Thread: The murder of innocence

Im just saying, walking around in a warzone, with weapons, in civilian clothing, peeking around corners, with an American convoy nearby is a great way to get shot up by an Apache. As I said, I would have done the exact same thing.

And yes, it is legal to own guns in Iraq. Each household is allowed 1 AK47 with 1 magazine of ammo for home protection. It is no legal, however, to walk around the streets in large groups holding those weapons. That shows obvious hostile intent, and, once again, a great way to get shot up by an Apache.

"Which brings up another point. You can't just shoot anyone you see who has a gun, what the hell happened to the right to bear arms?"

Iraq is not America.

Originally Posted by Alric

Hmm so why was the reporters with a group of armed men? Maybe so they can avoid getting shot by terrorists? Or maybe for protection so they dont get captured and have their heads cut off? Apparently they should of been more worried about the US military however.

I read that as....

Originally Posted by Alric

Hmm so why was the reporters with a group of armed men? Maybe so they can avoid getting shot by terrorists? Or maybe for protection so they dont get captured and have their heads cut off? Apparently they should of been more worried about the terrorists.

Are you calling me a terrorist tommo? Interesting...

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

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.

I have already linked to the full unedited 39 minutes video, watch it!

1. The pilot/gunner broke the Geneva convention, as I have stated earlier. The Geneva convention is made to not be ambiguous, and it is clearly not when it addresses spontaneously medical help for the wounded, on either site!!

2. The pilot/gunner took no consideration of civilian causalities, see post #32.

3. The pilot/gunner did not took time the appropriate for PID, they were hasty in all judgement calls, especially concerning the van, which picked up a wounded man. They failed to see two children in the van, which was possible. They failed to recognise that it could be good Samaritans (Those are protected by the Geneva Convention). The van was no threat.

4. The pilot/gunner made a serious error in judgement from +34:00 and onwards, several civilians are blasted dead. They made NO COMMUNICATION of the present of civilians, and did not communicate about the fact that they clearly blew up civilians, not even once, but three times. They saw one individual with a weapon walking into a large building, and by killing him they killed the bystanders and the tree families inside. At least 10 civilians bodies were found.

In the time frame of 40 minutes, several civilians (12-20) was killed by the same Apache in more than one event. It is clearly shown that the use of force did not match the threat, they fired upon.

Look for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

You obviously didn't read all of my first post. I addressed the shooting of the van. That was clearly a violation of ROE. But as for seeing children in the van? Maybe, maybe not. And as for PID, i think the crew did a very textbook job of PID. But what do I know.

And you'll have to excuse me from watching the whole 40 minute video. My internet connection here in Afghanistan is pretty crappy, and that would take the better part of a day to load. I'll try to address the rest of your points as soon as i figure out what you're talking about (ie dudes running into buildings and 20 civilians getting killed)

Until then, explain to me what you mean by "shown that the use of force did not match the threat". Do you mean that if an insurgent is shooting an assault rifle at me, that im only allowed to shoot an assault rifle back? And only if he pulls out a machine gun, then I am allowed to use mine?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Are you calling me a terrorist tommo? Interesting...

It was a joke. But in some instances, yes, American Soldiers are terrorists.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Until then, explain to me what you mean by "shown that the use of force did not match the threat". Do you mean that if an insurgent is shooting an assault rifle at me, that im only allowed to shoot an assault rifle back? And only if he pulls out a machine gun, then I am allowed to use mine?

No, you obviously have to view the video to see what I mean.

1 individual enter a building, he has 1 AK-47, he is not in combat. They fire three hellfire missiles into the building. Excessive use of force. When you see the civilians getting blasted, and knowing that three families lived inside, you will know what I mean.

Originally Posted by tommo

It was a joke. But in some instances, yes, American Soldiers are terrorists.

When?

The American convoy was something 8 miles away. You can't blame people for stuff going on even two miles away within a city. There is a good chance they probably didn't even know they were there.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

No, you obviously have to view the video to see what I mean.

1 individual enter a building, he has 1 AK-47, he is not in combat. They fire three hellfire missiles into the building. Excessive use of force. When you see the civilians getting blasted, and knowing that three families lived inside, you will know what I mean.

Ah yes, I remember that being mentioned. Hellfires aren't a joke. And what you're describing is blatant misuse of them. Being a ground soldier myself, i would much rather have had the apache keep eyes on the building until we got there and done a raid. We're pretty good at that shit and its much safer in a city setting.

And alric, even if they didn't know there was a convoy nearby, its still a really bad idea to be carrying on like that. I mean, come on. That looked like a standard insurgent ambush in the works. Assuming these guys were not out to cause trouble, they should at least be wearing a uniform of some kind to identify themselves as friendly armed guards, or whatever they hell they were supposed to be. Shit, even these poor ass afghani police guys have uniforms

Originally Posted by Marvo

A lot of people need to see the bigger picture though. Why do we need attack helicopters flying around in Iraq in the first place?

I was thinking the same thing. Seems like the US is trying to take over Iraq by force...no gatherings...no people allowed on the street, if your holding ANYTHING you will be shot.

I'm surprised they didn't shoot the guy that was shot, crawling on the curb.


And it's sick because their laughing about it the whole time, like their playing call of duty or some shit. Running over dead bodies with tanks and shit.

This kind of shit makes me ashamed to be an American.

Life in general is so depressing and sad and miserable...like wtf, ....I see why people go on killing sprees and end up committing suicide. Life is so fucked up...that's why I still smile through the bullshit. It's the only way to keep your sanity.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I was thinking the same thing. Seems like the US is trying to take over Iraq by force...no gatherings...no people allowed on the street, if your holding ANYTHING you will be shot.

Thats just not the case. Trust me

Do you guys know the kinds of videos that DON'T make it on the web? The ones of apaches investigating a scene and nothing happens. The ones with no shooting of any kind. It happens hundreds of times every day, and way, WAY more often than engagements.

And as for the laughing while shooting, its freggin combat. Adrenaline has strange effects, and yes, even helicopter crews get adrenaline rushes before shooting. After I got blown up, and after checking to make sure my legs were still there, the first thing I did was laugh my ass off. Same during firefights. Its a natural reaction to deal with the incredible stress, not because we think death and pain are funny. Like you said yourself Majestic, its the only way to keep your sanity.

Originally Posted by Alric

I think what you and many others are forgetting, is that its legal to own guns in Iraq. What a big shocker. Ak-47s which are legal to own in the US, are also legal to own in iraq.

Which brings up another point. You can't just shoot anyone you see who has a gun, what the hell happened to the right to bear arms?

Hmm so why was the reporters with a group of armed men? Maybe so they can avoid getting shot by terrorists? Or maybe for protection so they dont get captured and have their heads cut off? Apparently they should of been more worried about the US military however.

You clearly have not taken into consideration the fact that they're in a state of war. Yes, it's legal to own and carry a weapon in Iraq, but not during a war. War journalists do not carry weapons. If they did, they would be considered dangerous by soldiers of either side of the war and would be shot much more often. They usually have special vests on or are otherwise clearly distinguished as journalists. Things like this are the exact reason for that.

You can't see enough to identify exactly what they're holding, but there is a definite problem with one part. When the guy is peeking around the corner, the way he is posed and holding his camera (?) is easily interpreted as holding a weapon ready to fire.

The soldiers in the video were doing exactly what they were there to do - prevent an ambush. These reporters should have done something to identify them as reporters. Why did they fail to notify the military of their movements? Why did they fail to show ANY signs of being journalists?

How can you say that the military was in the wrong when you have no idea what it's like to be shot at and have to kill people on a daily basis as part of your job?

That said... I don't understand why they opened fire on the van. It wasn't a threat.

And with regards to the soldiers laughing about it... that's just what they do. If you can't be comfortable with killing people, then you don't belong in a war.

Originally Posted by Vampyre

And with regards to the soldiers laughing about it... that's just what they do. If you can't be comfortable with killing people, then you don't belong in a war.

Am I the only one that when I read such?

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Thats just not the case. Trust me

Do you guys know the kinds of videos that DON'T make it on the web? The ones of apaches investigating a scene and nothing happens. The ones with no shooting of any kind. It happens hundreds of times every day, and way, WAY more often than engagements.

And as for the laughing while shooting, its freggin combat. Adrenaline has strange effects, and yes, even helicopter crews get adrenaline rushes before shooting. After I got blown up, and after checking to make sure my legs were still there, the first thing I did was laugh my ass off. Same during firefights. Its a natural reaction to deal with the incredible stress, not because we think death and pain are funny. Like you said yourself Majestic, its the only way to keep your sanity.

Good point.

I've never been in combat, but I've been in fights without weapons. I know that people who have never been in fights are far from understanding what it's like to be in that situation. I haven't been in one since I was 16, but I remember that I would literally go into a majorly altered state of consciousness, not feel anything physically, and be concentrating 100% on two things-- protect myself and subdue him. I am sure combat with weapons is that experience multiple fold, which would mean a whole new system of behavioral patterns and indications applies.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Am I the only one that when I read such?

Indeed, it is unfortunate, but it's true. Reporters shouldn't even be in warzones, but they insist on getting that story...

Originally Posted by Caprisun

When?

Are you reading the god dam thread?

Some people have brought up some interesting stuff in the last few posts.

I didn't think about the adrenaline thing tbh.
It makes sense. But there's still no reason to shoot up the building/people/passersby or kids.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Am I the only one that when I read such?

Why? That much is obvious. Do you want a bunch of pussies going to kill people who are a threat and then start crying at the last minute?
No of course not. That's what army training does anyway. It breaks you down and virtually makes you a killing machine.

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Am I the only one that when I read such?

It's true. To this point, I've had no emotional problems with it. Maybe later in my life I'll feel different. One instance in particular is literally the most proud moment of my life. But I know people who have EXTREME problems with firing on enemies during combat. They break down, have panic attacks, and make rash and wrong decisions. NOT GOOD in a combat situation. Fortunately this is not the case for everyone.

But PTSD percentages are higher than ever....even for soldiers who don't experience combat

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

even for soldiers who don't experience combat

Compensation is good.

This was the main topic on the Colbert Report tonight. Stephen Colbert actually argued, quite seriously, in defense of the pilots. It was great. It was one of the few times I've seen him get serious. He almost seemed pissed off at the guy who made the video. Apparently this video has been edited to make it seem worse than it was, and that didn't sit right with Stephen Colbert.

Are you sure? I didn't see tonights episode, but Colbert's character stands for everything Colbert makes fun of!

Originally Posted by juroara

Are you sure? I didn't see tonights episode, but Colbert's character stands for everything Colbert makes fun of!

I was thinking the same thing, this seemed genuine though. Usually he fakes like he's angry for a few seconds and then makes a joke to release the tension, but this time he kept it up til the very end without any jokes. I think he was serious, but you'll have to judge for yourself.

Well,.... he really did seem to get upset, because they just chose the hardly
objective words 'collateral murder', while the majority of the people aren't
even going to view the footage. But that was one argument, where he seemed
out of character. And I would agree, since I really don't like populist agendas..
But he was upset, because of manipulation of information, rather then
defending anybody.

On the other hand, he invited Julian Assange, had him explain the reasons
why wikileaks is important with his typical 'but why is it better to know? How
does it make me happier and not just angrier? Isn't ignorance bliss?' - pitching
the interviewee the right questions. He was also ending on this and that was
the main vibe of that segment, imo.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

It's true. To this point, I've had no emotional problems with it. Maybe later in my life I'll feel different. One instance in particular is literally the most proud moment of my life. But I know people who have EXTREME problems with firing on enemies during combat. They break down, have panic attacks, and make rash and wrong decisions. NOT GOOD in a combat situation. Fortunately this is not the case for everyone.

But PTSD percentages are higher than ever....even for soldiers who don't experience combat

No one should ever be comfortable with killing people. When one has gotten comfortable with taking lives, a certain threshold has been crossed. A part of the person has been lost forever.

It's not that one should have panic attacks or give in to fear, not at all. The step from being comfortable with taking lives, to having little or no respect for life (ruthlessness) and thus being immoral is short. The pilot/gunner is a sad example of this ruthlessness.

You have probably had no emotional problems with it, because the mind is actively employing various defence mechanism, these are active while you are in the war situation. When you are out of the war situation, the defence mechanism will be lowered or removed, and thus expose you to what is left of emotional baggage. In short, you cannot afford the emotional baggage now, so it is postponed to a safe condition (when home again).

I hope you don't get PTSD. Here's a study of the deciding factors, both protecting and causing. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/informati...retelicJTS.pdf
The knowledge may help, if the protecting factors can be strengthened.