A request for fairness in reference to the Iraq video

[NJmaverick]

I have watched the troubling video from Iraq. I have also seen it described here on DU. It looks to me that there could have been weapons in that crowd. It also looks to me like the pilot and gunner should have shown more restraint. However that judgment I temper with the fact that I am viewing it from the safety of my computer and not in an unarmored helicopter where I could be killed by either an AK47 or an RPG. Still it looks to me like the pilot and gunner exercised poor judgment.

Now what I find troubling is DUers calling it murder and the like. What is CRYSTAL CLEAR from that video is that the pilot and the gunner BELIEVED THEY WERE FIRING ON ARMED INSURGENTS. So it is not only inaccurate to call what happened murder but by doing so you insult every person that puts on the uniform in defense of our nation.

Be mad at George Bush for putting those men in that situation. Be mad at the senseless tragedy. Hell, be mad at the men for exercising poor judgment. BUT PLEASE TO NOT CALL IT MURDER OR DESCRIBE THE MEN AS COLD BLOODED KILLERS.

[aSpeckofDust]

1. ...

Firing on the group as a preceived threat was not murder. Firing on the van as people tried to help wounded, that was murder.

[NJmaverick]

2. Again in the video you hear the pilot and the gunner talk about the van taking the weapons away

they believed them to be more armed and dangerous insurgents

[Warren Stupidity]

11. And again clearly in the video you could SEE THEY WERE LYING

No weapons. Nothing. People attempting to rescue a wounded person. No weapons at all.

[NJmaverick]

17. What I saw were objects being carried that appeared to be an AK47 and an RPG

or they could not have been. You don't have to spam this thread to make your point. You have already made it clear you have rejected the call for fairness. No one is doubting you.

[sabrina 1]

66. Funny you would see that.

Fairness, to the invaders? How about fairness to the people whose country they unlawfully occupy and have completely destroyed?

I don't care what they saw or didn't see. They shouldn't be there. They are invaders, working for a corrupt organization and every death of an Iraqi citizen at their hands is a crime, it IS murder. The most blame goes to this government who sent them there.

The Military already issued a report on this two years ago.

Unfortuantely that report differs from what we see now in the video.

No defense! None, for the unlawful invasion that has killed 1.4 million human beings for profit.

Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. They lied to get the support of the American people.

America with its killer army and mercenaries and inhumane torturers and drones and all of its corrupt contractors, needs to get out of that country.

People aren't interested in trying to excuse this. This is just one of who knows how many such killings that we won't get to see? The only fact is, they, the troops are in the wrong place, and they should know that by now.

[shedevil69taz]

70. Some of us do know it

we would rather not go to jail for refusing to go though, and after we get out having our lives ruined for all the years after we are done with the military service for having a dishonorable discharge.

[sabrina 1]

86. I understand that ~ and I feel for those who do know

it. In a way it is easier to believe in the 'mission'. At least until they are out of the military. As I said, I blame this government for sending them there ...

I am very sorry for the position you have been placed in ... :cry:

[shedevil69taz]

129. Don't feel sorry for me

feel sorry for the families of those that didn't come back. I never believed in this mission, but I believe in MY mission. I work in a field that allows me to provide access to fellow soldiers internet and free phonecalls to their family members.

[lumpy]

210. The object being seen was a body. Get reading glasses.

v

[coti]

16. They didn't go for any weapons- they went straight for the DYING MAN ON THE SIDEWALK.

They picked him up and were trying to put him in the van, with the children that were inside of it, presumably to get him medical help.

There was nothing about what the two men in the van did that said anything other than "we're helping this seriously wounded man on the sidewalk." ZERO. There was NO EXCUSE for firing on that van.

[NJmaverick]

20. I did not see any children in the van prior to the Apache opening fire

[coti]

That there were children in the van only goes to the true intention of the men,

but still backs up the total absence of appearance of any threat on their part. There was no excuse to shoot them.

[NJmaverick]

25. I wouldn't argue that the men in the van had good intentions

I am saying the men in the air had a different, if mistaken, impression. Again I think the best thing would have been to hold fire.

[coti]

33. An "impression" (would "wish" be a more accurate term?) for which there was zero evidence.

And I mean NONE. Not a shred.

[NJmaverick]

44. You know it was Atticus Finch that once said

don't judge a man until you walk a mile in their moccasins. You have to put yourself in the mindset of the pilot and the gunner who believed they had just shot a half dozen or so armed insurgents. Now with that mindset how do you think they viewed a van that pulled up to aid what they say as the "bad guys"?

[coti]

47. I did. I already gave them a pretty generous pass for killing the first group of men.

But that was because there was ambiguity regarding immediately present facts in that situation, i.e., whether the group of men were carrying weapons, and it could be seen some of them were carrying something.

That's as far as I go with the benefit of the doubt in war- and that is generous, well beyond the restrictions put on police officers in their use of deadly force. When a soldier takes it to a level even further than that and starts killing people who are clearly carrying no weapons, they have crossed over into "I can pretty much kill anyone I want to" territory. That's inhuman. That's killing people just because they live in Iraq. And, yes, dehumanizing the enemy is a necessary part of war, but one has to have at least some evidence that a person being killed actually is the enemy. There was simply no evidence at all in this case- amazingly enough- because they weren't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. +1

[Bluerthanblue]

110. did we have evidence that the school children in Hiroshima

were actually the enemy?

They dropped the bomb knowing that many MANY innocent civilians would suffer and die.

How do you rationalize that fact.
It was technically pre-meditated murder of innocents.


WAR is a crime against humanity.

It's easy for you to say what you would have done in their circumstances, but you weren't. They were- and our country put them there despite many of our efforts to stop it.

We all own this.

[coti]

122. I'm not getting into this discussion, but those bombs were dropped

in the very well-reasoned and thoughtful moral calculation that many, many hundreds of thousands more soldiers, on both sides, and Japanese civilians would have been killed if we had to launch an invasion of the island of Japan and found ourselves in the very same kind of urban warfare you saw in that video.

Those bombs were meant to put an end to the war against a sovereign nation's government (that did attack us, mind you) through a show of overwhelming force, which is exactly what they did. There is no comparison between the two situations.

[Bluerthanblue]

132. in order to stop the war, and save thousands of lives innocents

needed to die.

Truman knew what he was doing. He knew full well that many innocent civilians would suffer and die. He made the decision to do what he did weighing that fact against an invasion of the island of Japan. We can only guess what would really have happened.

It's easy for people to condemn the soldiers in the video as cold blooded killers. I'm sure that many would have said the same to the crew of the Enola Gay- I'm not looking to judge them. I'm trying to illustrate the futility of 'war'.

The comparison between the two situations is glaring. Until everyone is able to see WAR as the failure it is, we will continue to have new events to regret/defend.

[coti]

133. I agree with your point about the futility of war- which is why ending it quickly is the best thing

to do- but I don't think that deliberately killing civilians in Iraq helps the situation we're in or gets us closer to the end of the war, as it did in Japan.

That's why I'm saying it's not a good comparison.

[Bluerthanblue]

141. I completely agree with you that the killing of civilians

in Iraq isn't getting us anywhere other than farther down the hell hole we are stuck in. I'm not in any way defending the killings. In Iraq or in Hiroshima. I don't believe the actions taken by those in the video helped us get any closer to stopping the madness.

I'm not sure that ending it quickly as we did in Japan would be a good solution either. There really isn't a 'good' way out of this. I do know that there is a different tactic being employed in areas of Afghanistan which is much more dangerous for our troops, but also has the potential to save lives. This video was taken in 2007, but it is still important for the people involved to be investigated.

Many of the posts about this incident are full of over-the-top ranting and venting which changes nothing. It's really frustrating to watch the media use the public this way. What do people really think happens in war? Innocents die, and everyone suffers.

I'm not excusing this- sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

[lumpy]

212. We who are against these senseless wars don't own a damn

thing.

[lumpy]

211. Hey, those GIs were itching to fire...at anything.

v

[coti]

9. Bingo.

Agreed. A line was crossed at the van.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Ummm.... they killed *journalists* , unless I read it wrong. nt

>>>>>So it is not only inaccurate to call what happened murder but by doing so you insult every person that puts on the uniform in defense of our nation.>>>>>>>>

Oh.... fer Pete's sake. Give it up.


And assume it was an "honest" mistake: it's OK to cover it up for three years?

[NJmaverick]

4. There was nothing to assume, the audio made their beliefs and intentions quite clear

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The audio made it clear they really liked killing people.

[NJmaverick]

14. That was a false statement

then you have already explained that you had rejected the call for fairness.

[KonaKane]

37. Laughing at someone getting shot is a show of compassion?

Wow.

[kenny blankenship]

50. The gunner begs the crawling wounded man to grab a weapon. So he can shoot him again.

or just to get up. So he can shoot him again.

They beg their controller for clearance to shoot up the ambulance.

The word fairness is tortured and defiled when someone like you utters it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. The hoping he would pick up a weapon so he could shoot him again doesn't bother me

For one thing that comment is an implicit acknowledgment that it would be wrong to shoot him again if he did not do anything threatening. In war there can be a psychological need to make things black or white when possible. If your job is to shoot at people you want to believe that those people need to be killed, deserve to be killed even. If the man who was crawling had tried to fight back the decision to shoot him in the first place would have felt vindicated. That actually was one of the comments they made that I can somewhat understand. That isn't true of all of them.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. There were no weapons in sight. Never were.

There was a reuters photgrapher with a camera, and that is as close to a weapon as there was.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. It could be argued that hoping the wounded man picked up a weapon...

...supports a contention that the soldiers thought there were weapons in the viscinity that he plausibly could pick up. But I was actually just commenting on why someone could feel that way about looking for a solid reaon to shoot again. They did shoot again anyway, without a solid reason.

[kenny blankenship]

91. The issue upthread was, did they have itchy trigger fingers and get off on killing

That's been established now by their own words. Over and above the "psychological needs" you posit, there are also essential RULES for shooting at people in this occupation. It's also well established by the clip these guys were chafing at those rules. Those rules appear to be the only thing holding them back at all - and barely. I would say that it's plain that as much as this crew chafed at rules restricting the continuation of fire, they had the same contemptuous attitude for rules restricting the initiation of fire. Their designation of the group of civilians as a target in the first place shows their casual contempt for the rules and the Iraqi people. There is simply no threat in that picture, only men standing and walking around. I guesstimate the range at about a thousand yards at most. At a thousand yards you can damn sure hear 2 Apache gunship helicopters circling you, and yet the targeted men show no sign of alarm or intent to conceal themselves. They don't take cover or disperse. They stand out in the CENTER of a square. They walk down the MIDDLE of a fucking street. When they move towards a building they all STAND UP STRAIGHT AND TOGETHER IN A BUNCH ON THE SIDEWALK LIKE BOWLING PINS. If there was something hostile in the mere appearance of a dozen or so men, consideration of their non-hostile behavior should have brought on a CLOSER LOOK from the gunship crews. Instead they just lied to their controllers about the presence of RPGs and so forth. They begged for clearance to fire and then fired away with pleasure.

Then the ambulance showed up and they fired on that, too.

[Pavulon]

99. There was no ambulance, watch the video THEN comment.

watch it all. note the guy peeking around cover, then note the gunship requesting someone on the ground take pictures. Not generally what you do in a cover up.

[kenny blankenship]

106. I watched it all, gunslinger.

God help the people around you.

[Pavulon]

113. God help the civilians who issue orders and write the checks for this

you send people to go kill others you dont get to handicap the game. Short of some UCMJ infraction there is no crime in that tape. Now in your reality, you can go arrest bush and obama for the war, the real world does not work that way.

[Hannah Bell]

138. the poster sends no one anywhere, issued no orders, wrote no checks for arms.

and those soldiers had a choice of whether to go or not, whether to shoot or not.

i have some sympathy for the position of the ordinary soldier, but it has limits. there's still choice, even for a footsoldier.

[Pavulon]

177. No choice actually. You elect the men who made that happen.

blaming a warrant officer getting permission to fire on a questionable target is not effective. The blame falls with the people elected who issue the orders (civilians) and pay for them (more civilians). The soldiers job is to kill the enemy, the politician makes that happen.

NEVER forget that, and please remember that a soldier can not just walk away from the military. Its not walmart, you dont get to quit.

[Hannah Bell]

180. you can walk away if you're willing to take the consequences.

i nearly lost my livelihood for anti-war activity, so i don't have so much sympathy for your storyline.

as for the responsibility of the electorate - yes, i notice how well the latest "anti-war" administration is working out. we can vote for the war party or the more war party.

fuck your bullshit rationalisations.

[Pavulon]

185. Yep, fuck em. I deployed as part of IFOR / KFOR

fucking up my life, marriage, and in retrospect still worth it to help prevent a european shooting war and stop genocide. Because, Milosevich was not really interested in "please".

you did not go to prison as a felon right, then you do not equate.

[Hannah Bell]

187. milosevich. another phoney us-sponsored war.

"No US serviceman has received more than 18 months imprisonment for desertion or missing movement during the Iraq war."

[Pavulon]

188. Like I said, After many years of reflection. Worth my time.

to bad we did not stop the mass murder in rwanda. Guess the civilians making the calls decided they were to black or their poon still hurt from dealing with Somolia. Just a half million or so dead africans.

The military follows orders, that was under Clinton, I NEVER heard clinton get a break once, but his orders were sure as shit followed.

[Hannah Bell]

190. rwanda, another western-sponsored genocide.

Further, on 9 April 1994, three days after the so-called "mysterious plane crash" where Burundi's President Cyprien Ntaryamira and President Habyarimana were assassinated, some 330 U.S. marines landed at Bujumbura's airport in Burundi, ostensibly to "rescue Americans" in Rwanda.

More centrally however, Uganda—with U.S. trained forces and U.S. supplied weaponry—launched its war against Rwanda as a proxy force for the United States of America on October 1, 1990.

The result was a coup d’état: we won. The 2003 Frontline interview with Alison Des Forges exemplifies her continuing role in whitewashing U.S. involvement in war crimes and genocide in Central Africa. "Kagame received his military education under the Pentagon's Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) at the Command and General Staff College of Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, beginning in 1990," wrote John E. Peck of the Association of African Scholars (2002). "His sidekick, Lt. Col. Frank Rusagara, got his JCET schooling at the U.S. Naval Academy in Monterey, California. Both were dispatched to Rwanda in time to oversee the RPF's takeover in 1994. Far from being an innocent bystander, the Washington Post revealed on July 12, 1998 that the United States not only gave Kagame $75 million in military assistance, but also sent Green Berets to train Kagame's forces (as well as their Ugandan rebel allies) in low intensity conflict (LIC) tactics. Pentagon subcontractor Ronco, masquerading as a de-mining company, also smuggled more weapons to RPF fighters in flagrant violation of UN sanctions. All of this U.S. largesse was put to lethal effect in the ethnic bloodbath that is still going on."

"This genocide resulted from the deliberate choice of a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in power," Des Forges wrote, blaming "Hutu Power". However, her assertions about a "planned" Hutu genocide—"They seized control of the state and used its machinery and its authority to carry out the slaughter"—collapse under scrutiny.

From 1990 to 1994, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), comprised most heavily of Ugandan soldiers led by Ugandan citizens like Paul Kagame, committed atrocity after atrocity as they forced their way to power in Kigali, always falsely accusing their enemies—the power-sharing government of then President Juvenal Habyarimana—of genocide.

http://congowatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/false-narrative-whitewashing-rwanda.html

[taught_me_patience]

5. I'll call as I see it

a slaughter of people who posed no real threat.

[polly7]

52. Bingo nt.

[NJmaverick]

159. The AK47s and RPGs found at the scene did not pose a threat?

[coti]

6. Killing the journalists was a mistake, a part of war.

At such distance it is difficult to tell what the men were carrying, although I do have to say that they were pretty casual about carrying around "weapons" (whether there were any present or not) on the street, even as they clearly saw that the U.S. military was in the area. That should have raised a red flag, but, still, the fog of war is mostly responsible for the first group being fired on and killed.


Firing on that van, however, after two clearly unarmed men stepped out to help the injured man on the sidewalk, a la a field ambulance with a red cross on the side, was an atrocity.

The person who gave clearance did not have all of the information he needed, and the man on the trigger was pushing very hard to shoot. That killing- the shooting of those children- simply should never have happened and those responsible for it should be court-martialed.

[NJmaverick]

21. I didn't see any markings on the van to indicate it was an ambulance

there is a reason they put those large red crosses on them, so they can easily be identified through the fog of war.

[coti]

30. That's true, and that's what really determines whether you should shoot someone.

Not actions, but what they have painted on the side of their civilian vehicle.

Because, if that wasn't the case, the unambiguous, weaponless actions of these two men, as seen clearly in the video, were nothing but those of two decent people even willing to put their own children in harm's way to help someone who has been severely wounded, and they would never have been shot.

[NJmaverick]

34. The way they were flying they couldn't fully determine the men's actions

you could clearly see them carrying the one wounded man, but the pilot and the gunner couldn't say with certainty there weren't weapons in the van or if the men had put the weapons down to help carry the injured man.

[coti]

46. By any measure, that's not even close to good enough.

Every piece of information the trigger man took in before firing said that these men were no threat.

Regardless of that line of reasoning, the trigger man said himself that he was waiting for the wounded man to pick up a gun so he could fire. However, at no point did any of the men pick up a weapon, the bare minimal justification for killing anyone in such a situation. Yet he killed all three of the men anyway. What in his protocol changed in those few minutes?

[MajorChode]

60. Obviously because the appearance was he was escaping

They weren't firing on him as he lay on the ground because they knew ground units were moving in. If they assumed the first men were hostile, it's a reasonable assumption that someone picking them up would also be hostile.

If they were operating under the rules of engagement established, they should be without fault. If they violated the rules of engagement, they should be held accountable along with the person who authorized the firing.

[coti]

68. A dying, unarmed man being hauled into a van isn't cause for an execution.

Of three people, no less. That's not in the rules of engagement. When a "threat" (perceived or otherwise) has been neutralized, killings become murder.


As to your assumption that the second men were hostile, no, that's not a reasonable assumption at all. The men in the van carried no weapons- so in what way were they "hostile?" By virtue of their helping a severely wounded person they came upon, which is exactly what any innocent, decent person passing by would do?

To put the question more precisely, exactly what threat, by the observable evidence, did the two men in the van pose to our military personnel in the area?

[MajorChode]

75. I'm not assuming anything

I'm pointing out what the helicopter crew might have assumed. Neither of us know exactly what the rules of engagement were. Without knowing them, neither of us can draw such conclusions as to the guilt of anyone. As such I'm not going to make any statements of fact either way.

[coti]

80. Of course. And I'm saying that, no matter what the assumption was, and no matter the

measuring stick one uses to evaluate what happened, they had no justifiable reason to fire on that van. There was no actual threat, nor any evidence of a threat, at all.

I hate to be such a downer, but I'm really just standing up for the principle that, when dealing with something as serious as killing someone, decisions have to be made on immediately present and circumstantially valuable evidence- not what-if's, imaginations, skin colors or bloodlust.

If it was okay to kill the men in that van, there is very little still saying that one can't kill anyone in Iraq, for fear of "threat." Because, after all, who really KNOWS what's in every single car that passes by a soldier, or in the pocket of a pedestrian, or what that kid was carrying by his side when he walked into his home to eat dinner with his family?

As emotionally draining war as is, and for all of the exceptions in its circumstance, one still has to base judgments, ultimately, on some kind of reason.

[MajorChode]

I'd still rather wait until I know more to draw any conclusions

There's simply too many questions that I have to draw those conclusions. Questions like, what was the operable intelligence they were working from? What was the threat in that area at the time? What were the rules of engagement regarding when they can and can't engage? Did they follow those rules? You keep assuming they didn't follow their rules of engagement because you assume that no rules of engagement could possibly be so loose regarding someone's life. While that may be a reasonable point of view, very little about this war has ever been reasonable, so I'm not going to make such assumptions.

Remember that if Obama weren't now president, we probably wouldn't even have this video. That's a pretty good indication that those who are responsible for this will be held accountable, and that's what I want to happen. It's entirely possible that this incident was caused by those who make rules and are very high up the chain of command, and perhaps all the way to the top. That's why this incident deserves a very thorough and objective investigation. If we are too quick to pin this on those who pulled the trigger, we may never learn what we need to know to prevent this from happening again and holding those accountable who ultimately deserve to be held accountable.

Edit: When I read the story again, it looks as if the video was leaked, not released.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. The video covered the entire van episode.

There were no weapons visible anywhere. The pilots lied and claimed the two men who stepped out of the van to pick up the survivor were 'collecting weapons'. That was a complete fabrication, as the video clearly showed they did no such thing. The only thing they did do was pick up the one survivor, put him in their van, and start to drive away, when they were attacked and blown up.

That you are defending this as 'not enough information' to make a judgement is pathetic. Typical of your posts here, but pathetic.

[paulsby]

216. that;s why we have RULES of war, of which the insurgents routinely ignore

by

1) not wearing uniforms
2) not respecting aid workers (recall that the international red cross LEFT iraq because they got attacked. source: al jazeera)

etc.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Nope. Not even close.

In particular, the van that attempted to rescue the wounded: no guns or any sort of appendage other than human limbs visible.

In particular: the second attack on the building: no possiblity other than the pilot was simply lying.

On the other hand, you are so predictable. Give it a rest.

[NJmaverick]

12. Your rejection to the fairness request was the only thing "predictable"

and no matter how much it annoys you I am not going to give doing the right thing "a rest".

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Fair and balanced. nt.

[Pavulon]

71. White House and Congress. Own it.

not some warrant officer, or captain or probably junior officer. The pilot called in guys to photograph the scene, not usually a step you take after you "murder <insert drama language>" people.

Bush and the congress that signed the check.

[Subdivisions]

10. MASSACRE! n/t

[Vinnie From Indy]

15. Really?

Do they actually believe they are firing on armed insurgents or are they saying they believe they are armed insurgents so they can shoot some of their "awesome" rockets at them?

Do you really think that these men would get on the radio and ask to kill defenseless people? I will grant you that simply watching the video does not tell the whole story, but it is just silly to offer that just because these service men asked for permission to fire on "armed" insurgents that they did not commit murder. Clearly the military is not going to do an honest investogation as they have already been busted trying to lie about this from the get go.

[Raineyb]

18. Well this is bloody predictable. Here's a newsflash for you.

YOU DON'T GET TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT THEY SEE!

[NJmaverick]

19. and while you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts

you were not honest when you claimed I TOLD people how to characterize. I ASKED people.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ArcticFox]

36. Your own facts are wrong

See my other post.

[Raineyb]

42. I bloody well was honest. You can add the word please all you want but the fact that you

used all caps to make your demand makes the "asked" characterization mere spin on your part.

BUT PLEASE TO NOT CALL IT MURDER OR DESCRIBE THE MEN AS COLD BLOODED KILLERS.

As I said before you don't get to tell people how to characterize what they see. You are not the boss of anyone here. Stop pretending you are.

[Raksha]

23. I just gave this topic its first un-recommend.

Your "fair and balanced" attitude towards CodePink was noted; therefore your request will be ignored. As will you from now on.

[VMI Dem]

24. Fair and balanced as usual.

[quinnox]

26. cool down, this was on Bush's watch

You don't have to defend this, it didn't even occur on Obama's watch.

Its just one more fuck up that took place during the Bush administration. Stop defending it already.

[NJmaverick]

28. You are mistaken in your assumptions. I am asking that people not

paint our men in uniform with a very nasty and hyperbole filled brush. The men made a mistake, that doesn't make them cold blooded murders.

[ieoeja]

27. K&R

[blindpig]

29. A new low

congratulations.

[ArcticFox]

31. In fairness, what you've written is wrong

The helicopters were 800 to 850 meters away from the square where they claimed to see weapons.

The effective range of an RPG is 300 meters against a moving target and its rocket only fires to 500 meters. http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm. The AK-47 has an effective range out to 400 meters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47.

The AH-64 Apache is armored.

It is clear to me that the pilot and gunner knew their conversation was being recorded and transmitted, that they had to believe there was a threat before they could fire, and that they were salivating at the chance (practically begging for permission to shoot the van, and throwing in that the van's occupants were picking up weapons with the wounded. They couldn't see that at all.

Even on the crappy video that was released, it is clear the "RPG" they "saw" was an SLR camera with a long lens. It is clear there are no weapons at the ready. It is also clear that the pilot and gunner had a better view than the video shows: the video is black and white, yet they're talking about the color of vehicles on the ground.

Shame to you for spreading misinformation.

[NJmaverick]

35. Where did you get the helicopter's range from?

and the canopy glass is not bullet proof.

[ArcticFox]

43. Still misinformation

The helicopter is armored. I think I'm seeing the range on the video, bottom, right of center. Also, the range can be calculated roughly using the time between firing and impact and the muzzle velocity of the M230.

[NJmaverick]

48. I think you're off on the distance, most likely those numbers were in feet

not meters. As for the Apache, unless they uparmored them I remember one of the short comings (when they came out) was that they were vulnerable to small arms fire.

[ArcticFox]

55. Impossible.

If the range were 840 feet, there would be much less delay between firing and impact. There would be a far smaller impact area than what is seen in the video. The helicopters would be flying a circle of only 1680 feet (1/3 mile) diameter. The pilot would be violating much of his training to fly so close to his target. Remember, the 30mm chain gun has an effective range to 1500 meters. There is no reason to fly only 300 meters from the target.

[NJmaverick]

79. This tech paper of the system indicates the maximum range of the laser ranger finder

is 800 yards. So if those numbers were yards or meters they exceeded the effective range of the range finder.

Top of page 18

http://erraticflux.com/vtas/fyp_mid_year_report.pdf

[ArcticFox]

67. Muzzle velocity

805 m/s.

The rounds hit over 1 second after the firing begins, at a time when the range is shown at just under 1000 meters. They were a kilometer away, well outside any danger from small arms on the square.

[paulsby]

217. you don't understand what "armored" means

it doesn't mean impervious to harm

i wear a bullet resistant (note: not bullet proof vest)

does that mean if somebody presents a threat, i can't fire my gun because i'm "armored"?

hint: no

[ArcticFox]

219. Dude, you're totally off the mark here

I was responding to a guy that said the Apache is not armored. It is armored, is it not? "The base AH-64 was designed with crew survivability in mind featuring anti-missile systems, specialized cockpit crew protection in the form of Kevlar armor and bulletproof glass and a specially designed superstructure." http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=29.

I never said it is invincible. I did say there was no threat from anyone in the courtyard because the helicopters were about a kilometer away and nobody could hit them with small arms from the square. Do you seriously argue with that?

You seem trigger happy and scared. And yes, you would be wrong to shoot somebody unless they were within range of causing you serious harm. If they pull a handgun from 300 meters and don't even recognize you are there, you have very little to fear.

[WillyT]

32. Then Call For An Investigation !!! - Just Like We Did For My Lai !!!

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

It is the ONLY way to find out what really happened.

I won't believe ANY official words on this, until AFTER we have a full and thorough investigation.

If they aren't gonna do that... then I will get to say whatever I think.

And I tend to think... MASSACRE!!!

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

38. To wait until after the investigation is quite reasonable

[Raineyb]

51. There isn't going to BE an investigation. Don't you check the news before you start spewing talking

points?

[Sebastian Doyle]

178. ...and 9/11.....and the JFK/RFK/MLK murders.....and.... ah fuck it.

There won't be an ACTUAL investigation of this, just like there were no ACTUAL investigations of the others listed. Just bullshit coverups. :evilfrown:

[Swamp Rat]

39. BOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

:thumbsdown:

[Bluerthanblue]

40. this is what happens when people are at war-

innocent people die.

It isn't ok- it never was or will be in my mind, but it is part of being at war.

I know that some soldiers have intentionally done terrible things to innocent civilians on both sides of this mess, like what was done to Abeer and her family in Iraq.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5786955

And while I don't see this incident as comparable to what Steven Green did- the words he offered to her family say it better than I could.


Those who are quick to call the soldiers in this helicopter "cold blooded killers" are looking for a place to put the responsibility we share for the fact that this happened at all. Our nation made the choice to use violence to try and make people do what we wanted. We can't avoid the reality that as citizens of this country, we share responsibility for what happens. Even those who (like me) believe that war is not the answer to anything.

[NJmaverick]

41. Very well said!

[katandmoon]

45. Bullfuckingshit. I don't accept responsibility for what happens. They are NOT doing it on my behalf.

I did not ask them to, I do not want them to, I have never wanted them to, and I want them to get the hell out. What they did is on their murderous heads and the heads of the lying administration and military chain of command that send them there.

They are NOT defending anything except their own sick and violent asses that voluntarily chose the military as a career.

[Bluerthanblue]

72. and what are you doing to stop this? my tax dollars are funding this-

every time I purchase anything in this country of ours, a portion of that goes to funding this.

The same goes for you.

You can't be part of America only when it is convenient- and avoid the responsibility for what is being done IN OUR NAME under the banner of our collective society.

We own this- like it or not. What you or I 'want'- or believe doesn't really count. Just as those in Iraq and Afghanistan who are being killed by suicide bombers and their own neighbors have no say in what is being done.

42yrs. ago an incredible man was murdered. He vocally opposed the Vietnam war. He knew how to motivate people to do more than just talk about peace and justice. His words about how we can work to make this world better still ring true- and he died as a result.

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." MLKjr

So, yes, I believe you and I and every other person in this country who isn't actively working to end this hell, are guilty of allowing it to continue, in spite of what we desire or believe.

[katandmoon]

98. There is not one fucking thing I can realistically do to stop this and you know it.

[Bluerthanblue]

123. the key word in your reply is

"realistically"-

And that word defines how much you and I really care. Which is sadly, not enough.

If all of us who believe this way of 'living' is wrong- made the choice to really put our life in the balance, were willing to personally suffer for what we say matters, we might have a chance. But I can't say that I'm willing to be that self-less.

And until that time, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't own my share of this horror.

[Hannah Bell]

137. you own it then. i don't, & won't.

[Bluerthanblue]

143. if telling yourself helps you to sleep at night

and you are ok with that, that's up to you.

[Hannah Bell]

146. lol.. you have no clue. i sleep just fine. perhaps it's yourself with insomnia.

[katandmoon]

153. Maybe you are determined to feel guilty for something you didn't do. I sure am not.

[Bluerthanblue]

184. just remember that when you feel proud of things you didn't do-

as well.

Things which your country did with your financing and on your behalf, even if you didn't ask them to. Not too difficult to own the positives, the negatives though, they're a whole different animal.

:shrug:

[polly7]

57. War was never declared on the people of Iraq.

They are civilians, they have no army. Mission already accomplished, remember, when Hussein's mostly conscripted army was destroyed along with much of its infrastructure? Now, this is just needless slaughter. Nationalized oil now open to all, Hussein dead and unable to implicate Rummy, etc. in his crimes ........ formerly friendly sects now divided, the cradle of civilization destroyed. Bases established, mission accomplished. Sorry, the only 'war' happening now is to keep the military dollars flowing. It's sick.

[Bluerthanblue]

77. war was never declared on Vietnam either- did that change anything?

word games don't matter.

People die in war. War never solves anything in the long run. You'd think we'd understand that by now.

[polly7]

125. It's not a word game. WAR should never be used to mean anything

but what it is. To trivialize it or use it to explain people die in 'war' - that isn't 'war' doesn't even make sense.

[Bluerthanblue]

130. sorry Polly7 but there is no "war"

that doesn't kill innocent people.

And there is no WAR that is good.

I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that if this had happened in a "war" that suits your definition of what a real "war" is, it would be ok?

[polly7]

145. No, it's never ok.

Just stressing that this is not a war, so that saying civilians dying in 'war' doesn't even apply here. Civilians dying during occupation would be the truth, but it doesn't go over so well.

[Bluerthanblue]

151. you want to call it occupation? go right ahead- that doesn't change

anything, make anything any more or less terrible, bring back the lives of those lost, or prevent the future deaths.

If this happened in a 'war' which suited your criteria, it would still have been horrible.

IRW, UN Resolution 1441, Desert Storm, _______. ?

[polly7]

196. I forgot my sarcasm smilie. on that last post, sorry, I thought it would

have been clear. I said no, it's NEVER ok, so your idea I have any criteria is wrong. Yes, I call this an occupation - the sarcasm part was knowing that people who believe it's right to be there are judging these deaths differently because THEY may see it as war. We're agreeing it's all wrong, I'm just not coming across clearly I guess.

[Hannah Bell]

134. i have no fucking responsibility for what's going on in iraq. none, zero, zip.

i spent nearly two years of my life, at some damage to my life & career, protesting during the run-up to that war, and after, on a weekly basis -- helping to organize public forums, writing letters, making calls - standing in the street with signs & getting dumped on by drivers & work colleagues in the rah-rah atmosphere leading up to the event, & nearly getting run over in one case.

fuck that shit, i have *no* responsibility for this war, this occupation.

here's who has responsibility:

#1: the officials who started it & continue it.
#2: their monied backers, including the war contractors.
#3: the stupid fucks who provided the rah-rah.
#4: and sorry, the footsoldiers & officers like those who murdered those people.

[lumpy]

213. I'll be damned if I will share responsibilty for these atrocities.

I feel no shame for being against these ambitious wars. This "sharing responsibilty" crap is overuse and untrue. Knock it off!

[mike_c]

49. they LIED up the chain of command to justify murder, which they whooped and enjoyed....

Several times they reported the presence of weapons and hostile action that the video simply does not support. In another thread, an "RPG" was shown to be quite obviously a Vespa type scooter, and the gunship crew refers to camera equipment as weapons, too. Most of the men in the group can clearly be seen empty handed.

This was a massacre of unarmed, or at best lightly armed and unthreatening civilians.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. The gunner and pilot who fired on the mini van knew they weren't firing on armed insurgents.

When they loaded the injured journalist into the van, it became an ambulance. Ambulances are officially neutral ground. Firing on them is a war crime.

[chat_noir]

56. agree with...

"No one who watched that goddamned video could come away with the impression that the guys in the chopper (cruising around and around) were in fear for their lives."

[Jokerman]

59. It WAS murder.

All the excuses you can come up with won't change that.

[Pavulon]

74. Nope, fraid not. Unless one of those guys put a guy on his knees, zip tied, and shot him

there is not a damn thing in that video that approaches criminal behavior. People die in war, many times the wrong people.

Responsibility of the VAST majority of that death lies with the POTUS and Congress, sign orders, fund orders. Done.

[Jokerman]

87. The entire operation is a crime.

The responsibility for ALL of the deaths lies with ANYONE who participates in or supports this criminal occupation.

I don't expect the pro-war factions on DU and in this country to agree but there is no way anyone will convince me otherwise.

[Pavulon]

93. I , I thought you meant real crime. Like the kind that can be prosecuted

under articles of war. This whole thing is run by guys in suits not uniforms, remember that. ALWAYS

[Jokerman]

200. How convenient.

A murderous thug wearing gang colors get his kicks by killing and it's considered a heinous crime. A murderous thug wearing a military uniform does the same thing and gets away with it because "we're at war".

Make no mistake, the bulk of the blame surely rests with the "suits" at the top of the chain but the military brass who issue the orders and every single VOLUNTEER in uniform who "just follows orders" should also be held accountable when those orders result in the type of situation shown in that video.

I see little hope for ending these atrocities as long as they are defended by military apologists under the guise of "supporting the troops".

[polly7]

64. Request for a fair consideration of all circumstances

granted, but verdict reached. Sorry. It was murder ............ and a fun time by all, apparently all up above, anyway.

[Agony]

65. No, this is a time when the courage of those like Camilo Mejía needs recognition.

Uncivilized preemptive wars buy us the title of murderer. High tech assaults on "suspected" terrorists buy us the title of savage murderers. What is there that is "fair" about that?

***
"I was a coward not for leaving the war but for being part of it in the first place." So concluded Sgt. Camilo Mejia as he left military prison on February 15, 2005. Camilo had been serving a one year prison term after being convicted of desertion last May 2004.
***

murderers and cowards. That is my opinion.

[Pavulon]

69. Civilians sign the orders and write the check. So please stop throwing MURDER

around like you know jack shit. First watch the full video. They ask the light armor to go and take pictures of the weapons they called out. If they were wrong, that is part of war. People fuck up, and people die. They treated the wounded kids.

That problem lies with the White House and Congress, not some Warrant Officer.

[branders seine]

73. Emboldened by 'The Surge,' these highly trained, but poorly educated

US soldiers committed a massacre of civilians.

We see the same kind of behavior now during Obama's "Surge" in Afghanistan.

[Pavulon]

76. and in normandy.. You fight a war this happens

wrong people die. That belongs to civilians who order and fund war. not to the men tasked with carrying out their governments instruction.

[sudopod]

84. ....

[branders seine]

100. frequently killing civilians (especially when it is such a clear pattern)

is the responsibility of soldiers, their leaders and the politicians who put them there.

[Pavulon]

104. Yep, dresden is not burning, that is not tokyo..

that is men in a combat zone thought to be armed. Mistakes happen in war. Suits not uniforms bring you this footage. REMEMBER in this country civilians start wars.

[branders seine]

112. war is hell.

killing unarmed civilians is murder.

[Pavulon]

116. Not if you think they are armed, and not by any international law

murder does not apply in that video. Bad foreign policy does. Men in suits get to decide that. Having actually cashed a check with a combat mos changes your reality. There are actually rules of war and they are taught.

Note the point the air support asks the officer in the bradley to go get pictures of the weapons, sound like the act of a guilty man?

[damntexdem]

78. Yeah, what's with calling folks murderers when they engaged in war crimes.

Call them what they are: war criminals.

No matter what they may have thought, their actions were not justified. In the best light, their reactions were wholly disproportionate to whatever threat they may have perceived. And if they were just following standard operating procedure, then the war criminals include those who worked out those procedures.

Think of just part of it: a van pulls up and a wounded man is carried to it. Even if the wounded man were a terrorist and the van full of accomplices, what should have been done? For one thing, ground forces were on the way and the van could have been followed from the air and captured. For another, aid, not death, should be rendered to the wounded. Finally, if those had been terrorists, wouldn't there have been a reason to capture and interrogate them?

[NJmaverick]

81. Do you appreciate that in their minds every enemy that gets away

can kill later come back to kill someone from their side?

[arcadian]

82. THIS IS MURDER!!!

I blame Bush and Obama!

[NJmaverick]

83. It happened in 2007, but then again you blame President Obama for

EVERYTHING :eyes:

[arcadian]

85. Obama is continuing this slaughter.

But then again Obama can do no wrong in your eyes.

[NJmaverick]

89. The FACTS show you blame President Obama for events that happened in 2007

Beyond that President Obama is drawing down the troops in Iraq. Your irrational beliefs and accusations are beyond belief

[arcadian]

97. Your spewing of administration talking points and propaganda

are what's beyond belief. It's no wonder your threads are unrecced into oblivion. And that IS a fact.

[Hissyspit]

92. And you think everything Obama does is spotless.

DRONE attacks have increased.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

103. You falsely blame President Obama for fictional increases in Iraqi Drone attacks

you are as bad as the person you defend.

[Hissyspit]

115. I didn't say anything about Iraq. Where did I say anything about Iraq?

Drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan have increased over Bush drone attacks.

What the hell are you talking about?

[NJmaverick]

118. This topic is a discussion of Iraq, you didn't specify anything different

[Hissyspit]

127. delete - dupe

[Hissyspit]

128. Post #82

is clearly addressing continuation of the Bush wars under the current administration. U.S. aerial warfare policy which results in civilian deaths. Even if he's not, then I am now. If it's not in Iraq, it's in Afghanistan now.

[Hissyspit]

88. Lt. Col. Shaffer on Dylan Ratigan show today: 'Were rules of engagement followed?' 'No'

RATIGAN: "Let me make it really clear, though. From your perspective, were the rules of engagement followed from what you see in this piece of videotape?"

SHAFFER: "Let me be clear... based on what I've seen only, and I'm making it on what I've seen: No, they were not. First rule is '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 intell 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 find a bit disturbing by the fact that you have people down, clearly down; you have people on the way here..."

Were the rules of engagement followed from what you see in this piece of videotape?

No, they were not.

[NJmaverick]

150. The Col was mistaken according to two different army reports

[Warren Stupidity]

192. That is your most densely stupid statement on this so far.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

205. And the army never lies (Pat Tilman for one).

[Whisp]

90. I haven't seen the video but I do have an opinion

I do not agree with you at all about anything being as CRYSTAL CLEAR as you think.
Some soldiers are stressed beyond human limits, some are animals that just like to kill whatever is moving and thats why they sign up, that has to be considered.

[TexasObserver]

94. That's bullshit. It was excess.

[laststeamtrain]

95. "...defense of our nation." How does THAT work?

Our nation's here. Their nation's there.

People like you call invasions 'war'. You call 'offense' defense. You've been spun so hard you don't make sense.
The propaganda has scrambled your brain.

Stop. Breath deep. Think.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. I haven't watched the video yet.

Transcript definitely sounds like troops in combat situations firing on what they believe to be the enemy.

[arcadian]

101. Yeah that part about the Bradley running over a dead body. Good laugh.

You are wrong, these are monsters out for blood and they found it.

[Pavulon]

108. Dont hang out with E-med doctors.

makes that shit look like sunday school. they can find humor in the worst, gallows humor. People who deal with death do that.

Guys in crisp suits brought that footage to you, not men in uniform.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. You mean this part?

18:01 Yeah uh, roger. We're monitoring .
18:02 Sorry.
18:04 No problem.
18:07 Correction eight-six-one-six.
18:16 Looking for more individuals-south.
18:18 Bushmaster Six-Bushmaster Seven.
18:29 I think they just drove over a body.
18:31 Hey hey!
18:32 Yeah!
18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.
18:41 Well, they're dead, so.

Sounds fairly standard combat to me. You expect them to get out and exchange insurance information?

[coti]

105. You're going to have some trouble defending the van shooting.

Very clear video and no threats at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. Like I said, I haven't watched the video yet.

[Hissyspit]

117. Rules of engagement were not followed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. I wouldn't be surprised.

Yet there's quite a bit of room between breaking rules of engagement and murder.

[NJmaverick]

157. 2 separate investigations confirm the fact that there were weapons

and the rules of engagement were followed

[dorkulon]

102. Carrying guns in Iraq does not mean a damn thing.

Everyone with any clout at all has an armed escort. The mere presence of guns would not in any way justify an assault. Just sayin'.

[Hannah Bell]

140. that was my impression. some posters seem to think carrying a gun makes you an

automatic target for murder.

and that anyone who aides a wounded suspected "insurgent" can also be murdered.

[Bonobo]

107. Screw that.It is murder.Linguistic and mental gymnastics won't change that.

Mother fuckers. Do the soldiers have my respect? In a word, no.

You do evil, muthuhfucka, you ARE evil.


Murder. <urder.Murder. Murder. Fucking cowardly fucking murder.

[whatchamacallit]

114. All I wanna know is

how long will DU let this incredible charade continue?

[ShamelessHussy]

119. nothing is 'fair' in war, everything about it is EVIL - FYI

the only thing that could possibly considered good about this incident is that the video made it out to the public, so more folks can witness the EVIL that is war, and hopefully bring this EVIL to a end sooner, than had this had not been made public.

I think it is fair to say that the more of these kinds of videos that come out, the better for all mankind.

[NJmaverick]

120. War is hell no doubt about it.

[spanone]

121. i'm mad at war. it's fucked beyond belief and humans persist in engaging in it.

we're not as evolved as we'd like to think imho

[Bluerthanblue]

124. Can't agree with you

strongly enough.

We need to stop this shit.


Once and for all.

[grahamhgreen]

131. We should also be mad at Obama for keeping these guys in that siruation - imagine how they will

feel for the rest of their lives.

And EVERY time you pass a homeless person, ask them if they were a vet.

[JonLP24]

135. It's ok to pass judgment

They are taught rules of engagement and ways not to target civilians. I don't know the model of the helicopter but the ones that I've seen are armored around the cockpit and the fuel tanks so you have any info one way or the other.

Don't play that disrespect to uniform crap. If people saw what they saw than they should be able to say what they saw. I've been to Iraq and this doesn't bother me.

[Motown_Johnny]

136. Not when they fired on the van. It was clear that there were no weapons.

[JonLP24]

139. There is a lot of talk about them not having weapons

Well if they were armed doesn't mean you can shoot them. People made this mistake in training, we were told which I don't know if is true is that firearms are legal in that country. You can simply shoot someone because he is armed. He must show a threat.

[Hannah Bell]

142. +100

[Rex]

144. Wore a uniform, thanks, and I call it clear ROE violations...you know, war crimes.

Someone pass me the popcorn.

[proud2BlibKansan]

147. They confused cameras for weapons and then they fired on unarmed citizens

No it's not murder, it's a massacre.

[NJmaverick]

148. They were armed

ground troops found small arms and RPGs

[proud2BlibKansan]

152. That's not in the video

and those kids weren't armed.

[NJmaverick]

154. 2 separate investigations confirm the fact that there were weapons

[proud2BlibKansan]

158. Link?

[NJmaverick]

175. You can get it here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094885&mesg_id=8094885

[katandmoon]

171. Investigations by who?

[NJmaverick]

176. See for yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094885&mesg_id=8094885

[katandmoon]

183. I'm not going to root through all that. If you can't answer a simple question with a simple

answer, and you obviously can't, then that lack of response speaks for itself.

[JHB]

149. Removed by author

[NJmaverick]

155. The ground troops found small arms and RPGs at the scene

[JHB]

182. Having found the site with the actual reports...

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d
(if that's too much of a mess to work, find the Centcom FOIA reading room and follow the directories: Reading Room > Reading Room > Supporting Documents > Death of Reuters Journalists)

...and read the 2nd brigade combat team report stating that RPGs were found by the ground troops, I'll withdraw a portion of my comments. Events with the van are more ambiguous, as the persons there were all taken to be "combatants" (except the children) when their only obvious involvement was attempting to aid the crawling man. (All the dead were "military age males".)

[blindpig]

197. I take it you've never heard of a 'throw gun'

Ain't sayin' that's what happened because we don't know for sure but planting weapons after the fact is not an uncommon practice of the police in this country. Just sayin' that report should be taken with a grain of salt.

[NoodleyAppendage]

156. Pilots' insensitive comments about "bringing your kids to a fire fight" sinks it for any fairness

...or compassion. Those pilots were itching to kill someone or something and after seeing that they had injured (and possibly killed children) their response was not of remorse, but of "oh, well...that's what you get" sociopathy. They are cold blooded and devoid of any compassion. I hope they struggle with PTSD for the rest of their lives haunted by thoughts of the children that they injured (or killed), but given their response in the video, I doubt they are troubled to this day.

J

[NJmaverick]

160. 2 separate investigations found that there were weapons at the scene

and that the air crew acted properly

[MattBaggins]

162. You have been asked multiple times to source this claim.

[tekisui]

163. .

[Vickers]

168. Why all the name-calling, Tekisui? You can make your point without

that stuff, and it's a good way to get banned from here.

[tekisui]

169. .

[NJmaverick]

173. You can get the redacted reports from CENCOM through this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094885&mesg_id=8094885

[NJmaverick]

174. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8094885&mesg_id=8094885

[Raineyb]

206. Right because the Pentagon NEVER covers its ass.

:sarcasm:

Wow they found weapons in a country where there are a lot of armed people. What's your next bit of news that water is wet?

[NoodleyAppendage]

209. Weapons at the scene is irrelevant to the pilots' response and lack of remorse about killing kids.

I don't give a shit if there was a nuclear warhead there. My point was directed towards the insensitive comments by the pilots about the children they murdered or injured. They divorced themselves from their humanity when they failed to show even a passing concern about the children. I guess they are (were) Iraqi children, so it doesn't count? Same dehumanizing logic underlies the Cambodian Killing Fields, Nazi Concentration Camps, etc.

J

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chollybocker]

164. Thanks for your apologizing.

Right on schedule. :eyes:

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chollybocker]

172. Self-delete, then.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[butterfly77]

170. They were itching to kill...

whomever was talking was getting angry they wanted to kill them so badly..

This was nothing new I saw many videos of murders and dead bodies during the bush years but not on the MSM media...

[titoresque]

179. yep, just watched a video on youtube

where kids (some look like 5yrs 6, 7yrs old) are throwing rocks at the military trucks that are going by, the US soldiers are yelling out "fuck you" to them and complaining to the camera that they are not authorized to use deadly force. They WANTED to KILL them for throwing rocks!!

[Pavulon]

186. Throwing rocks at the helicopters? I missed something

are we still talking about this incident?

[hulka38]

181. Your thought process is remarkably flawed.

[protocol rv]

189. A little late to fix those corpses, isn't it?

My friend, I understand your pain. But the news reported is that the victims were carrying cameras and one of them had a large cell phone. They were newsmen, covering an incident which had taken place about 300 meters from where they were killed.

I agree with you, I have analysed the discussion, and it seems they made a mistake, that is, they did not follow the engagement rules.

However, one must also ask a moral question: What were they doing in Iraq? And a practical question: Do you Americans think you will ever win a war again? People reproduce a lot faster than you Americans are willing to kill them. My opinion, as an observer, is that you guys haven't really won a war in a very long time. And you have wasted an incredible amount of money and lives to achieve: nothing.

[MadHound]

191. You know, when I was thinking who would be one of the first DU apologists out of the gate

Sadly, I thought it might just be you. Way to keep living up, or down to those expectations.

[Echo In Light]

193. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8092575&mesg_id=8092717

[KG]

194. no kidding

Big Fan of dead foriegners.

[NJmaverick]

198. Considering two reports cleared the men's actions and RPGs and small arms were found

I feel I was on the correct side. You should consider joining me.

[TexasObserver]

204. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman were two other "reports" by military.

Did you also swallow them hook, line and sinker?

Your devotion to official military reports is amusing.

Have you ever been in the military?

[MadHound]

208. Yes, military reports have cleared lots of guilty men, at least initially

That's why they're so notoriously untrustworthy.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

215. there's just no fooling you!

The military claimed they found RPGs so it MUST be true! You carry on, you brave freedom warrior! :eyes:

Your apologist reaction to this massacre is pathetic.

[Forkboy]

201. Let's just say this is the least surprising thread on DU right now.

:)

[donco6]

202. True.

[Echo In Light]

207. Even some of the Dungeon-ers have been out to 'defend'

[donco6]

195. God, how could I have guessed you'd be defending it?

Are you wondering how obvious you can get?

[NJmaverick]

199. Weapons were found and combat was ongoing in the area

and 2 separate investigations cleared them. If there was going to be a call for reason and restraint I am glad I am high on your list

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

203. Depraved Indifference....

I'm all for supporting our troops, but when they fired into a mini-van without knowing the identities of the passengers (including the two children), they were being grossly (and criminally) negligent.

This goes beyond merely poor judgment -- the only thing that could (or should) save these men from criminal prosecution is if the rules of engagement are so ill-defined and so poorly-communicated that a crew could reasonably open fire under these circumstances. And if that's the case, then there are some heads in the Pentagon that need to roll. There is no excuse for what happened on that video.

It would be an insult to every peroson in uniform if we were to assume that the behavior captured on that video is in any way reflective of the job our troops are doing.

[TheKentuckian]

214. Fair and subscribe to your interpretation of events

are very different things.

How are you defining "fair"?

It seems in reading through that fair is to accept a message that defies our own lying eyes.

Perhaps, initially I can stretch a bit and give a sort of a pass (not that those men appeared to be hostile and most were clearly unarmed) but opening fire on the van that was trying to pull a downed man away is beyond the pale and it is very difficult to label the action as anything but murder.

You also (honestly along with everyone else) conveniently forget that we plunged the country into a sectarian civil war and virtually anyone in the country could be armed, which means that discretion is pretty crucial and aggression would be required to have the minimal provocation to kill. Media, I understand also routinely uses bodyguards when they are not embedded.

Hollering they were armed rings pretty hollow. If you want to move the murder charge up the chain of command based on rules of engagement or something then that's a debate we can have but conflating a call for a free pass with fairness is pretty dishonest and illustrates extreme hesitance if not out right refusal for people to be accountable for some pretty heinous actions.

[depakid]

218. "...fair is to accept a message that defies our own lying eyes."

Seems to be an unfortunate propensity of all too many on both sides of the aisle.

On the other here are also some think and write objectively about these sorts of matters- and their assessments are quite valuable and very much appreciated.