follow the journalists that expose it"

lol - you know the whole story on this one? four days ago Assange changed his tune

Quote :

"And during the press conference, Assange repeated allegations that he had been tailed by U.S. State Department employees from Iceland to an investigative journalism conference in Norway. But he now believes those tails were more likely related to Wikileaks' work on leaking documents related to the Icelandic financial crisis—not Pentagon video."

HEY GUYS, NOW THAT WE'VE BLOW OUR LOAD ABOUT THIS VIDEO, I THINK I'M BEING FOLLOWED BECAUSE OF THIS OTHER THING SO PLEASE KEEP PAYING ATTENTION TO ME UNTIL I RELEASE THAT THING

you're putting stock into a tin foil wearing nut job

4/9/2010 10:09:18 PM

^^^^^^


^^^^ especially when it appears that wikileaks are the ones full of shit, not the Army.


^^^ Jesus, motherfucker, look at my first post on this page. You know, the fucking big embed that takes up half your screen.

"More video" isn't what you need. Your position on this stubbornly flies in the face of every bit of reliable evidence that's out there.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 10:09:38 PM

They killed a man carrying an injured man. They killed people helping people dying in a burning building. I saw it with my own eyes. If this is acceptable behavior, death to america.

4/9/2010 10:10:17 PM

Look, if an ambulance showed up, obviously it wouldn't be targeted. If these guys conformed to the laws of armed combat, wore uniforms, and were therefore lawful combatants under the Geneva convention, things would be different. As it stands, they fall into the same category as those Somali pirates who sucked up some rifle rounds in the face.

They have no medical personnel. If they did, those medics would be noncombatants and wouldn't be targeted. However, due to what they are (a guerilla force), they are all rightfully viewed as enemy fighters. If there are 10 enemy fighters (speaking generically here, not just about this incident or even AIF in general) and you wound 5 of them...the other 5 don't magically get protected status as they render aid. It is perfectly legitimate to kill them.



If you don't like this, write a letter to your friendly insurgent rep and convince them to behave as a conventional military. That's the only way they will enjoy protected status as they gather their wounded...and EVEN THEN, only if it's medical personnel doing it, and not other fighters.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM. Reason : AIF=Al Qaeda in Iraq Forces]

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 10:18:22 PM

lol, write a letter to the insurgents in iraq y'all

4/9/2010 10:22:05 PM

(hint: that was sarcasm. the whole point is the absurdity)

4/9/2010 10:23:07 PM

^I wouldn't want to justify it like that, I'd just hope that the military does it's best to not hurt innocent people. As far as this video showing that, it's questionable at best, and the military has earned the benefit of the doubt for a good track record post-vietnam.

4/9/2010 10:24:51 PM

You deny that they're organized yet give them a name and lump them all together in the same paragraph. Are they all "enemy"? Maybe they're just local ordinary joes pissed off that we've taken their country. Pissed off we murder civilians in the streets every day, then murder those who use human decency to render aid to those same victims.

The AIF is created by the USA.

4/9/2010 10:26:25 PM

smc:

Quote :

"I don't trust anyone. Show me video, and I'll base my views on that video. Want to change my views? Show me more video. I don't trust that video. Show me another angle, and I'll base my views on that. Want to change my views? Show me more angles. I don't trust those angles. Take me to the scene of the shooting. Take me to the scene of the shooting and I'll base my views on what I see there. Want to change my views? Show me the scene of the shooting. I don't trust what I see here. Take me back in time. Take me back in time, and I'll base my views on what actually happened. Want to change my views? Build a time machine and take me back to 2007."

Until then, you will keep talking shit about the people who have sworn their lives to defend you. GG, little man. You're doing a fantastic job speaking truth to power Oh, btw, your che guevera t-shirt has a stain on it. You might want to buy a new one.

4/9/2010 10:28:26 PM

If they've sworn their lives to defend me, someone should tell them that I'm located over here. They seem to be on the wrong side of the globe.

4/9/2010 10:30:29 PM

Quote :

"I don't trust anyone."

!=

Quote :

"I have to take them at their word."

At best you could say that you trust the government less than you trust wikileaks.

That said, the government didn't give them the video, so you can't assume that they did receive the full video. However at the same time you can take them to task for calling this a "full video" without drawing attention to the fact that the video is missing 30 minutes of footage during which, according to the only other sources we have on this incident, the soldiers in question were avoiding precisely the actions they are being accused of.

Being a whistle blower is all well and good, being a dishonest one is not.

4/9/2010 10:35:31 PM

i think the productive argument would be defining what is an imminent threat. like i have said (repeatedly, actually) i can understand the first wave of gunfire. the second one is the one that concerns me, and quite frankly, strikes me as a gunner with an itchy finger. i may be mistaken, but i don't recall seeing anyone pick up weapons (i heard the guy say they were doing that, but i didn't see it, so correct me if i'm wrong).

Quote :

""That could be a weapon but it also might be a camera so I'm gonna study this more closely OH WAIT i'm dead.""

this fear does not excuse jumping the gun on. look, people in the military signed up for this (and i'm glad they did, because i wouldn't want to be in that position). the iraqi's and the children in the video and the civilians in any situation did not ask for this. why on earth should the burden of proof be put on the civilians to show that they pose no risk? when a police officer in the US accidentally kills a civilian in the course of an armed robbery, people do not dismiss it and say, "oh well, that's why they call them accidents." but when this happens abroad during a war, suddenly these rules and expectations dissolve. i'm not asking for an "only fire when fired upon" stance, but i do think that pulling out of a van to help a wounded person does not constitute an imminent threat to the guys in the apache.

i also think that a running theme hear is to dismiss the journalist death as a "play with fire, and you might get burned" attitude. fine, i can accept that. i've already admitted that, and i'll say that it did look bad when he was crouched behind a corner taking pictures.

but another running theme here is to say, "well, those people in the van drove up to a firefight, so they had it coming." that sentiment seems to be shared with the pilot in the video (who, i imagine is trying to rationalize with himself why he may have just killed/severely injured two children) but i cannot buy this argument, because the people didn't "roll up" to an active shoot-out. they arrived after the fact. how were they supposed to know what just happened? how are they supposed to know that they would be viewed as "combatants" and not just good samaritans? it's ridiculous to suggest that they should always assume that they are under the microscope, and far more ridiculous for them to always assume that just about anything they do may be viewed as threatening.


this should be the discussion. if we are fighting a guerilla war, we should discuss how to hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid killing civilians. so, how do we do that? because, if we are going to sit here and say, "well, fuck it, innocent people are going to die...sucks for them" then we might as well just nuke the entire goddamn country and call it a day.

4/9/2010 10:38:20 PM

^^Very true. They get the benefit of the doubt from me in this case because they've brought the ire of powerful men upon themselves. As I said before, I expect the wikileaks staff to be arrested or killed within the year.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:40 PM. Reason : And may god have mercy on the guy in the army that leaked this...they will find him.]

4/9/2010 10:38:34 PM

...

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:38:48 PM

Quote :

"how were they supposed to know what just happened? "

you think 30mm air strikes are quiet and invisible?

Also i completely agree that the civilians and children didnt ask for this and didnt sign up for it. But in a war zone there are different rules and protocols. Comparing them to a person getting killed by a stray bullet in the US, where its NOT a war zone and essentially the whole country is different isn't very accurate

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:41:49 PM

Quote :

"You deny that they're organized yet give them a name and lump them all together in the same paragraph. Are they all "enemy"? Maybe they're just local ordinary joes pissed off that we've taken their country. Pissed off we murder civilians in the streets every day, then murder those who use human decency to render aid to those same victims. The AIF is created by the USA."

1. I never said they aren't organized. They aren't as organized as a conventional military, but they're certainly organized enough to warrant a name as an organization/collection of organizations

2. Yes, they could be run of the mill locals, not AIF. My guess is that's not the case, but whatever, that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

3. Nobody got "murdered." Furthermore, I think it's pretty well established (read: 100% confirmed) that we're not talking about a group of innocent civilians, here. Finally, I've already explained when it's legitimate to kill those coming to the aid those you just attacked.


Look, I get that you don't think we should've gone to war in Iraq. That's a separate issue and neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. If you want to argue that separately, go for it--and do it somewhere else, as it's irrelevant to this discussion.

The facts are, in 2007 we were very much at war. It's obvious that you can't handle footage of what that entails. Given that, you probably should watch something else. May I suggest Spongebob Squarepants?

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 10:43:06 PM

yes I am always able to hear foreign, unexpected sounds outside and know exactly what the fuck just happened

Quote :

"It's obvious that you can't handle footage of what that entails. Given that, you probably should watch something else. May I suggest Spongebob Squarepants?"

going around acting like a condescending shitbag is a great way to prove you're right

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:43:13 PM

then how did they even know there were wounded people there?

4/9/2010 10:44:36 PM

The marine corps is at war. America is at the mall. And that's the way the military likes it.

4/9/2010 10:45:50 PM

Quote :

"then how did they even know there were wounded people there?"

do you think they heard the assault going on and said, "hey go grab the kids and let's drive the van into the fray"?

I have no idea how they "knew" but considering there were kids in the car it wouldn't surprise me if they simply happened upon the scene

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 10:47:17 PM

Quote :

"But in a war zone there are different rules and protocols. Comparing them to a person getting killed by a stray bullet in the US, where its NOT a war zone and essentially the whole country is different isn't very accurate"

different rules and protocols for war? okay, fine, but how are we supposed to expect the civilians to "know" these rules. I mean, if the rules of engagement are changing all the time due to the stresses of the war, and our own soldiers are unclear of what they are at any given moment, then how can we realistically expect civilians to comply? we are changing the rules to the game without telling the other players, and if they can't keep up, they die. does that not seem a little....what's the word i'm looking for.........shitty?

4/9/2010 10:56:06 PM

Quote :

"how are we supposed to expect the civilians to "know" these rules"

I'm sure theDuke could answer this better than I can, but soldiers do things like implement curfews and literally go through neighborhoods checking/clearing houses of insurgents but also trying to 'get to know' the civilians and let them know what they need to do

Granted you might not like things like a mandatory curfew, but if you were told about it before hand and knew it could save your life...you would at least "know the rules"

4/9/2010 10:59:22 PM

again the burden is on those who got shot

4/9/2010 11:00:12 PM