If I sneak into a shooting range where people are shooting at targets, and I decide to go down range behind the targets when they don't see me, who is the burden on if I get shot, assuming I know that I'm walking into essentially a warzone?

Its not a perfect system, mistakes are made, but theres no such thing as a perfect system. If you're looking for perfection, ie zero civilian casualties, you simply have too unrealistic of expectations

4/9/2010 11:01:08 PM

^i hope you don't think thats an apt analogy for the people in the van, because i think you know that's a pretty bad comparison. you're conveniently assuming that you "know" what you are walking in to. i don't think its fair for us to assume the people in the van knew anything. i suppose they may have known that, but its really hard for me to jump to that conclusion.

4/9/2010 11:09:05 PM

oh ffs, these people know wtf is up. you act like they are some yuppie suburban schoolkids from cary.

4/9/2010 11:11:47 PM

you make a strong point there, young urban professional school children from cary

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 11:13:09 PM

^^^Like I said, the US soldiers and the Iraqi government tell the civilians where they should and shouldn't go. If you have a problem with that type of strict law, thats fine, and its not something we would like in the US. But if there were a war going on in the US, and you were told not to go certain places for risk of death, you might not like it, you might be furious, but you would know the risks.

You can't legitimately compare it to just walking down the street in the current US and getting killed by a LEO, because we aren't at war, so all the comparisons to the current state of Iraq and the US are pretty silly

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:15 PM. Reason : ^^^]

4/9/2010 11:14:21 PM

that does not justify anything though, and saying "well, I warned you" when you are the one they are being warned against isn't quite right

it makes you sound like a bully

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 11:15:41 PM

^^i could be wrong, but i highly doubt anyone was told that they should avoid stopping to help someone on the side of the road.

i don't really have a problem with the strict rules. i do have a problem when we don't follow the same rules we set up for them. like i said, changing the rules on a regular basis without telling everyone else involved completely invalidates the reason for having rules to begin with.

Quote :

"oh ffs, these people know wtf is up. you act like they are some yuppie suburban schoolkids from cary."

that's the second time that you've mentioned suburban cary. i'm quite confident that if the US were occupied by a foreign army, and civilians in cary were killed, you would be up in arms about it. i doubt you'd come on here and say, "hey, we all know the rules, so everything is fair game." i'm starting to think that you see people from cary (or the US, for that matter) in a higher light than you do iraqi civilians. that is to say, i think you're a cantankerous little shitter who simply feels his life is of more value than that of an iraqi, which is quite telling, really.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 11:17:05 PM

^^you're not the only one being warned against

Quote :

"i'm starting to think that you see people from cary (or the US, for that matter) in a higher light than you do iraqi civilians."

I think his point is similar to my point, which is that comparing a civilian death due to war in Iraq to a civilian death in a relatively free and peaceful country like the US is like comparing apples and oranges

If the US were under martial law right now in a true police state, the comparisons might start to be more relevant and valid

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/9/2010 11:20:37 PM

I'm sure if civilian iraquis had a choice they would have chosen to be born in the united states

4/9/2010 11:27:35 PM

or Canada

4/9/2010 11:29:00 PM

^^^then he doesn't understand the word "hypothetically," which removes the vast differences. it is the whole reason why that word is added to the question. ignoring it because he doesn't see it happening is of mere convenience, and frankly, it exposes his true sentiment. if he doesn't have to make the comparison, then he'll never push himself to think critically of the issue.

[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2010 11:29:47 PM

Quote :

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

Exactly. I'm thankful that we have whistleblowers.

Quote :

"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."

No, no, no, NO!

War is not police work. War is not a game of whack-a-mole. Something doesn't have to be an "imminent threat" to be targeted. There's no obligation to be reactive and only shoot in self defense or defense of friendlies. The fact that they are enemy is all the justification that's needed to kill them in this scenario.

Quote :

"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?"

Agreed, as previously stated...both for moral/ethical reasons as well as tactical/operational/strategic reasons.

Now, will accidents happen? Hell yeah they will. Should we crucify people who do their best in a hellish situation, yet make a mistake? No.

...but we definitely shouldn't adopt the attitude of "Fuck 'em, Iraqis shouldn't have cameras." That's (A) absurd, (B) despicable, and (C) counterproductive.

Quote :

"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. "

Again, I've explained why there's no free pass on the grounds of "WE WERE COMING TO HELP THE WOUNDED!"

(and yeah, it sounds to me that he's angry that someone would bring a child to a firefight, putting that child in a position to take 30mm fire, and personally pissed that someone put him in a position to accidentally shoot a child. )

Quote :

" 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?"

Maybe they were just good Samaritans, completely unaffiliated with the enemy fighters. That's plausible. That's definitely not my bet--I'll even call it unlikely--but I'll acknowledge it as a possibility.

If that's the case, then that sucks. It's terrible.

However, the guys in that Apache aren't omniscient. Warfare is necessarily waged on imperfect information (we talk about the "70% solution" in the USMC...we strive to outpace the enemy, to keep him reactive and "on his heels", and if you wait until you have 100% info--if it's even possible to achieve at all--it's certainly too late). From the perspective of the Apache gunner, shooting the van is absolutely reasonable.

Quote :

"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?"

Agreed, we should search for continual improvement there, especially as the combat environment grows more and more permissive of doing so. That said, it's probably at or near (or maybe past) a point of diminishing returns. We bend over backwards to avoid wronging innocents, especially now in 2010.

Quote :

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

Well, if your argument has been reduced to "You're not a gracious victor", I suppose we can pretty much call this one settled.

That said, especially with military matters, I try to take the tone of a teacher rather than an attack dog...but this case had gotten to the point where condescension was more than warranted.

4/9/2010 11:32:00 PM

I just think in order for you or me or anyone else to fairly evaluate this incident in the context of the war in Iraq, we can't come up with similar analogies from the State when so many of the situations are so vastly different. I understand your hypotheticals, I just think they're off base and that we can't really evaluate this particular incident unless we step back from the comfy lives we all live and try to look at it from the perspective of an innocent civilian in a war torn country

4/9/2010 11:32:59 PM

Again, we're getting back into "I don't like that we're at war in Iraq" and "Of course Iraqis are pissed", etc on this page.

That has nothing to do with the justifications of the actions of this particular Apache crew on this particular flight.

4/9/2010 11:34:25 PM

Quote :

"War is not police work. War is not a game of whack-a-mole. Something doesn't have to be an "imminent threat" to be targeted. There's no obligation to be reactive and only shoot in self defense or defense of friendlies. The fact that they are enemy is all the justification that's needed to kill them in this scenario."

okay, fine, i can give you that. but still, when defining someone as "enemy" is the method, great pains have to be made in order to do that. obviously, those children were not "enemy," and it is entirely possible that nobody in that van was an "enemy." i mean, this is really where my contention lies. what is it about that van that gave the guys in that helicopter enough reason to believe that they were "enemy?" if they were in fact combatants, and they brought their children along for the ride, that's absolutely detestable on their part. but i still fail to see what action or intel was enough to give that 70% chance of correct identification. what would have been the worse case scenario had they not fired upon that van? the "but then they'll get away" argument doesn't work if you can't make a sound reason that they are enemy to begin with.

4/9/2010 11:44:52 PM

Quote :

"i'm quite confident that if the US were occupied by a foreign army, and civilians in cary were killed, you would be up in arms about it. i doubt you'd come on here and say, "hey, we all know the rules, so everything is fair game.""

You couldn't be both more right and more wrong. I absolutely would be up in arms about it. In fact, I'd be trying to kill as many of those occupying forces as possible. However, I would know the potential price for my actions and whereas I might pretend outrage (for propaganda purposes) if they killed my associates, I would know inside that is the price we pay to rid ourselves of the occupiers.

You, on the other hand, would be crouched catatonic in a corner wishing that those soldiers were as kind and as tolerant and as respectful as american troops. I guarantee that no other occupying force has ever or could ever come close to the high level of humanity that our troops have shown to the Iraqis over the years.

There will always be some bad apples and some unfortunate circumstances, but in balance, the 7 years we have spent in Iraq have been a defining moment for those who support the prosecution of humane wars.

4/9/2010 11:47:39 PM

I'm about to go take a shower and start tackling the day's "to-do" list...I'll just say that I don't know what all they saw. I'm not an Apache guy, and I wasn't there. Shooting the van is more of a grey area in my mind, too, but at worst, I view it as a reasonable enough response to a grey enough area that I wouldn't armchair quarterback it either way, whether they chose to shoot or hold fire.

Quote :

" I guarantee that no other occupying force has ever or could ever come close to the high level of humanity that our troops have shown to the Iraqis over the years. There will always be some bad apples and some unfortunate circumstances, but in balance, the 7 years we have spent in Iraq have been a defining moment for those who support the prosecution of humane wars."

Goddamn right.



[Edited on April 9, 2010 at 11:52 PM. Reason : though there aren't really "humane wars." Some are just vastly less barbaric.]

4/9/2010 11:51:00 PM

"I'm sorry I beat the shit out of you, but if I were you and our roles were reversed I think I'd know down that I NEEDED that beating. And by beating I mean the loss of loved ones and other et cetera that comes with a foreign occupation."

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 12:00:33 AM

^^^i should apologize to you, then. at first, i thought you were a callous asshole with no respect for human life, civil discourse or the very human cost of premature decisions. you know, a real git-r-done type.



turns out you're just very brave

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 12:02:26 AM

the bravest thing you can do is post on a message board about what you WOULD do in reply to a topic about something that has already happened to other people (who aren't americans. from cary)

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 12:07 AM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 12:07:04 AM

It's also very brave to put yourself in the shoes of front-line soldiers and critique the decisions they made while under fire.

4/10/2010 12:54:45 AM

I was about to say, the irony of that post is staggering.

4/10/2010 1:24:39 AM

Quote :

"It's also very brave to put yourself in the shoes of front-line soldiers and critique the decisions they made while under fire."

Are we talking in general or specifically about this video? Because I missed that part in the video as well...unless you meant from the perspective of the civilians on the ground.

4/10/2010 1:32:56 AM

Incidentally, a couple points about trust...

The video says (and is confirmed in the speech on the video) that the children were to be evacuated to a military hospital, but that it was decided they should go to a local hospital, and (implied in the video) that this would result in reduced care.

However, from the very same site this is posted at, we see they have the medical treatment records for both children, showing them treated at military medical facilities. Again with the dishonesty:
Video statement is at 13:15 of the short video.
http://collateralmurder.com/en/img/imgiraq/rec_doaha_us_sc.jpg.html
http://collateralmurder.com/en/img/imgiraq/rec_syad_us_sc.jpg.html

Also they have this picture:
http://collateralmurder.com/en/img/photos/AliAbbas_VAN.jpg.html
claiming to be the van in question. But unless we decided to blow up the front of the van after the fact, 14:41 of the short video clearly shows the front more or less intact.

Someone (beyond the government) has an agenda here that goes beyond "whistle blowing"

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 1:42 AM. Reason : asd]

4/10/2010 1:41:58 AM

Why doesn't the government release their copy of the video and clear all this up?

4/10/2010 6:08:55 AM

maybe because the govt. doesn't give a shit what a few dailykos readers think


Oh, and because they know you guys aren't looking for the truth - you're looking for an excuse to bash the military:

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."

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM. Reason : s]

4/10/2010 8:50:09 AM

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua: I'm amazed that anyone still cites the Lancet study."

You shouldn't be. Despite the problems, it has the best methodology to date. See the following article for an overview of attempts to calculate Iraqi casualties:

http://www.conflictandhealth.com/content/2/1/1

Quote :

"Of the population-based studies, the Roberts and Burnham studies provided the most rigorous methodology as their primary outcome was mortality. Their methodology is similar to the consensus methods of the SMART initiative, a series of methodological recommendations for conducting research in humanitarian emergencies."

This article also provides additional information about the Iraq Family Health Survey:

Quote :

"The authors estimate that the completeness in reporting of deaths was 62% and that the underreporting for violent deaths may be as much as 50%."

So, everything points to the figure of 150,000 being an absolute minimum for violent deaths between March 2003 and June 2006. It's now 2010. We can only guess at the total body count.

Quote :

"Solinari: I guarantee that no other occupying force has ever or could ever come close to the high level of humanity that our troops have shown to the Iraqis over the years. There will always be some bad apples and some unfortunate circumstances, but in balance, the 7 years we have spent in Iraq have been a defining moment for those who support the prosecution of humane wars."

Baseless American exceptionalism. Despite all the supposedly amazing technology involved, the U.S. military has killed considerable numbers of noncombatants. As discussed above, the numbers do no support a major distinction between the Iraq War and previous conflicts. Furthermore, consistent with the long history violence, the conflict has been marked with allegations of rape and torture leveled against American soldiers. It's nothing remotely new.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM. Reason : exceptionalism]

4/10/2010 10:19:46 AM

my gosh, its a wonder that anyone is even still alive in iraq today!

4/10/2010 10:20:56 AM

Quote :

"As discussed above, the numbers do no support a major distinction between the Iraq War and previous conflicts."

Even if that were true, it would mark a significant improvement over previous wars, considering the nature of this war compared to the nature of previous wars.

Quote :

"Furthermore, consistent with the long history violence, the conflict has been marked with allegations of rape and torture leveled against American soldiers. It's nothing remotely new. "

Sure, just ask the women of northern France. I suppose we should have stayed out of that conflict as well (or at least demonized our military at every opportunity), and for that reason?

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 11:55:42 AM

Quote :

"Despite the problems, it has the best methodology to date."

No, the methodology is goddamn retarded. Thanks though.

4/10/2010 1:28:23 PM

funny how saying 'it was an accident' makes it ok...because it is war

4/10/2010 3:20:44 PM

you're right... we sent them over there to kill insurgents so its totally rational for us to act outraged when they do their job and kill who they think are insurgents.

4/10/2010 3:23:36 PM

wait, we sent them over to kill insurgents or can they kill anyone who might be an insurgent? it may not be a difference to you, but I am sure it's a difference to dead people WHO AREN'T INSURGENTS

4/10/2010 3:28:15 PM

^^ so you would rather people NOT be bothered by the brutality of war...?

4/10/2010 3:32:10 PM

Quote :

"No, the methodology is goddamn retarded. Thanks though."

How so? I've provided an article from a peer-reviewed journal commending the methodology and noting how close it comes to the field consensus. Professionals in the statistics business feel the same way, including John Zogby himself:

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/061018_democracy_and_debate.php

What evidence can you cite in your favor?

4/10/2010 3:37:53 PM

Quote :

"so you would rather people NOT be bothered by the brutality of war...?"

I'm happy for people to be bothered by war. I want them to be horrified by war. However, they should not express their horror by unjustly condemning the very soldiers they send to prosecute their wars.

4/10/2010 3:39:40 PM

it's pretty obtuse to expect people be upset at atrocities of war but not the actors responsible for them

4/10/2010 3:42:53 PM

oh so now this video is portraying an atrocity?

wtf people.

4/10/2010 3:43:45 PM

I for one found it cruel and barbaric to watch soldiers in a helicopter routinely circle around a bunch of men, find conclusions and justifications that I myself could not come to given the exact same evidence, and then kill the group with sterile effectiveness.

4/10/2010 3:46:59 PM

but you don't have all the same evidence (SA on the surrounding area, stuff that happened leading up to that engagement, intel, radio chatter, Predator feeds/other collectors helping to ID bad guys, etc).

you simply have the same imaging footage from the Apache. Hell, you don't even have that--it's been cut.

Nor are you a professional at looking at that stuff.


Oh, and where's the atrocity? They killed people. That's what Apaches do. The only atrocity is that the fuckheads they were killing brought children along for a fight, but that's not on the U.S.--it's on the dipshit insurgent fighters. The Reuters correspondents are no more than a sad, unfortunate occurrence if they knowingly tagged along with a group of insurgents into a fight..but again, that's their own damn fault.



...and aside from all that, do you have a better idea? War is not and cannot be a court of law where evidence is presented, deliberations occur, etc.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 3:58:02 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and where's the atrocity? They killed people. That's what Apaches do. The only atrocity is that the fuckheads they were killing brought children along for a fight, but that's not on the U.S.--it's on the dipshit insurgent fighters. The Reuters correspondents are no more than a sad, unfortunate occurrence if they knowingly tagged along with a group of insurgents into a fight..but again, that's their own damn fault."

4/10/2010 4:05:02 PM

Quote :

"I myself could not come to given the exact same evidence"

lol at little civvies sitting at their keyboards and saying they can come to conclusions based off of one video that was selectively edited and one channel of communications. because that's how we fight the wars these days, ya know...one camera and one walkie talkie.

you don't even have the training to identify the fucking weapons that are blatantly obvious. you don't even have the capacity to make an educated guess.

i bet you think these apaches just fly around all day looking for people to pick off, don't you? do you even realize this engagement was after a call from the ground for air support? did you read that far into it, or are you just watching the video?

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 4:18:29 PM

if there's more evidence, the us government should show it

if the us government doesn't think civilian america should see how they operate, that's a greater problem.

4/10/2010 4:20:39 PM

the US government doesn't have to defend every engagement to you. that's not how this works.

wingnut fuckheads don't get to leverage the government to release classified information that can endanger troops on the ground.

4/10/2010 4:23:03 PM

Quote :

"The only atrocity is that the fuckheads they were killing brought children along for a fight, but that's not on the U.S.--it's on the dipshit insurgent fighters. The Reuters correspondents are no more than a sad, unfortunate occurrence if they knowingly tagged along with a group of insurgents into a fight..but again, that's their own damn fault."

I love how the doctrine of personal responsibility contorts during times of war.

"It's your own goddamn fault that you got in the way of my bullets! I won't be held accountable for pulling the trigger; that's just what I do. It's my nature as a soldier. I can't help it. It's not my responsibility."

4/10/2010 4:26:26 PM

lol - journalists who embed themselves with troops or insurgents during a war know what they're getting into. you think the insurgents are going to not set off a roadside bomb just because someone from CNN happens to be in the convoy? nope. same shit goes for those with insurgents. if a squad on the ground calls for CAS and the helo sees the guys with weapons, tough tits to the camera man who was tagging along.

flip it - if we held our fire every time we saw a camera amongst the weapons held by insurgents, wouldn't every group of insurgents just start carrying a camera guy around? it's not like they wear some IFF transponder that lets the guys shooting know "aim at everyone but me"

4/10/2010 4:33:54 PM

^^ Surely you can grasp how it's not the fault of the U.S. soldiers when people attack us with their kids in tow, then those gets get wounded.

...and surely you can grasp how it's not the fault of U.S. soldiers when a Reuters camera crew embeds itself with a group of insurgent fighters. I mean, if they want to film from that perspective, go for it, but you can't complain when the people your new acquaintances are shooting at turn and shoot back.

Quote :

"if the us government doesn't think civilian america should see how they operate, that's a greater problem"

You are fucking retarded. Holy shit. You might as well have just said 2+2=7.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:35 PM. Reason : Jesus Christ, you probably vote, too.]

4/10/2010 4:34:25 PM

I don't agree with the language [theDuke866] used; the deaths of the journalists and any civilians caught up in the engagement are truly tragic, and it's wrong to act like they invited it on themselves. However, particularly in the case of the journalists, it's true that they must have been aware of the risks they were taking. And it's preposterous to expect soldiers, in the middle of a war zone, to be able to "shoot around" journalists embedded with armed insurgents.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 4:39:23 PM

NOBODY QUESTION ANYTHING, THE US MILITARY IS PROTECTING YOU VOTING FUCKTARDS

4/10/2010 4:41:47 PM

^^^ I think it's silly and dangerous to obscure the physical reality of causation in cases such as this one. Those children and journalist didn't kill themselves. U.S. weapons aimed and fired by U.S. soldiers did it.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:43 PM. Reason : responsibility]

4/10/2010 4:42:29 PM