Collateral murder

[Tank]

Its a long video - and I'm speechless having just watched it.

Its worth watching the entire thing. Bloody shocking - regardless of views on the war.

also it has been confirmed that this is an authentic video here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10636582



<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Ronin]

Yeah, me and the young fulla that works for me watched it this morning. Bloody shocking stuff. Thats what happens when the playstation generation go to war...

[Dave Lobster]

some of whom were unarmed

Standing near those that are probably wasn't their smartest move then.

[Brian d marge]

Walking around Baghdad with guns isnt the smartest move in the world

The offensive thing is why the Americans are there

Stephen

[Tank]

Walking around Baghdad with guns isnt the smartest move in the world


from the link on NZ herald:

"According to US officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be Alaska-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an Alaska-47."

[SPORK]

Serious fact checking in the article - what the fuck is an Alaska-47?

Hmm, actually after some pondering I figure it's probably some dude's auto-fill turning AK into Alaska. AK is Alaska's abbreviation, yes?

[Tank]

Serious fact checking in the article - what the fuck is an Alaska-47?

Hmm, actually after some pondering I figure it's probably some dude's auto-fill turning AK into Alaska. AK is Alaska's abbreviation, yes?

Pretty impressive to watch a video like that - and the thing that got you pondering is a auto-correct for a typo.

and to think they call us unsensitized.

[wbks]

Sweeeeettt

[Mudfart]

see if you can find a movie called "battle for haditha". its based on true events supposedly.

[SPORK]

Pretty impressive to watch a video like that - and the thing that got you pondering is a auto-correct for a typo.

and to think they call us unsensitized.

Didn't watch the video, but read the article. Here, let me express my views on what a tragedy it is so you can be assured all apropriate hand-wringing has been done: It is a tragedy, and from what I've read the actions are inexcusable blah blah blah. I'll be honest I'm fucking exhausted right now and don't really know what I'm typiaeggGgGEGGGgGGgG

[rainman]

Oil is definitely expensive these days.

[MisterD]

Moving towards the shooting in a war zone can get you killed...can someone explain why this either a) surprising or b) news?

[cromagnon]

Moving towards the shooting in a war zone can get you killed...can someone explain why this either a) surprising or b) news?

Did you watch the video?

[Tank]

Moving towards the shooting in a war zone can get you killed...can someone explain why this either a) surprising or b) news?


Did you watch the video?


Im guessing no.

[Blackshear]

"No Kenny, guns don't go pitchew pitchew, they go BAYNG BAYNG BAYNG!"

But in all seriousness, why do we have young fellas so eager to pull the trigger without properly surveying the situation? A small amount of humor in a warzone I can understand, but with something so critical...

[Genestho]

see if you can find a movie called "battle for haditha". its based on true events supposedly.
Was just going to post this, the vid made me think of that too, good movie, a completely unblinkered view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings

[Dave Lobster]

Watched the first half. Goes on a bit after that.

To me, the camera lens sticking round the corner DID look like an RPG. If you're the man in the heli, as soon as that RPG points at you, you're pretty dead. Anyone here willing to take that risk with an incoming? I wouldn't.
The group round the corner, crowding round what looked like the RPG man.. ragheads do that to cover the man that's up to no good. They'd all know this..

[cromagnon]

Watched the first half. Goes on a bit after that.

To me, the camera lens sticking round the corner DID look like an RPG. If you're the man in the heli, as soon as that RPG points at you, you're pretty dead. Anyone here willing to take that risk with an incoming? I wouldn't.
The group round the corner, crowding round what looked like the RPG man.. ragheads do that to cover the man that's up to no good. They'd all know this..

You should watch the second half too: when they take out the van picking up injured people, they didnt have weapons

[Katman]

Watched the first half. Goes on a bit after that.

To me, the camera lens sticking round the corner DID look like an RPG. If you're the man in the heli, as soon as that RPG points at you, you're pretty dead. Anyone here willing to take that risk with an incoming? I wouldn't.
The group round the corner, crowding round what looked like the RPG man.. ragheads do that to cover the man that's up to no good. They'd all know this..

Bit of a bugger for some when they get it wrong though, ay?

[Milts]

Copied from my response on another forum:

It's a given that there will always be some kind of collatoral damage, war's war. Even if you did everything possible to avoid it I'm sure you'd still get some dumb fuck civillian doing something stupid and getting themself shot.
However the 'war' in Iraq is particularly difficult because it's not between two set armies in the conventional sense; in WWII or the Korean war you had two armies, two uniforms, and they went at it. Even in the Vietnam war the Vietcong were an organised military group with a (somewhat) defined territory, athough there was also obviously a lot of insurgent action.
Iraq is a step further in that, in my understanding at least, there is not much in the way of an organised opposing army, it's more a semi organised and semi autonomous insurgency. In this situation you will always have more civilian casualties. Essentially it's up to the soldiers on a case by case basis as to who to engage.

Something along the lines of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK10pqBpz8g
is almost 'excusable' because they took every possible chance to make sure it was an enemy, got the green light, and then engaged. Turns out it wasn't. However I don't think you can honestly fault the pilot in this case, he repeatedly checked with control.
EDIT: These people disagree - http://www.buzzle.com/articles/126633.html - seems much more could have been done.

I think the case you posted is a bit different for a number of reasons. For a start, there were kids involved, and the slaying of wounded. The response by the military to co-operate with the investigation looks less than adaquate as well. It's obviously harder in this situation to determine whether or not the targets were friendly, but to be honest if you're that unsure you shouldn't be firing - the consequences of accidentally killing civillians is probably worse than that of missing an oportunity to kill some lower 'ranked' insurgents, especially in a situation where you are not immediately being threatened.

I think what fucks me off most are the people who stand behind the helecopter's shooting of the 'targets' 100% on the grounds that they were carrying AKs. It's Iraq. Everyone has an AK from police, to Iraqi (friendly) army, to insurgents, to office workers who don't want their house to be looted, to shooting enthusiasts. And yet people think that carrying an AK makes you a target by default? What the fuck.

I think, and I hate to admit this, but I think I could condone it if it were a clear group of enemy soldiers in conventional warfare. Even up to shooting those trying to evacuate the wounded. However in a city when you have no way of confirming they are insurgents in the first place and there are no military medics opening fire in the first place is wrong, and firing on the ambulance is even worse.

[SPman]

It's obviously harder in this situation to determine whether or not the targets were friendly, but to be honest if you're that unsure you shouldn't be firing - the consequences of accidentally killing civillians is probably worse than that of missing an oportunity to kill some lower 'ranked' insurgents, especially in a situation where you are not immediately being threatened.
It's never seemed to worry the Yanks (or the Brits, Russians, Germans......fill space here<fill in="" space="" here="">..) before or since. Obvious point is, of course, what the fuck are they doing there in the first place!
It's obviously not to make the world a safer place.......
Oh yes...as the late lamented George Carlin said.....It's bombing brown people!

<object height="385" width="480"><object height="385" width="480">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UaS2bRGS86c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480">[/URL]</object>


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Rlqjxst6xU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480">[URL="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Rlqjxst6xU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"] (http://www.youtube.com/v/UaS2bRGS86c&hl=en_GB&fs=1&)</object></fill>

[Brian d marge]

from the link on NZ herald:

"According to US officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be Alaska-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an Alaska-47."


Whoops

Me personally , with big gunships flying about , I would be ,,,very careful

Stephen

[Hans]

Nice shooting. And the problem is?

[robertvi]

the problem seems to be that the pilots can't tell the difference between a Kalashnikov and a Nikon

even when they're looking down some fancy-ass-shit telephoto optics of their own

[Smifffy]

Photographers don't know the dangers of being amongst legal combatants in a war zone these days?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDftbccwjS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rDftbccwjS4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[scumdog]

Not bad shooting for the range - judging by the time lapse between the gunfire and seeing the bullets starting to strike.

A shame it was innocents being hit....

[Hans]

Not bad shooting for the range - judging by the time lapse between the gunfire and seeing the bullets starting to strike.

A shame it was innocents being hit....

Not just innocents. Yes, there were two journos, who were obviously in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were also kids. I almost forgot, there were also dome guys with AKs and possibly an RPG.

This is not aimed at you specifically,Scummy, but at large portion of the public:

What do you think war's like? All wars are like this, whether just or not. The real difference isn't in the "Xbox generation" sitting behind the controls. The difference is that cameras and journos are now omnipresent. If anything, the Yanks have toned things down significantly in the long run. Can you imagine the buckets full of vomit, if someone had filmed My Lai and put it on Youtube?

[SS90]

Interesting.

Last week we where supplied with a link showing a civilian engaging in a "sport" that replicated military style "urban combat", where the "aim of the game" was to shoot targets through windows in the shortest amount of time.

Is the video in this link not another "level" of that "game"?

I can't believe that the same people who championed the "sport" can't see that while the video in this link is a tragedy
it is unfair to blame any of the soldiers involved.

This is not a fucking game.

Like Dave lobster wrote, when an Iraqi with an RPG points it at you, you are unlikely to remember.

The press are there, ok, and they must also accept the risks, they should not be in a group like that, hiding behind a building pointing their long range camera lens out from cover. That is what you do with a weapon.

I think that for some people combat is a game, but for real soldiers, it is a matter of life and death.

In the "sport shooting" video, when a target appears, you shoot it, then have a beer with your gun totin' mates in the club house.

In a war it is a different matter entirely.

[scumdog]

"It's always funny when the person getting hurt is somebody you don't know" Homer Simpson.

And war is like that....

[Hans]

Agreed. 10char.

[robertvi]

'legal combatants'? i see men casually milling around on the street, some holding 'objects' which could be almost anything (some are know known to have been cameras). of course the Pentagon will want us to believe 'insurgents' were involved, but there's no clear evidence for this from the video

[Hans]

'legal combatants'? i see men casually milling around on the street, some holding 'objects' which could be almost anything (some are know known to have been cameras). of course the Pentagon will want us to believe 'insurgents' were involved, but there's no clear evidence for this from the video

LOL, don't make me watch the whole twenty minutes again, just so I can point out the exact times, where the weapons are clearly visible. In a place like Iraq, it goes somewhat like this: You carry a gun, you're fair game. You carry soemthing resembling a gun without giving it a second thought, you're a Darwin Award candidate. You stick around when people are carrying weapons, same applies.

[Smifffy]

'legal combatants'? i see men casually milling around on the street, some holding 'objects' which could be almost anything (some are know known to have been cameras). of course the Pentagon will want us to believe 'insurgents' were involved, but there's no clear evidence for this from the video

Yes, the ones with the cameras are the ones that got the benefit of the doubt in my earlier post, however, as you point out, they were milling around with others, whose motives were not quite so clear, probably because they figured it would make for a great photo op and make them loads of capitalist dollars as they recorded the deaths of these "local heroes" standing up to the infidel invaders.

Bit of bloody bad luck then.

Do you think it would be a good idea to head to a war zone and hold something long, round and black to your eye, (as if to aim) at something like an attack helicopter?

[wbks]

Do you think it would be a good idea to head to a war zone Stop right here...

[Smifffy]

Stop right here...

But why? Surely it is one's inalienable right to go to a war zone, hang out with the local insurgents and be guaranteed free from harm?

[wbks]

But why? Surely it is one's inalienable right to go to a war zone, hang out with the local insurgents and be guaranteed free from harm?

I agree, but I think that while this publicity is based in how they weren't actually combatants, the only reason we're hearing about it is because some dickheads think that they should say a few prayers for the soon to be deceased before firing... I mean, it's one thing to kill multiple people, but another to talk "nonchalantly" about it "like it's a video game"... Wank

[Hans]

But why? Surely it is one's inalienable right to go to a war zone, hang out with the local insurgents and be guaranteed free from harm?

Or so they thought. The word "PRESS" ain't at all useful when it comes to stopping 30mm rounds.

[Smifffy]

I agree, but I think that while this publicity is based in how they weren't actually combatants, the only reason we're hearing about it is because some dickheads think that they should say a few prayers for the soon to be deceased before firing... I mean, it's one thing to kill multiple people, but another to talk "nonchalantly" about it "like it's a video game"... Wank

aahh, thanks for clearing that up, so the problem isn't the fact that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that they weren't dispatched in accordance with Halaal certification.

Frssskkkn insensitive military!

[wbks]

What's what I got from watching that wikileaks guy's speech on 3news

[Swoop]

Not bad shooting for the range - judging by the time lapse between the gunfire and seeing the bullets starting to strike.
The range of 1500m is fairly normal but much longer is possible due to the machine calculating all the variables and automatically adjusting. 1100metres is knife-fighting distance in the Apache.
127x magnification daylight cameras can read a car numberplate 4.2km away.

[Jonathan]

The gunship was heading to a location where some soldiers had been pinned down by small arms fire and RPGs and so I think the gunship's behaviour was understandable if not reasonable up to the point where the van comes to pick up the injured. It was here that their actions became unacceptable.

The Geneva convention Article 3 states:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

[oldguy]

Something I will never understand, killing people who are trying to help the wounded, they never shot the wounded guy, as he didn't pose a threat, on the arrival of the van to pick him up, they fired on the van and its occupants.
I thought the Rules of engagement, never fire unless fired upon, I know it don't count in this situation though.

[SS90]

Has anyone else considered the possibility that the van that stopped to pick up people was indeed "Iraqi insurgents"? If it was press,

1) there would be no children in it
2) It would be marked "Press"

So, if it wasn't press in a war zone, why did they risk their lives to pick up men killed by American forces? Joy ride perhaps?

I cynical person cold deduce that there was indeed insurgents there (I too saw what looked like weapons on some men....do you notice how the video only highlights what is a camera, the other weapons are not highlighted....why?), and, when the helicopter attacked, some of the insurgents buddies came to help survivors, the kids are simply "human shields"

I cannot believe that a random family, travelling around Iraq in their Mazda bongo, kids in tow, stopped to help some seemingly armed men in a war zone.

Life is not like that.

[SS90]

Something I will never understand, killing people who are trying to help the wounded, they never shot the wounded guy, as he didn't pose a threat, on the arrival of the van to pick him up, they fired on the van and its occupants.
I thought the Rules of engagement, never fire unless fired upon, I know it don't count in this situation though.

If a wounded man is trying to reach a weapon, you may fire upon him.

[wbks]

When you're getting shot at by "them" constantly you probably just want "them" to die once you get a shot... Fuck giving them treatment

[Smifffy]

If a wounded man is trying to reach a weapon, you may fire upon him.

He doesn't understand rules of engagement, so he is even less likely to understand LOAC, he thought the Rules of engagement meant, never fire unless fired upon....

I wonder if reuters has done anything to change the risk profile of their photographers, or if they are still happy for good publicity shots to come in so they can flog em the the world's press?

[Milts]

So, if it wasn't press in a war zone, why did they risk their lives to pick up men killed by American forces? Joy ride perhaps?

I too saw what looked like weapons on some men....do you notice how the video only highlights what is a camera, the other weapons are not highlighted....why?, and, when the helicopter attacked, some of the insurgents buddies came to help survivors, the kids are simply "human shields"

Maybe they are human beings? Maybe they thought the helecopter had stopped shooting? Maybe they thought the wounded were victems of a car bombing?
As to your suspicions about what is highlighted and what isn't, wikileaks also released the full unedited 40 minutes video if you wish to view it.

Also, just because someone is being used as a human shield, doesn't justify killing them. Especially if they are being used as a human shield to collect wounded, as opposed to, say, carry out a bombing.

And IF THERE WERE an 'insurgent' or two there, are you then justifying killing x number of civillians in order to take out a few insurgents? Because if you follow that train of thought, you end up in a really bad place... especially considering they are primarily trying to win public support.

[robertvi]

LOL, don't make me watch the whole twenty minutes again, just so I can point out the exact times, where the weapons are clearly visible...

Ok Hans I admit! There is something that looks like an AK on one of the guys, I stand corrected.

But the other guy (the one they focus on most) clearly has a telephoto not a RPG... Yeah ok, so not the smartest thing in the world to be pointing at an attack helicopter really lol.

But if they hadn't played so much Crash Bandicoot in their formative years those pilots wouldn't have had such myopic vision - that's my take home message...

[Jonathan]

Maybe they are human beings? Maybe they thought the helecopter had stopped shooting? Maybe they thought the wounded were victems of a car bombing?
As to your suspicions about what is highlighted and what isn't, wikileaks also released the full unedited 40 minutes video if you wish to view it.

Also, just because someone is being used as a human shield, doesn't justify killing them. Especially if they are being used as a human shield to collect wounded, as opposed to, say, carry out a bombing.

Damn right!

They aren't bloody animals, there are people in the world who genuinely care about their fellow man and who would selflessly come to an injured person's aid regardless of the risk to themselves!

[SS90]

Also, just because someone is being used as a human shield, doesn't justify killing them. Especially if they are being used as a human shield to collect wounded, as opposed to, say, carry out a bombing.

And IF THERE WERE an 'insurgent' or two there, are you then justifying killing x number of civillians in order to take out a few insurgents? Because if you follow that train of thought, you end up in a really bad place... especially considering they are primarily trying to win public support.

I think it is fairly clear that the Helicopter gun crew did not see that there was children in the van, I didn't see them until the edit replay highlighting them.

I also feel that they did not identify any civilians before firing.

They where only there (as has been said) in response to a report of insurgents firing on soldiers, and, when they went looking, this is what they found.

These guys are in a war zone, and have their friends killed and wounded on a daily basis.

Would it have been prudent to land, walk over with a white flag, clearly identify everyone (excuse me sir, are you an insurgent?) before separating the "baddies" from the "goodies" (because, of course, the insurgents would own up to it), then, return to the helicopter, take off,and begin your attack?

[SS90]

Life is not like that Jonathan.

[Jonathan]

Life is not like that Jonathan.

Clearly it is, at least in this instance! It has been ascertained that the guy was not an insurgent and in that case the van was not packed full of terrorists off to pick up a terrorist buddy. What were their grounds for attempting to save him then, if not humanitarian?

[Milts]

I think it is fairly clear that the Helicopter gun crew did not see that there was children in the van, I didn't see them until the edit replay highlighting them.

I also feel that they did not identify any civilians before firing.

They where only there (as has been said) in response to a report of insurgents firing on soldiers, and, when they went looking, this is what they found.

These guys are in a war zone, and have their friends killed and wounded on a daily basis.

Would it have been prudent to land, walk over with a white flag, clearly identify everyone (excuse me sir, are you an insurgent?) before separating the "baddies" from the "goodies" (because, of course, the insurgents would own up to it), then, return to the helicopter, take off,and begin your attack?

I thought half the issue was that the pilots didn't really attempt to identify them at ALL... they spent a few seconds spotting a group of people, "IDing" a weapon, and from then on were only focused on when to open fire.
And the other half of the issue was that when asked about this, the military claimed that they were "under heavy fire" at the time. And then refused to release the tape.

I also take issue with identifying anyone carrying a weapon as an 'insurgent' by default. Police carry weapons, Iraqi military carry weapons. People carry tripods. People carry brooms. People carry bags of flour over their shoulder - in fact if you were willing to not look too closely, I'm sure you could find a perfectly safe civillian market to be a 'target rich environment'. If you had the observational skills of these gunners.

[SS90]

Clearly it is, at least in this instance! It has been ascertained that the guy was not an insurgent and in that case the van was not packed full of terrorists off to pick up a terrorist buddy. What were their grounds for attempting to save him then, if not humanitarian?

I am sorry, I don't agree.

It had not been ascertained he was not a terrorist at all. As far as the guncrew where concerned, he was the guy with the RPG that was pointing it at the Helicopter.

This is (at this stage) a combat zone, and, as such, a ground crew where on their way (the Bradly's they referred to), to pick up survivors, and, as was said, take pictures for evidence.

This is not a video game it is real life.

You would see it differently if you where there.

[Jonathan]

I am sorry, I don't agree.

It had not been ascertained he was not a terrorist at all. As far as the guncrew where concerned, he was the guy with the RPG that was pointing it at the Helicopter.

This is (at this stage) a combat zone, and, as such, a ground crew where on their way (the Bradly's they referred to), to pick up survivors, and, as was said, take pictures for evidence.

This is not a video game it is real life.

You would see it differently if you where there.

You misunderstood me - Of course the gunship crew had not ascertained that he was not an insurgent - I am sure the vast majority of US forces do draw the line at shooting to kill civilians. But you said:


So, if it wasn't press in a war zone, why did they risk their lives to pick up men killed by American forces? Joy ride perhaps?


It turns out - after the fact - he was not an insurgent at all. It is most unlikely therefore (and I am sure if I looked into this I could back this up with some evidence) that that vehicle was not being driven by insurgents. I am saying that it is most likely that the van was simply being driven either by people who knew the injured man personally or by some good samaritans who were trying to help an injured fellow human being.

I agree that from the camera footage it does look like some of those people were carrying weapons. I don't think that the gunship crew can be blamed for thinking that these are the insurgents who had attacked a force on the ground. I do however question the moral, ethical and legal justification for shooting the van trying to pick up the clearly incapacitated man. I also find it reprehensible that some here are suggesting (however subtly) that the innocent people killed in this tragic mistake (for that is what it is) got what they deserved or what was coming to them.

[SS90]

You misunderstood me - Of course the gunship crew had not ascertained that he was not an insurgent - I am sure the vast majority of US forces do draw the line at shooting to kill civilians. But you said:



It turns out - after the fact - he was not an insurgent at all. It is most unlikely therefore (and I am sure if I looked into this I could back this up with some evidence) that that vehicle was not being driven by insurgents. I am saying that it is most likely that the van was simply being driven either by people who knew the injured man personally or by some good samaritans who were trying to help an injured fellow human being.

I agree that from the camera footage it does look like some of those people were carrying weapons. I don't think that the gunship crew can be blamed for thinking that these are the insurgents who had attacked a force on the ground. I do however question the moral, ethical and legal justification for shooting the van trying to pick up the clearly incapacitated man. I also find it reprehensible that some here are suggesting (however subtly) that the innocent people killed in this tragic mistake (for that is what it is) got what they deserved.

OK, I see your point.

I too questioned the shooting of the van (in so far as unarmed people... note people... because as you are aware, there is no distinction between a civilian and an insurgent in Iraq, they don't wear a uniform, so, it is a paradox really)

But, this is a war totally unlike previous wars (excluding Vietnam), where you aren't fighting an army as such, but rather an ideal, and idealists/fundamentalists have a huge advantage of being able to hide in civilian crowds.

If a van pulls up into a fire fight, what is to say that the van doesn't have an RPG in the back, and by the time you realise it, it is too late.

We will never know if the guys in the van where good samaritans, or insurgents.

It depends on what side of the fence you are standing.

[Jonathan]

Lastly I must add before I go to sleep - If the situation was reversed and a group of US soldiers on the ground had just been strafed by an enemy gunship and a van been driven by "Western" civilians during an attempted rescue of a wounded soldier was subsequently fired upon by that gunship then many would be declaring that it was enemy barbarism.

But yeah, what SS90 said above - this type of modern warfare is an entirely different kettle of fish with many more moral dilemmas.

[Brian d marge]

Kids in a van in a war zone, in an area that is under fire

even some people in south Auckland are smarter than that ...

But I just have finished a book by ( goes to the toilet and comes back and forgets book)

the next 100 years by George Friedman

in it
America just has to destabilise the area in order to achieve its objective and America has always had to leverage its troops by using technology

you should see what he predicts in the last chapter !!

Stephen

[Usarka]

Kids in a van in a war zone, in an area that is under fire


The whole city was a war zone. It's (now) normality for them.

[Tank]

Interesting.

Last week we where supplied with a link showing a civilian engaging in a "sport" that replicated military style "urban combat", where the "aim of the game" was to shoot targets through windows in the shortest amount of time.

Is the video in this link not another "level" of that "game"?

I can't believe that the same people who championed the "sport" can't see that while the video in this link is a tragedy
it is unfair to blame any of the soldiers involved.

This is not a fucking game.
........

In the "sport shooting" video, when a target appears, you shoot it, then have a beer with your gun totin' mates in the club house.

In a war it is a different matter entirely.


I posted both links - so I guess you are talking about me (HI)

Well - I certainly do not see this as a different level of the game. And this is nothing other than a tragedy and I feel not only for the people shot, but the solders who fired also - God knows the pressures and stress that they are under. I know for one - that I could not do it.

But - I have this thing called a 'functioning brain' - it allows me to separate games (and sport) from reality. When I shoot a bit of paper, or some bits and bytes on a xbox - I know no harm is done. I know in this that there is much pain and suffering, families ruined, lives forever lost.

You are right - that is not a fucken game - and it worries me that there are people obviously without a 'functioning brain' who have such trouble separating the two. I hope for fucks sake you do not have a firearms licence or play any game where you run over people in cars.

[mashman]

127x magnification daylight cameras can read a car numberplate 4.2km away.

And yet a camera can be seen as an RPG?

It's the above quote that gets me... All I could think of when watching the video was that could be a gun, nahh, oh maybe that's an RPG, nahh... really not too sure who was carrying what etc... BUT, if the technology is available to read a licence plate from 4.2k's away... then they may want to turn that functionality on next time before they start shooting...

War, huh.... what is it good for...

[Ronin]

And yet a camera can be seen as an RPG?



The overwhelming impression I got from the video is that these guys went there looking for someone to shoot at. Note the comments directed at the wounded man trying to crawl away. "Go on, reach for a gun, give me a reason to shoot." They were checking for permission to fire before they thought someone aimed a camera, I mean RPG at them.

[Genestho]

War, huh.... what is it good for...
Those that are making money from the industry of war, regardless of the little people!

[Dave Lobster]

War, huh.... what is it good for...

Removing Mudslums from the surface of the earth.

[mashman]

The overwhelming impression I got from the video is that these guys went there looking for someone to shoot at. Note the comments directed at the wounded man trying to crawl away. "Go on, reach for a gun, give me a reason to shoot." They were checking for permission to fire before they thought someone aimed a camera, I mean RPG at them.

I can excuse the use of their language... adrenalin pumping through your entire being because you could die any minute... makes perfect sense to me... it's war... but they did go looking for a fight...


Those that are making money from the industry of war, regardless of the little people!

Surely not... I thought the reason behind the war was to encourage yet another country to adopt a Democractic model of leadership (it works for the western world doesn't it :blink:)...


Removing Mudslums from the surface of the earth.

Funnily enough I don't see the Mudslums as being as much of a threat as they are made out to be...

I have no doubt most, if not all, of my own morals would be severely questioned if I was at war... BUT, forcing your style of "leadership" on an entirely different culture has to be questioned above all else... is Democracy really the answer... not at the price "we're" (read the world as a whole) paying... not for me anyway...

[Dave Lobster]

Funnily enough I don't see the Mudslums as being as much of a threat as they are made out to be...


Try living somewhere where the busses or trains get blown up by them.



BUT, forcing your style of "leadership" on an entirely different culture has to be questioned above all else... is Democracy really the answer... not at the price "we're" (read the world as a whole) paying... not for me anyway...

Any culture that would stone a woman to death for being raped, or sleeping with whoever she damn well pleases is not a culture that any civilised race would tolerate.

I would agree that forcing the NZ style of leadership on anyone would be a bad thing. Nobody would want a handful of loud maori dictating the direction of millions of $ worth of their money.

[Dave Lobster]

This sort of thread reminds me of that line in Full Metal Jacket, where the fellow asks Joker if he's seen any combat.
Seen a little on TV..

Anyone here sat in a heli, with rounds flying past you? Or just seen it on a youtube clip happening to someone else, from the comfort of your own chair.
It's a lot easier to make judgement calls on someone else's actions when you've never had a weapon pointed at you.

[Swoop]

And yet a camera can be seen as an RPG?

It's the above quote that gets me... All I could think of when watching the video was that could be a gun, nahh, oh maybe that's an RPG, nahh... really not too sure who was carrying what etc... BUT, if the technology is available to read a licence plate from 4.2k's away... then they may want to turn that functionality on next time before they start shooting...
The "functionality" is always on. The way the people were walking shows that they are unaware of the Apache in the vicinity, so the magnification is probably quite large. Anyone carrying something under their arm or slung over a shoulder is investigated relatively thoroughly prior to engagement, but there is a culture of hiding any weapon a talli-tubby may be carrying.
A common practice for locals, is to "flap" their dishdasha up and down to show helicopters that they are not concealing anything.

[mashman]

Try living somewhere where the busses or trains get blown up by them.

Heh... yeah no other religion/culture does that to their own people eh!!! Basques, IRA, Disgruntled US students etc... yeah, it's so different in the "civilised" world...



Any culture that would stone a woman to death for being raped, or sleeping with whoever she damn well pleases is not a culture that any civilised race would tolerate.

I would agree that forcing the NZ style of leadership on anyone would be a bad thing. Nobody would want a handful of loud maori dictating the direction of millions of $ worth of their money.

And yet there are so many other countries with similar "problems", those that cleanse their society that noone ever bothers with... where there any other countries that could have been Democratised during the 12 years between Iraq wars? Zim for 1.



Anyone here sat in a heli, with rounds flying past you? Or just seen it on a youtube clip happening to someone else, from the comfort of your own chair.
It's a lot easier to make judgement calls on someone else's actions when you've never had a weapon pointed at you.


True, Judgement calls are easy with hindsight... and i'd kill if it came down to it too (maybe)... we train soldiers to do an ugly job for stupid reasons and at times mistakes are made, I don't have a problem with that... but being THAT eager to kill is something else...

[imdying]

I totally saw an RPG. Average shooting, but job done in any case.


Assuming I had a million dollar attack helicopter, had spent the last 5 years in training being told I was the most bad arse killing machine ever to walk God's green earth, and were pumped up on state sanctioned meth to keep me sharp, then for sure I'd be letting rip at anything that looked even remotely hostile, it's a freakin war. If it's good enough to go to war and kill people, then it's good enough to do so indiscriminately. If you don't hate the other side enough to do that, then you don't hate them enough to stick your nose in their business.

[Katman]

And yet there are so many other countries with similar "problems", those that cleanse their society that noone ever bothers with... where there any other countries that could have been Democratised during the 12 years between Iraq wars? Zim for 1.


Fortunately for Mugabe - Zimbabwe doesn't have any oil.

[mashman]

Fortunately for Mugabe - Zimbabwe doesn't have any oil.

Cynic... they have precious gems that need mining though... according to the latest intel :innocent:

[EJK]

AK-47 my ass

[SPman]

So, if it wasn't press in a war zone, why did they risk their lives to pick up men killed by American forces? Joy ride perhaps? It was a guy taking his 2 kids to tutoring (seeing as how all the schools were closed) who happened to be driving past. It is a city - their city and most people try and carry on with life despite being under attack from a foreign invading force. I guess invaders don't publish maps of where there will be action today, so avoid these areas, folks!
we train soldiers to do an ugly job for stupid reasons and at times mistakes are made, I don't have a problem with that... but being THAT eager to kill is something else... And the relish with which the authorities cover it up. If there hadn't been Reuters guys involved, this would just be, yet another, unreported attack on a group of people, in their own country and city, who might, or might not have been "insurgents", but, to the invaders, were just objects to shoot! I suppose they should consider themselves lucky, not to have been a wedding party - they seem to be fair game, ATM.


Any culture that would stone a woman to death for being raped, or sleeping with whoever she damn well pleases is not a culture that any civilised race would tolerate. So you think it is alright to use armed force to invade those countries on any pretext, or none, and kill anyone who objects, and that makes for a civilised race?
I'm not sure which is the more obscene!

[Dave Lobster]

So you think it is alright to use armed force to invade those countries on any pretext, or none, and kill anyone who objects, and that makes for a civilised race?
I'm not sure which is the more obscene!

Nope. But I'd say invading a country to stop them harbouring terrorists that are hell (!) bent on commiting acts of terrorism in your own country is a pretty smart idea. Securing your country's continued supply of oil seems a top move too.

Invading/peacekeeping in a country to stop them ethnically cleansing half the population is also a good reason. Maybe the 'mercin presence in the former Yugoslavia has passed from a lot of people's minds now. Hundreds of thousands of people were wiped out there too. But the press didn't get their hands on it - too dangerous for them to be there. The fighters there weren't averse to killing the press.. so the armchair generals didn't get to see any of it.

Seen any combat? SEEN A LITTLE ON TV

[jim.cox]

Securing your country's continued supply of oil seems a top move too.

Yes, but killiing innocent people will generally be seen as un-ethical

[SPman]

But I'd say invading a country to stop them harbouring terrorists that are hell (!) bent on commiting acts of terrorism in your own country is a pretty smart idea. What a shame Iraq didn't actually harbor any terrorists......Saddam saw them as a threat to his security so stomped on them! (along with anyone else he thought may be a threat to his power) All the terrorists in the 9/11 attacks are reputed to have come from Saudi Arabia and Egypt - so why not invade them!
But the press didn't get their hands on it - too dangerous for them to be there. I don't know where you were, but it was on TV most nights....of course there were press there - most people I know certainly knew about that nasty area of the world - sort of filled in the "nasty warfare" bit between GW1 and GW2 - but then Serbia and Croatia have always been at each others throats.....like the Chechnens and the Russians - fighting each other for centuries....

Yes, but killiing innocent people will generally be seen as un-ethical
Unfortunately, there are no "innocent" people in war - just go back a few centuries - it was common to massacre everyone in a captured city.....deaths of 50-100,000 "innocent" people were relatively common.
We like to think we are civilised, these days. Yeah, right!

[Swoop]

I wonder if reuters has done anything to change the risk profile of their photographers, or if they are still happy for good publicity shots to come in so they can flog em the the world's press?
Remember when the reporters would use gaffertape to place "TV" on the roof of their 4x4 vehicles... to avoid being targetted?

I thought half the issue was that the pilots didn't really attempt to identify them at ALL... they spent a few seconds spotting a group of people, "IDing" a weapon, and from then on were only focused on when to open fire.

I'm sure you could find a perfectly safe civillian market to be a 'target rich environment'. If you had the observational skills of these gunners.
Nice generalisations. How much time was spent observing the area PRIOR to the "record" button being pressed on the camera? The tape puts an emphasis on this particular incident because of the way it is commenced. If they showed 10-15 mins of reconnoissance footage (for example) prior to the engagement, the context could change dramatically.
The pilots and "gunners" (as you put it) have quite a lot of observational skills since they are scouts doing the LOH role and not just flying around blowing things up.

[Milts]

Remember when the reporters would use gaffertape to place "TV" on the roof of their 4x4 vehicles... to avoid being targetted?

Nice generalisations. How much time was spent observing the area PRIOR to the "record" button being pressed on the camera? The tape puts an emphasis on this particular incident because of the way it is commenced. If they showed 10-15 mins of reconnoissance footage (for example) prior to the engagement, the context could change dramatically.
The pilots and "gunners" (as you put it) have quite a lot of observational skills since they are scouts doing the LOH role and not just flying around blowing things up.

AFAIK wikileaks put up the whole vid if you wish to view it 'in context'. But so few people can be bothered wasting 40 minutes of their valuable time to learn about some innocent person being killed in a distant corner of the world that they put up this edited version as well.

I also like the way you completely skipped over my point about the military then covering it up. If they have such faith in their actions, and were so adamant the ROE were followed, why not release the tape? Why view this tape, and then claim the helecopters were under fire at the time they fired back? Plenty of footage of the war has been released by the military, so why not release this footage if they honestly believe the pilots/gunners were in the right?
As has been said, if it weren't for the fact that there were two Reuters journalists killed, noone would be any wiser. I wonder how many incidents like this or worse happened which were never heard of.

Great way to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous, ay.

[wbks]

Fuck the hearts and minds, the objective is a pro west govt. and a nice energy pipeline!

[spacemonkey]

The range of 1500m is fairly normal but much longer is possible due to the machine calculating all the variables and automatically adjusting. 1100metres is knife-fighting distance in the Apache.
127x magnification daylight cameras can read a car numberplate 4.2km away.

To the Helo pilots? Not even remotely at that range.
the most modern RPG has a range (with auto self destruct at that max range) of 900m and a kill radius of 10m ad in the choppers elevation and they were not a threat from there..... Reported AK's even less so.
So I don't in this case buy into the "the instant life or death decision" case for this one.

An RPG/AK would most certainly be a threat to any troops on the ground in the ongoing firefight however...... Pretty sure said troops won't be bitching about it, if I was unfortunate enough to be there I would only bitch about the fact they wasted time on journos instead of the "Le resistance"* folks that had guns and were using them!!!!

As far as the Reuters fellas going? Well they knew all too well what they were getting into, which is why like any soldier they were shooting (film) from cover as standing out in the open is pretty much a suicide mish IMHO.






















*relax, just taking the piss for the sake of the wingnuts.

[Swoop]

I also like the way you completely skipped over my point about the military then covering it up.
With the amount of footage that the military has, I seriously doubt this incident would have been looked at.
ALL weapons releases are recorded and at the end of the mission are loaded onto a squadron laptop for review by the weapons officers. That laptop is kept in the squadron safe.

RPG has a range ... of 900m and a kill radius of 10m ad in the choppers elevation and they were not a threat from there..... Reported AK's even less so.
Height is mostly to avoid .50cal fire (or ComBlock equivalent). AK fire is not an issue.

[Milts]

With the amount of footage that the military has, I seriously doubt this incident would have been looked at.
ALL weapons releases are recorded and at the end of the mission are loaded onto a squadron laptop for review by the weapons officers. That laptop is kept in the squadron safe.

Even after they hold a special meeting with Reuters over the footage, and engage in a three year court battle to avoid releasing the film?

[wbks]

So... What's the point of releasing the film? (besides more hits of course)

[cromagnon]

So... What's the point of releasing the film? (besides more hits of course)

The truth about what actually happened, rather than just the military report. I dont think more hits was main driver behind getting it released. Check out www.wikileaks.org or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks to see what they do.

[Brian d marge]

Sorry , but yes the saheed guy had a camera , it looks like a caemra when you know what it is , but the other guys have defiantly have long thin stick shaped things with slings on em I cant think of any camera that looks like that , they follow saheed into the court yard

After that its just a tragedy , almost like that courier driver shot in Auckland ,,,,, cept NZ police arnt as well trained ..............

Stephen

[Mort]

On the subject of morality and ethics mentioned earlier.... it al too easy for us civilians to be become hysterical about the actions of soldiers who fight wars in our name (a touchy subject in itself depending on your politics) :angry:.... There is absolutely nothing new about the mentality of soldiers in a war environment. They are purpose trained to kill without emotion. Absolutely, that behaviour is unacceptable within a normal society setting but this is not a normal society setting. These guys are flying armed combat missions where they are expected to use lethal force...and were ordered and authorsised to fire on this group... we cannot expect them to have normal emotions and responses that ordinary people have when they see a video.

I watched a WW2 documentary last week. Yanks invaded some pacific Island (IwoJima I think). They interviewed a veteran from the battle....now in his 80's I guess. He looked and spoke like a normal old guy. He told of how he shot every Jap that moved. Took no prisoners. He told of how he built a wall around his fox hole with about 50 skulls of dead japanese soliders. He and his mates thought it was great at the time... there is nothing new about how soldiers behave in battle.

Yes there are atrocities in war and accidents and errors... but we cannot expect soldiers to have the same morality and emotions we all carry in normal life. As fas as this incident is concerned these gunship soldiers were sent on a mission to supress enemy activity in an battle area. They came across a team of me who were clearly armed (look at the video again...look at the 2 guys in the background of the group at about 3:43) and acting like they were about to launch some kind of attack from a side road where US soldiers where planning to pass... They were not pedestrians minding their own business... they were engaged in enemy activity... as such were legitimate targets. The wounded guy remained a legitimate target and the guy in the van (what ever his motive) became a target as soon as he got involved. He brought his kids in this scenario and they could not have been seen by the pilots.

What you see in this vid is a glimpse of what war is about... this is what we send our troops in to do. If anything good comes from this video then perhaps it is that we may make wiser decisions about sending troops to war in the first place.... but you can be sure that far worse happens away from the camera. At least our armies do have a moral code (unlike the Nazis and the japs in WW2)... we cannot say that they operate without morals.... but we also cannot expect the military to have civilian morality and ethics whilst fighting a war.
__________________

[Hans]

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself. Not even if I tried really hard.

[Milts]

Mort, I see your point but I don't think any comparison can be drawn between the current conflict in Iraq and WW2. They are incredibly different on so many levels.

[Mort]

Yes different in terms of the combat conditions... but the same detached morality is required to do the job - that is my point.... in WW2 we did not have the thoughts words emotions and acts of soldiers broadcast across the world like we do now...but the same thoughts, words, emotions and acts existed then as they do now. We are shocked by the actions of these soldiers but only because it has become visible to us.

[SPman]

At least our armies do have a moral code (unlike the Nazis and the japs in WW2) The japs did have a moral code - it was just very different to ours.
What you see in this vid is a glimpse of what war is about... this is what we send our troops in to doI think a lot of people have little concept of that.....
If anything good comes from this video then perhaps it is that we may make wiser decisions about sending troops to war in the first place. It would be nice.....how about we send the politicians and generals to do the actual fighting! .... and all the bullying loudmouths who sit at home baying for the blood of others!

[Milts]

Yes different in terms of the combat conditions... but the same detached morality is required to do the job - that is my point.... in WW2 we did not have the thoughts words emotions and acts of soldiers broadcast across the world like we do now...but the same thoughts, words, emotions and acts existed then as they do now. We are shocked by the actions of these soldiers but only because it has become visible to us.

But how relevant is that detached morality now that there are regularly civilians in the combat area? It's (perhaps?) acceptable to completely destroy a building housing 500 enemy troops while they are sleeping - that requires 'detatched morality'. But what happens when you apply that same 'moral code' (or lack therof) when the combatants are bunking with the civilians? Or with their families?

[SPman]

"War is hell" - literally!
This "code of honour", whereby you aren't meant to touch civilians, is rare throughout recorded history - it was common practice to raze cities, or at least kill all the men, women and children therein.
I think it's obscene, but, unfortunately, it's what happens!

[Mort]

But how relevant is that detached morality now that there are regularly civilians in the combat area? It's (perhaps?) acceptable to completely destroy a building housing 500 enemy troops while they are sleeping - that requires 'detatched morality'. But what happens when you apply that same 'moral code' (or lack therof) when the combatants are bunking with the civilians? Or with their families?

If combatants seek to disguise themselves as civilians or hide amongst civilians it is civilians who will suffer most.. That is an unavoidable consequence of war... other wise any army will be defeated by men who dont wear uniform. It cannot deter action against an enemy. It can only limit options available to defeat them. Many seek to portray actions like this as indiscriminate killing of innocents.... these guys in the video were out to kill US soldiers. They were legitimate targets.

[Indiana_Jones]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hWCtfUgBtNw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hWCtfUgBtNw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

-Indy

[Milts]

If combatants seek to disguise themselves as civilians or hide amongst civilians it is civilians who will suffer most.. That is an unavoidable consequence of war... other wise any army will be defeated by men who dont wear uniform. It cannot deter action against an enemy. It can only limit options available to defeat them. Many seek to portray actions like this as indiscriminate killing of innocents.... these guys in the video were out to kill US soldiers. They were legitimate targets.

I thought the whole gripe was that the guys in THIS video weren't... especially the ones in the van, who were on their way to school.
Also, I really don't see how killing 15 suspected insurgents goes a long way towards winning the 'war'. In this kind of war it's less about numbers and more about minds. Every time you kill an insurgent a wife, son, brother or similar will be angry enough to decide to pick up a gun... and thus it continues.