Collateral murder

[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) .... 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.