Thread: The murder of innocence

I don't care if a bunch of youtubers can't tell the difference if it's a camera or a weapon. The video we are watching isn't the same as the real 3D experience which always has more detail than some video online.

If they can't tell the difference between a camera and a weapon, what's next? A cell phone and a gun? How many innocent people have died out of some irrational fear they MIGHT have weapons, which no real confirmation that they do? How many innocent people have been shot down, just for trying to help someone on the street. Marvo, I think you're the one missing the larger picture. Do you really think this is an isolated event?

In the event that a tragedy happens and innocent civilian is murdered by an idiot who can't tell the difference, does that mean he should just be pardoned like that? "Oops, sorry, tough luck." This is a real human life here that was ended by a paid professional. These army boys are trained. They are there to serve a role, and we should insure that they are doing their job right - which means no killing random civilians on the street like trigger happy murderers - and if they aren't doing their job, which we are paying them do - then justice on them needs to be served. Even if its as simple as taking their wings away.

I don't even understand on what grounds can they possibly imagine that they should fire this vehicle. There is no sense in it at all. I mean, why are they so pissed that they are picking up dead bodies? What, to raise the dead by the hand of Satan? Have you asked yourself this? Why are they so upset that they were trying to pick up dead bodies? Is it because they want the americans to pick up the bodies before anyone can investigate? These men don't even sound worried or scared that it was an enemy, they just sound trigger happy. It's disgusting. The army should be ashamed, they should come clean and admit that they have murdered innocent people for stupid ass reasons.

If they don't come clean, we are the ones who are going to pay. We are the ones the terrorists will target in the future, fueled by events such as this. The army puts us in danger by lying and deceiving.

The other thing that should be noted is that as a soldier in Iraq they should be completely aware of the fact that there are professional news reporters that carry large cameras. To say that "I never would have guessed it was a camera" if you were in the position of that soldier speaks volumes about the situation. Soldiers can't be effective if they're not aware of what's going on in the region that they're active in. Not that these particular soldiers cared anyways. All they wanted to do was unload their guns. "C'moooon, lemme shoot."

Originally Posted by Caprisun

they acted within the rules of engagement and will not be subjected to courts-martial.

You never shoot unarmed people, who are trying to treat injuried people. That is a war crime. Even if it belonged to a terrorist group, you don't blow up medical vans.

Maybe we can get some confirmation: Is shooting at a vehicle that's picking up injured people a war crime? How does picking up weapons (like cameras) effect the situation?


Oh, and the solution: Put more money forward for higher resolution cameras on those Apaches. I know we spend so much money on making effective weapons, but it might be a good idea to put a good deal forth for that which we use to identify the targets that we shoot in the first place. The way it is is like having a warrior with horrible eyesight. I would otherwise suggest diplomatic solutions, but I don't think the military has any understanding of what that is.

Yeah, I just stumbled upon another article that picked up on it:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...d_it_is_us.php

It's just so obvious that noone is invading iraq to help the people.
Humanitarian reasons are usually far behind political or economical ones.

Originally Posted by dajo

Yeah, I just stumbled upon another article that picked up on it:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...d_it_is_us.php

It's just so obvious that noone is invading iraq to help the people.
Humanitarian reasons are usually far behind political or economical ones.

No one? Are you judging a 150,000 man effort by just a few evil assholes? Name one city with a population of 150,000 or more that doesn't have any evil scum living in it.

no, I was talking about nations. and I mean invasions also a little more generally.

I believe most of the soldiers probably think they do good there. Idk.
That's not how chain of comand works though, right? And not what I wanted to say.

FFS.. I found a youtube video with the full unedited video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sx...eature=channel

Go to 30+ min, at 34:50 they fire a hellfire missile into a building with clearly one or more several civilian causalities. They didn't care if a man just walked by.. a few minutes later they fire another hellfire, unfortunately there is no direct view of it, but a few seconds earlier you see several civilians approaching the rubble, probably to find survivors. Some of them were probably killed in that blast too.

Originally Posted by juroara

I don't care if a bunch of youtubers can't tell the difference if it's a camera or a weapon. The video we are watching isn't the same as the real 3D experience which always has more detail than some video online.

The gunner was looking through a screen, not the real thing. He saw the same thing we saw.

Originally Posted by juroara

If they can't tell the difference between a camera and a weapon, what's next? A cell phone and a gun?

Since you mentioned it, cells phones are the primary means of detonating an IED, a man lingering with a cell phone but not talking should be suspect. And you don't hold a gun up to your ear, so I think you'd be safe if you are talking on a phone. These large cameras had shoulder slings just like rifles do, the way these men carried their cameras was the same way a rifle can be carried.

Originally Posted by juroara

Marvo, I think you're the one missing the larger picture. Do you really think this is an isolated event?

It certainly isn't common practice. These tragities are the reality of a war amongst the people. There have been more instances of this type of event, but most can be attributed to the fog of war, something most civilians can't understand. These men aren't murderers and they aren't deliberately killing civilians. With that being said, their competency as soldiers deserves a harsh re-evaluation.

Originally Posted by Invader

The other thing that should be noted is that as a soldier in Iraq they should be completely aware of the fact that there are professional news reporters that carry large cameras. To say that "I never would have guessed it was a camera" if you were in the position of that soldier speaks volumes about the situation. Soldiers can't be effective if they're not aware of what's going on in the region that they're active in. Not that these particular soldiers cared anyways. All they wanted to do was unload their guns. "C'moooon, lemme shoot."

These weren't typical news reporters, they did not look or act like reporters. Reporters carry a microphone and talk into a camera as they walk.

Originally Posted by Invader

Maybe we can get some confirmation: Is shooting at a vehicle that's picking up injured people a war crime? How does picking up weapons (like cameras) effect the situation?

I can't speak for these men because I have no idea what was going through their heads at the time. They obviously made a huge mistake and they obviously have poor decision making skills. The only thing I can think is that they assumed the van was filled with his insurgent buddies, and that would mean they would get the guy and his rifle and nurse him back to health so he could fight another day. They are supposed to shoot to kill, not shoot to mame, otherwise their efforts would be in vain. I don't want anybody to think I support their decision, what they did was clearly wrong, but this is not a situation worthy of a court-martial.

The Americans who killed civilians are freedom fighters for the Iraqi people. They target civilians and kill the shit out of them because the United States is an occupier. That makes it okay.

What IS a situation worth court martial?
I remember in the beginning of the Afghanistan War that it seemed like every week a wedding was getting bombed. It seemed like every week many innocent people were being killed. It seems like these things happen a lot more than are reported. It seems like they only get caught once in a while. I am not saying that these are outright deliberate acts, but probably more of being better safe than sorry and then becoming desensitized and then really not caring enough.
What IS a war crime? Isn't leaving depleted Uranium around that gives generations of babies deformities and leukemia a war crime? It should be. Generations of innocent people will suffer long after the war is over.

The war is over. Obama has been president for more than a year.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The gunner was looking through a screen, not the real thing. He saw the same thing we saw.

They were looking through hi-res sights, not grainy camera footage.

Anyway, may I recite the words of Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer:

"'You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary.' Minimum force is the key here.

If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an Intelligence Officer: 'How can we take these guys and capture them? We don't want to kill people arbitrarily. We want the intel-take.

Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded: 'Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.' So the wound part of that, I'd find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down; clearly down. We have people on the way there. Again, speaking as an Intelligence Officer, my intent is to capture people; to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not doing that then you're not really doing precise combat."

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

They were looking through hi-res sights, not grainy camera footage.

I assure you, there are no optics that can give you a better view than what we saw. That was about as good as it gets. There are several types of optics that can be used in an Apache, one of which is the same camera feed that we saw. There are others factors such as movement, the size of the images, and preoccupation with other tasks that affect their ability to accurately designate targets.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Anyway, may I recite the words of Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer:

"'You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary.' Minimum force is the key here.

If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an Intelligence Officer: 'How can we take these guys and capture them? We don't want to kill people arbitrarily. We want the intel-take.

Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded: 'Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.' So the wound part of that, I'd find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down; clearly down. We have people on the way there. Again, speaking as an Intelligence Officer, my intent is to capture people; to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not doing that then you're not really doing precise combat."

This wasn't an intelligence mission. How do I know? Apaches don't do intelligence. The point of a recon mission is to get in, get information, and get out before anybody ever knew you were there. They wouldn't be hovering around looking for targets. It was clearly a security/escort mission.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

FFS.. I found a youtube video with the full unedited video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sx...eature=channel

Go to 30+ min, at 34:50 they fire a hellfire missile into a building with clearly one or more several civilian causalities. They didn't care if a man just walked by.. a few minutes later they fire another hellfire, unfortunately there is no direct view of it, but a few seconds earlier you see several civilians approaching the rubble, probably to find survivors. Some of them were probably killed in that blast too.

Yeah that's the video I was talking about. Kinda disproves everyone who's saying they did the right thing. Clearly just wanna shoot some shit.
It's a good thing the government have tiger woods to occupy the news. Wouldn't want anyone to see this.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I can't speak for these men because I have no idea what was going through their heads at the time. They obviously made a huge mistake and they obviously have poor decision making skills. The only thing I can think is that they assumed the van was filled with his insurgent buddies, and that would mean they would get the guy and his rifle and nurse him back to health so he could fight another day. They are supposed to shoot to kill, not shoot to mame, otherwise their efforts would be in vain. I don't want anybody to think I support their decision, what they did was clearly wrong, but this is not a situation worthy of a court-martial.

Outright wrong.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Chapter II : Wounded and sick

The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.
No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.
The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/3...2?OpenDocument

Btw, did any of you see the 39 minutes part? It seems to have been neglected in the media, as three families died by those missiles, and several civilians walking by the building.

JULIAN ASSANGE:

"Something that has been missed in some of the press reportage about this is that there is a third attack, just twenty minutes later, by the same crew, involving three Hellfire missiles fired onto an apartment complex where the roof was still under construction. We have fresh evidence from Baghdad that there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women. And we sent a team down there to collect that evidence. So that is in the full video we released, not in the shortened one, because we didn’t yet have that additional evidence. Innocent bystanders walking down the street are also killed in that attack. "

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6...pe_us_military

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I assure you, there are no optics that can give you a better view than what we saw. That was about as good as it gets. There are several types of optics that can be used in an Apache, one of which is the same camera feed that we saw. There are others factors such as movement, the size of the images, and preoccupation with other tasks that affect their ability to accurately designate targets.

I was under the impression that the optics don't record themselves, which is why the Apache has a coax camera that records the footage. Both the optics and the camera are gimbaled to the pilot's helmet display which is why it follows his head movements.

However, the pilot doesn't see the camera feed; the camera and the optics are separate on the Apache. Your statement might be true with night vision, but this was during the day using electronic sights. The camera is obviously not made to be as clear as the pilot optics...because it's a camera.

This wasn't an intelligence mission. How do I know? Apaches don't do intelligence. The point of a recon mission is to get in, get information, and get out before anybody ever knew you were there. They wouldn't be hovering around looking for targets. It was clearly a security/escort mission.

I never said it was an intelligence mission...Where are you getting that from? Yes, Lt. Col. Shaffer is an Intelligence Officer but that has no bearing on what the mission was.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Outright wrong.

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Chapter II : Wounded and sick

The military authorities may appeal to the charity of the inhabitants voluntarily to collect and care for, under their direction, the wounded and sick, granting persons who have responded to this appeal the necessary protection and facilities. Should the adverse party take or retake control of the area, he shall likewise grant these persons the same protection and the same facilities.
The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.
No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick.
The provisions of the present Article do not relieve the occupying Power of its obligation to give both physical and moral care to the wounded and sick.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/3...2?OpenDocument

Btw, did any of you see the 39 minutes part? It seems to have been neglected in the media, as three families died by those missiles, and several civilians walking by the building.

JULIAN ASSANGE:

"Something that has been missed in some of the press reportage about this is that there is a third attack, just twenty minutes later, by the same crew, involving three Hellfire missiles fired onto an apartment complex where the roof was still under construction. We have fresh evidence from Baghdad that there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women. And we sent a team down there to collect that evidence. So that is in the full video we released, not in the shortened one, because we didn’t yet have that additional evidence. Innocent bystanders walking down the street are also killed in that attack. "

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/6...pe_us_military

Oh, am I outright wrong? Things are rarely so black and white in a war zone. The more I watch it, the more I do think those cameras looked like weapons and the less I think those men acted like "news media." That wasn't an ambulance, it was a van. Those weren't medical personnel, they were his friends. They showed up moments after he was shot when the fire fight was not yet over, meaning their attepmt to recover those bodies could be seen as interference with the mission. I also think you've misunderstood the Geneva conventions. Most all of those laws regarding the treatment of victims of war apply mainly to the period after the fight. During a battle, you have the right to shoot and kill an enemy combatant. The laws were put in place so soldiers couldn't walk around after the fight and put bullets in the heads of all of the wounded soldiers. Do you think they just get one shot and then they are shit out of luck if he survives? That isn't how war works and that isn't what the Geneva Conventions state.

I just watched the scene with the van again and picked up on something I missed before. They shot the van because the ground forces told them that they needed to arrive at the scene with everything remaining as it originally was. The people in the van were seen as interfering with the mission by collecting all of the bodies. It didn't help that they were civilians and not official medical personnel. At least that's what I picked up from the radio communication.

I want to reiterate that I think these men made the absolute wrong decision here and they should be relieved of their duties and transfered elsewhere. It is only natural for me to try to see things from their perspective since nobody else seemed to be giving them the benefit of the doubt. I still don't think this is a case that can or will see any legal recourse. I think I'll stop making excuses for them though.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I was under the impression that the optics don't record themselves, which is why the Apache has a coax camera that records the footage. Both the optics and the camera are gimbaled to the pilot's helmet display which is why it follows his head movements.

However, the pilot doesn't see the camera feed; the camera and the optics are separate on the Apache. Your statement might be true with night vision, but this was during the day using electronic sights. The camera is obviously not made to be as clear as the pilot optics...because it's a camera.

I'll admit I am not an apache pilot and I have never been in an apache cockpit. I was under the impression though that there is a tv monitor in the cockpit that shows the camera feed, if not a tv monitor then it would be the eye peice that can access the camera feed. Any type of scope or optics that allows them to see the actual scene would almost certainly show less detail than the camera at that distance. The officers who gave permission to engage were also watching the camera feed.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I never said it was an intelligence mission...Where are you getting that from? Yes, Lt. Col. Shaffer is an Intelligence Officer but that has no bearing on what the mission was.

That was an intelligence officer describing how he conducts an intelligence mission. It is obvious. The tactics for reconaissance and a security escort are distinctly different. The rules of engagement for escorts are much more lax than reconaissance. It is sometimes necessary to proactively eliminate threats when you are escorting or providing security for and important person or important people. Those are some of the only circumstances where the rules of engagement allow you to engage enemies that have not already engaged you. Those were cleary the rules for this incident which leads me to believe they were providing security for someone on the ground. The rules of engagement are in constant flux, there is no universal set of rules that are applied to every situation. Technically they acted within the rules of engagement for that incident.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

O
I'll admit I am not an apache pilot and I have never been in an apache cockpit. I was under the impression though that there is a tv monitor in the cockpit that shows the camera feed, if not a tv monitor then it would be the eye peice that can access the camera feed. Any type of scope or optics that allows them to see the actual scene would almost certainly show less detail than the camera at that distance. The officers who gave permission to engage were also watching the camera feed.

The optics are higher quality than the camera feed, so they wouldn't show less detail.

If the officers were watching the camera feed, then they saw what we saw, and that was blocky dark objects. Their pilots mistakenly said they were weapons (how is beyond me). The officers saw what they wanted to see based off what their pilots told them: weapons.

That was an intelligence officer describing how he conducts an intelligence mission. It is obvious.

Shaffer never stated this. True he said "as an intelligence officer, I'm looking for X, Y, Z..." but he didn't say it was an intelligence mission.

Either way, he would not be so ignorant as to confuse the "intelligence mission rules of engagement" and the "security escort rules of engagement."

Soldiers are to retaliate with minimum force (or something equal to the force being used by the opposition) and must capture/interrogate wounded people.

Its the same as shooting someone with a mobile because it may be a bomb trigger, just stupid. The UK army is not as good as it used to be, but its a godsend compared to the redneck inbreeds that think going to war because playing call of duty on there Xbox was fun so why not kill people for real....

Originally Posted by IndigoGhost

Its the same as shooting someone with a mobile because it may be a bomb trigger, just stupid. The UK army is not as good as it used to be, but its a godsend compared to the redneck inbreeds that think going to war because playing call of duty on there Xbox was fun so why not kill people for real....

lol, I hope you are not referring to the whole US army with that.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The optics are higher quality than the camera feed, so they wouldn't show less detail.

If the officers were watching the camera feed, then they saw what we saw, and that was blocky dark objects. Their pilots mistakenly said they were weapons (how is beyond me). The officers saw what they wanted to see based off what their pilots told them: weapons.

How do you know that? If the pilots thought they saw weapons, then the optics they used couldn't have been much better than the camera feed, so it doesn't really matter. If you are suggesting that they knew they were cameras and not weapons, but decided to play them off as weapons just so they could shoot, you have no basis for making that claim.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Shaffer never stated this. True he said "as an intelligence officer, I'm looking for X, Y, Z..." but he didn't say it was an intelligence mission.

Either way, he would not be so ignorant as to confuse the "intelligence mission rules of engagement" and the "security escort rules of engagement."

Soldiers are to retaliate with minimum force (or something equal to the force being used by the opposition) and must capture/interrogate wounded people.

Is that quote directly related to this incident? If not, I'm about 99% sure you're taking that quote out of context. Mission objectives and rules of engagement vary. What this man described was exactly what an intelligence officer looks for and his statement is not in any way related to this video. A helicopter pilot that is providing security for a convoy isn't looking to capture individuals and gather intelligence, they are looking to eliminate any threats that could harm that convoy, plain and simple. I'm sure Shaffer would agree.

Originally Posted by IndigoGhost

Its the same as shooting someone with a mobile because it may be a bomb trigger, just stupid. The UK army is not as good as it used to be, but its a godsend compared to the redneck inbreeds that think going to war because playing call of duty on there Xbox was fun so why not kill people for real....

I think you mean "inbred rednecks."

Originally Posted by Caprisun

How do you know that? If the pilots thought they saw weapons, then the optics they used couldn't have been much better than the camera feed, so it doesn't really matter. If you are suggesting that they knew they were cameras and not weapons, but decided to play them off as weapons just so they could shoot, you have no basis for making that claim.

I think it is a case for soldiers acting hastily and without care.

Is that quote directly related to this incident? If not, I'm about 99% sure you're taking that quote out of context. Mission objectives and rules of engagement vary. What this man described was exactly what an intelligence officer looks for and his statement is not in any way related to this video. A helicopter pilot that is providing security for a convoy isn't looking to capture individuals and gather intelligence, they are looking to eliminate any threats that could harm that convoy, plain and simple. I'm sure Shaffer would agree.

Yes, the quote is directly related to the incident.

The video where Shaffer said this is at the bottom of the article:

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/ret...iolated-rules/

"They thought they had weapons" is an extremely weak excuse. How anxious was that guy to pull the trigger? I think verifying that what they had were actual weapons was put on the back burner in this situation. It's pretty obvious they were just looking for what they'd call a good time. I'd say the laughing and congratulating themselves on the pile of bodies they made was a good indication of this.

I see a whole lot of commenting and opinions from people who have absolutely no idea what its like to be in a situation like that. Good god people, when shit happens, morality and critical thinking almost disappear. To show you what i mean I'm going to go ahead and tell you a little story.

Since I've been in Afghanistan, I've been shot at, hit with several IEDs, and seen young soldiers of several different nationalities blown apart. To say the least, life is tense out here. About 4 months ago a suicide bomber on a motorcycle decided to blow up my convoy. He was traveling along the side of the road, swerved onto the road as we were passing, and detonated next to our lead truck. I had the pleasure of seeing his head and neck flying through the air. Some of my guys got wounded, and thankfully nothing more because it was a small bomb. The attack could have been stopped had the guys on our truck shot him. Since then I've been a little more cautious with who i let near our vechicles. This is why we have "EOF"

EOF is "escalation of force". We honk or horns first, then aim our weapons, then fire a warning shot, and only THEN do we use lethal force. I've had to do the whole thing more than once. And it hasn't always been against insurgents.After watching this video, I can tell you several things. 1) The video has been doctored so that you don't see much of the leadup to the engagement. They were obviously watching those guys for a while before that. 2) The Apache operators used proper EOF for helicopter pilots (EOF depends on different jobs. Obviously a helicopter pilot isnt going to honk his horn) 3) I saw weapons. ABSOLUTELY. There were definately AK style weapons and I believe i saw a guy slinging around an RPG tube (with no warhead on it) at about 3:50 into the video.

Notice how they didnt shoot the guy who was crawling. Good job pilots on that. What happened from then on IS NOT PROPER EOF. The van should not have been shot. Whoever gave them permission to fire made the wrong decison.

Its regretable that innocent people died. But I would have done the same thing. This shit sucks, Im telling you. Either risk killing innocent people, or risk letting your friends get killed. It just sucks.

A question that needs to get asked though. What the hell were these reporters doing with armed men in civilian clothing?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think it is a case for soldiers acting hastily and without care.

So do I.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Yes, the quote is directly related to the incident.

The video where Shaffer said this is at the bottom of the article:

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/ret...iolated-rules/

Then it is a case of the newspaper appealing to the wrong authority and an intelligence officer misrepresenting the situation. He says things like "as an intellgence officer my intent is ___" and "the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer is ____." He would never be on a mission like this because he is an intelligence officer and it wasn't an intelligence gathering mission. The officers in charge did not have the same intent or the same orders or the same objectives as Lt. Col. Shaffer. Security escorts are not looking to take prisoners and gather intelligence.