Collateral murder

[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.