Collateral Murder
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
So couldn't the helicopterhave targeted specifically those with the weapons (I'll assume that maybe the Iraqi population had been warned over the media that they were legitimate US targets if caught with weapons).
Good to know I won't have to give your posts any real respect then. Thanx for the heads up.
I fail to see the logic in purposely misleading a forum, and seeing as we were discussing Iraqi children, when were you going to break out the logic?
But of course, which is why I used them on you, who in their right mind would take the shyte you post seriously?
For the sake of argument, let's suppose the whole attack was legitimate, do these pilots really enjoy and itch for a kill? If so, that's a pretty warped mind. I can see killing as part of your job. Getting thrills out of it, though it shouldn't necessarily be illegal, is still disturbing none-the-less and certainly reveals a pilot likely to err on the side of killing than not.
No red cross or crescent, dark interior, open door through which an RPG can be launched. Yes ... it's assumptive.
And seeing as the US Pilots learned a valuable lessen in Somalia, The Pilots go home, the bay guys get whacked.
I'm guessing the chopper was some distance from the target - owing to motion and time between discharge and impact.
To make it more certain, you could shorten it to:
"The pilots go home."
Or...
"The pilots go home, and somebody gets whacked."
It might be the bad guys, the good guys, or a mixed bag depending on the day.
While I can accept errors, it's pretty clear from that video that those pilots were making little to no effort to ascertain whether those persons were enemies or not.
Again, I'll admit I don't know what Iraqi law states with regards to the right to bear arms, etc. Nor do I know how common such weapons are among the general population for self defense, etc. But still, it seems from the video that little to no effort was made in identifying whether the target was enemy or not.
You'd think a person with a thread of decency would restrain himself from firing until he can be sure of a reasonable likelihood that those were indeed enemies, and that he'd certainly not e reveling in an attack on people who might or might no tbe enemies.
I think you need to go look for the long version of events. There is a story that goes along with this eh.
I'm still not getting this whole "Let's throw up every justification in the world to excuse these guys from what they so obviously did: killed a bunch of innocent people." I know I feel safe withsoldiers having serious duties when'll their ethics are, "The buck ... stops somewhere away from me."
We're doing a disservice to the country those soldiers represent with this kind of ethics.
That's one way of looking at it and fair enough. Again, though it's a little disconcerting to hear them speaking so casually about the killings, I still figure it's their right to speak like that if they want to, though I still think as a matter of common decency they could sensor themselves at least a little.
Oh, I'm sorry. Are you under the impression that your opinion matters to me in some way?
Let me be clear here, you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind ideological trolls, hell I can even live with disruptive trolls, actually I have more respect for the resident Jew haters and socialists, then I do for you.
I'm sure you'll reply now, about how little my opinion means to you. So have at it, and you can join the local illogical and chattering classes with glee.
So what is the full version? From what I got, they saw men with rifles and concluded that they were enemies. Now again, I don't know the policy in Iraq with regards to civilians carrying weapons.
Now let's suppose that through newspapers and other Arabic-language media the US had made it clear that all who are spotted with weapons in public are to be assumed to be enemies, and the US made every effort to ensure that message spreads, then that would make the attack somewhat acceptable, though still only targeting specifically the men carrying the weapons.
Now if it had also been made clear in the media that anyone in the presence of anyone carrying a weapon would be interpreted as an enemy, again that would make it more acceptable.I'd need more info on that.
However, even assuming the above, what was the criteria for the attack on the van? No one there was armed, and for all we know they could have been good Samaritans passing by, though granted it's highly unlikely since I'd assume they'd figured the US helicopter was behind it. But still, it would be reasonable to try to help a wounded man. Has the US military warned the general public about helping wounded persons hurt by their attacks? I doubt it. So even trying to give the benefit of the doubt at every turn, and seeing that kids were in the friggin' van window, and none of the men were armed, I don't see how that last part can be interpreted as anything less than murder by definition.
And I am also worse than Idi Amin, apparently.
But since arguing to the person (ad hominem) isn't logic, my point still stands. There's no real excuses for the US piots and commanders. Adult decisions like training to fly or command an Apache comes with responsibility, and when you shoot children with your Apache, you should be condemned, at least verbally, for it.
And also, this kind of "let's excuse our soldiers' atrocities" stuff does a disservice to the soldiers' country.
But since arguing to the person (ad hominem) isn't logic, my point still stands. There's no real excuses for the US piots and commanders. Adult decisions like training to fly or command an Apache comes with responsibility, and when you shoot children with your Apache, you should be condemned, at least verbally, for it.
And also, this kind of "let's excuse our soldiers' atrocities" stuff does a disservice to the soldiers' country.