It's both. It's tragic, but they did pretty much bring it on themselves.

Maybe not exactly bring it upon themselves, but they sure as hell knowingly put themselves FAR into harm's way. It's a terrible thing, but if there's any blame to be assigned for their deaths, it's on them.

Quote :

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

That wasn't my point. I do more than my fair share of "questioning", I assure you. My point is that the way you are "questioning things" is completely idiotic, along with your analysis of issues, unless this is mercifully just a really bad anomaly.

Unfortunately, your vote counts the same as mine and others. More, most of the time, because I don't do a lot of voting. You know, because of that "questioning" I do, and rarely liking what I find--probably largely because, since dumbasses have just as good of a vote, and there are a lot more dumbasses, politicians cater to dumbasses.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:51 PM. Reason : there, it's spelled out for you. you'll prob still misinterpret it / make a disingenuous statement]

4/10/2010 4:42:30 PM

Accusing soldiers of war crimes isn't exactly "questioning". I doubt anyone in this thread is opposed to proper oversight and at least a certain degree of openness with these types of situations.

Quote :

"Maybe not exactly bring it upon themselves, but they sure as hell knowingly put themselves FAR into harm's way."

Right, that's what I mean.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 4:43:43 PM

plenty of people have jumped on me for suggesting that the us government clarify its actions in this engagement, stating that I am "fucking retarded" for thinking that the us government's silence and reticence on clarifying and explaining its actions is a problem.

4/10/2010 4:46:53 PM

Quote :

"Those children and journalist didn't kill themselves. U.S. weapons aimed and fired by U.S. soldiers did it."

no, the children's parents or whoever killed them (wait - did they die? thought they were wounded) when they brought them into an active engagement with US forces in a war. it's complete and utter bullshit that you or anyone else thinks they could identify the kids in that van from the video. "I CAN'T SEE WEAPONS BUT I CAN SEE THE PIXELS IN THE WINDOW CHANGE SO THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY KIDS THERE"

the journalists killed themselves when they embeded with people engaged in battle with the strongest military in the world. they took that risk. they chose poorly

Quote :

"plenty of people have jumped on me for suggesting that the us government clarify its actions in this engagement, stating that I am "fucking retarded" for thinking that the us government's silence and reticence on clarifying and explaining its actions is a problem."

they already clarified it - you can read the report. but you don't want that. you don't want clarification - you want them to admit something that's not true. and for that, you're beyond "fucking retarded"

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 4:49:35 PM

Quote :

"(wait - did they die? thought they were wounded)"

You're right. My mistake.

Quote :

"it's complete and utter bullshit that you or anyone else thinks they could identify the kids in that van from the video."

I argue no such thing. Regardless, if you fire a weapon and it hurts people, you're responsible. You're the one who did it. Saying otherwise denies the physical reality of the situation. Socially clearing the the soldiers involved of responsibility assumes the legitimacy of their mission, which I deny.

4/10/2010 5:04:14 PM

What does it even mean to "socially clear" someone? Does that just mean you're not going to like them?

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 5:15:53 PM

Quote :

"plenty of people have jumped on me for suggesting that the us government clarify its actions in this engagement"

Would you prefer we post the lat and lon of all our troops as well as their upcoming plans and movements on the nightly news every night? Surely its more important to be completely open and transparent with the US public (and anyone else who watches the news), even if it means putting our troops' lives in danger. After all, its more important we show the general public everything we do, and bend over ass backwards to protect the media, even if it means getting our own soldiers killed. Is that the "higher standard" that many of you want to hold the US to? Cause its fucking suicidal idiocy.

4/10/2010 5:38:15 PM

Quote :

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

Are you fucking joking?

Of all the shit in this thread, this has got to be the most offensive and outrageous. Fuck you.

Soldiers are NOT responsible for war. Soldiers are NOT the ones authorizing police action against foreign entities, soldiers are NOT the ones issuing declarations of war, soldiers are NOT the ones sitting comfortably in DC debating budgets and deployment levels. POLITICIANS are responsible for war, soldiers are the grunts that have to follow their orders.

Again, fuck you.

4/10/2010 5:51:48 PM

to me it looked like the soldiers were at best mistaken about the number of weapons they saw and at worst were intentionally misrepresenting the situation to their superiors in order to gain permission to engage to me. so yes, I think it's fair to say that soldiers can and do act within their OWN AGENCY at times... they aren't robots

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : mobile leprachaun]

4/10/2010 6:01:00 PM

Quote :

" Would you prefer we post the lat and lon of all our troops as well as their upcoming plans and movements on the nightly news every night? Surely its more important to be completely open and transparent with the US public (and anyone else who watches the news), even if it means putting our troops' lives in danger. After all, its more important we show the general public everything we do, and bend over ass backwards to protect the media, even if it means getting our own soldiers killed. Is that the "higher standard" that many of you want to hold the US to? Cause its fucking suicidal idiocy."

every night? no. but how about this very public incident THREE FUCKING YEARS after it happened? could they clear that up, or would it, too, put "troops' lives in danger" and'll get "our own soldiers killed"?

all I want to see is the whole video, unedited, and any other unedited video/photographs from the engagement/aftermath. if there were weapons, prove it. no, the us govt doesn't have to do a damn thing to satisfy my request and it probably won't, but to sit there and play out the tired excuse that a 3 year old video will threaten soldier safety NOW is not an acceptable excuse to ME

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 6:03:17 PM

Quote :

"Is that the "higher standard" that many of you want to hold the US to? Cause its fucking suicidal idiocy."

yes, that's pretty much the goal.

4/10/2010 6:04:29 PM

Quote :

"to me it looked like the soldiers were at best mistaken about the number of weapons they saw"

Well, yeah, that's pretty obvious, and also completely irrelevant.

Quote :

"every night? no. but how about this very public incident THREE FUCKING YEARS after it happened?"

WHY? Why the hell would they want or see any reason or obligation to put that footage out on display?

4/10/2010 6:09:30 PM

to show internet fucktards like me that I'm wrong, duke

Quote :

" Well, yeah, that's pretty obvious, and also completely irrelevant."

it amazes me that you can type this shit and have no empathy for people who were killed because us soldiers made a false judgement on them

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 6:10:51 PM

but that's what I'm saying. It has nothing to do with empathy or even sympathy. It just doesn't matter if they thought they saw, say, 3x AK-47 and 2x RPG, when there were actually only 2x AK-47 and a single RPG.

That extra AK and RPG that they misidentified did not impact the course of events.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 6:15:29 PM

to all of you who are railing the US military here, the relative silence of your elected leaders (obama, reid, pelosi) should be absolutely DEAFENING.

4/10/2010 6:16:31 PM

the way the situation was framed, for example, like this


with the combination of the guy crouching with what very much looked like an rpg completely validated their course of action.

I can very readily accept the RPG mistake... I don't get how they thought they saw basically most of the group with weapons (5 or 6 individuals with AK47s). surely you can appreciate the fact that, by making most of the group "armed" the situation is far different than just MAYBE one or two guys with weapons out of a group.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 6:18:36 PM

Quote :

"when they brought them into an active engagement with US forces in a war"

Quote :

"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."

c'mon man. you know you're being disingenuous with that statement. the people in the van did not "roll up to an active battlefield" there were no shots being fired during the time they arrived to the scene. this is not even up for debate. it's clear, in the video, that the van arrived after some event previously occurred. i don't know why it's so hard to admit that the decision to open fire on a van (full of who knows what - insurgents, children, seafood, garden supplies...who knows) was at the very least, based on hazy information. but to add these little details such as "attack with their kids in tow" shows to me that you are at least uncomfortable with the facts as they are presented, or else you wouldn't feel the need to add the qualifier of "attack" or "active engagement" to justify the decisions of the fighter pilots. the second shoot-out did not become an "active engagement" until the apache guys decided to open fire.

you know, if there was still an open firefight in progress when they arrived, then i could possibly understand the argument. but as it stands, there was nothing to suggest that they were entering a live battlefield. and to sit here and suggest otherwise is blatantly misleading.

i've come to expect this line of reasoning from some of these guys posting about how i hate america for expecting wise discretion, but i'm a little disappointed in reading that from theDuke866, who seems to be a little more levelheaded (and who previously admitted that there was a gray area)

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:43 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 6:21:47 PM

so its not a live battlefield when there is still smoke rising from the surrounding buildings, still bleeding bodies scattered around you and active US patrols engaging hostiles in the immediate area?

4/10/2010 6:25:40 PM

again, I like how we assume that everyone involved in this engagement knew 100% of what the fuck was going on, including the people who rolled onto the scene late in the game

but then again, it's their fault whether they knew or not

4/10/2010 6:27:22 PM

its just interesting that your first instinct is to lash out against our soldiers, rather than the insurgents who deliberately put those children into the van so that they could use their deaths as propaganda if any harm befell their rescue mission.

itt, mls09 turns a blind eye to using human shields.

4/10/2010 6:28:00 PM

I like to think solinari is chilling in some house off of kildaire farm rd in cary, drinking a beer on his couch and laughing at the absurdity of his posts and the quality of his trolling


[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:32 PM. Reason : .]

4/10/2010 6:30:38 PM

Quote :

"so its not a live battlefield when there is still smoke rising from the surrounding buildings, still bleeding bodies scattered around you and active US patrols engaging hostiles in the immediate area?"

i think you just described the entire country of iraq. if this is our definition of a live battlefield, then we've just given ourselves a blank check to fire on anything and everything with a pulse.

4/10/2010 6:33:14 PM

yep, that's our evil plan... you finally figured it out

4/10/2010 6:36:12 PM

oh good lord. you guys really cant be this disingenuous can you?

4/10/2010 6:36:16 PM

they'll jump at and twist any situation to condemn american troops.... that's all this thread boils down to.

4/10/2010 6:37:06 PM

^translation: don't you dare question or criticize my mommy military [/whiny voice]


seriously, come up with a better attack. shit's weak. you can have the last word, just make it worthwhile.

[Edited on April 10, 2010 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

4/10/2010 6:38:13 PM

translation: i'm going to talk shit about my country no matter what and accuse you of jingoism if you disagree

4/10/2010 6:40:35 PM

yea, the non-stop jingoism retort that you've been beating is tiresome also.

4/10/2010 6:43:19 PM

Quote :

"What does it even mean to "socially clear" someone? Does that just mean you're not going to like them?"

No, socially clearing the soldiers of responsibility would imply the opposite in this case. I worded it that way to distinguish between material reality and the assigning of blame.

4/10/2010 6:50:09 PM

I love how we are now on page nine, 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.

4/11/2010 12:07:30 AM

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.

4/11/2010 12:44:33 AM

I love how we're on page X, and despite the complete lack of any additional evidence, X people are guilty of X. I swear, the mental gymnastics you people are capable of is astonishing to me.

4/11/2010 1:21:35 AM

Quote :

"deserved to be slaughtered"

Now, I'm no fan of humanity by some standards, but yikes!

4/11/2010 1:37:57 AM

Quote :

"I love how we are now on page nine, 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."

they were verified to be armed.....so....yeah....

4/11/2010 10:37:51 AM

Quote :

"X people are guilty of X"

25 people are guilty of 25.

4/11/2010 10:46:43 AM

u suck @ mad libs

4/11/2010 10:52:54 AM

LOL, so let me fill in your complete sentence.


Kris: I love how we're on page 9, and despite the complete lack of any additional evidence, 9 people are guilty of 9. I swear, the mental gymnastics you people are capable of is astonishing to me.


I just found that a really fitting/funny statement meant to insult other people's intelligence.

Please continue.

4/11/2010 11:06:13 AM

dood ur so awesome

4/11/2010 11:37:40 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/11/gates-defends-soldiers-iraq-shooting-video-says-footage-lacks-context/

Gates Defends Soldiers in Iraq Shooting Video, Says Footage Lacks Context

The Obama Administration stance on this is very telling and appropriate, IMO

OMG FAUX KNEWS

4/11/2010 3:42:01 PM

Obama = Bush = War Criminals

4/11/2010 4:07:40 PM

4/11/2010 4:10:07 PM

LOL

nice.

4/11/2010 4:10:49 PM

If he fails to take action to correct ongoing atrocities and punish those responsible then the blood is on his hands.

4/11/2010 4:30:12 PM

You just dont like black people.

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM. Reason : rascist]

4/11/2010 4:43:59 PM

Quote :

"I love how we are now on page nine, 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."

4/11/2010 4:49:04 PM

Lord god have mercy... if Chairman Obama doesn't even agree with you psychos, then you know you're way the fuck beyond the pale.

4/11/2010 4:52:43 PM

Marry me.

4/11/2010 5:20:14 PM

sorry bro, optimum has first dibs if i ever go gay

4/11/2010 5:53:56 PM

Christ, there isn't any additional evidence because it's fucking settled. It is 100% verified. They were armed.

You retards are worse than those dipshits who used to crow on and on and on about President Obama not being a natural-born U.S. citizen. What the fuck did they want? A second birth certificate? I mean, really, you're worse, and I didn't think that was possible. You can see the weapons (AK47 & RPGs) in the video. Hell, even Wikileaks-whom we've established also selectively edited the footage--now admits that they "appear to have been armed." The Army (and/or contractors, not sure) recovered the weapons at the scene after the fight. The Army also conducted an investigation and found that everything was legitimate. The SECDEF and President Obama defend the actions of the troops.

What more do you want?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shame-on-wikileaks-framing-lawful-engagement-as-anti-american-propaganda-part-one/

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/4344/

has some good shorts of the video footage

[Edited on April 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM. Reason : ]

4/11/2010 6:01:26 PM

They were armed children. With their father. On their way to school. It's settled.

4/11/2010 6:30:39 PM