Collateral Murder
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
You need to recheck your sources CDNBear: the Rabbit was for Trix ("silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids") and Lucky Charms had that short Irish guy in green (how can he be a leprechaun with no pot of gold ?!?!). I'll let it go this time...
No.
No. Ambulances drive only. The medics in the ambulance bring the injured to the hospital. Which is what they appeared to be doing...
Making the best decision doesn't equate to perfect. Nobody expects the military to be perfect. Honestly, many decisions have to be made quickly. Like the initial engagement, if you think an RPG is about to be fired, then they have to act. I've never said anything about that being wrong. I just think lacing the van and the people helping the injured was wrong. It was a decision that wasn't made in a split second, and a very poor one, unnecessary.
We're talking about analyzing behavior. That doesn't change. Risk is still risk. Threats are still threats.
I'm not trying to make this a legal issue...no need for the legalese. If anything, what I am saying is that this incident should be a teachable moment. Pilots get all kinds of time training, unless you're flying a Cormorant from CFB Greenwood.
You shoot anything that tampers with the scene? See, now that's just asinine.
Regardless whether you believe or not, no positive experiences of being in I have encountered. There's always some horror story.
My point still stands: The US military = bad and it should be avoided.
Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told To Just Shoot People, And The Officers Would Take Care of Us"
By: PoliticalTheatrics
Tags:
I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."
By: PoliticalTheatrics
Tags:
I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."
The only real way I can see that the US military can be saved as an ethical institution is if most of the commanders of US CENTCOM are fired, demoted, or reassigned (which Obama should've, but didn't do when he first became President). Plus, a massive re-investigation of the coalition deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan would be required after the shameful cover up of Cpl. Pat Tillman's death.
After this, I would have a glimmer of hope. But until then, no. Just no.
After this, I would have a glimmer of hope. But until then, no. Just no.
You'll have to go to New York and meet with the execs at some ad agency. I think it was Zenith Media, but I could be wrong.
D'oh!!! I had the Leprechaun on my mind as I was typing that out, lol.
Your posts say otherwise.
You should go back and check your post there was a small discrepancy in your syntax. I made an assumption about what you meant, and because of our long time relationship here and there, I over looked it so as not to even come close to being rude about it or pointing it out in a sarcastic way as might make you embarrassed. I can guarantee that that will not happen again.
Please post some proof that these people were well known medical personal in the area, that the pilots should have reasonably known they were not part of an insurgent group, trying to sterilize a scene.
Because it's already been posted that a Van fitting a similar description, had been in the area, during earlier attacks.
In your opinion.
Please tell me you aren't comparing military pilots to the specifically trained security personnel at Ben Gurion are you?
For a case of "murder", you need to prove mens rea.
Again, ain't perception a bitch? You perceive that as asinine. I don't because this is a war zone. The identity of the operator of the van and his intentions are known NOW. They weren't then. DS posted a video of a decent interview, so you won't have to read about the whole incident.
This is war ton, not a clash between the cops and a group of thugs in Bedford.
Last edited:
My whole problem with the van is: Who, in their right mind in a war zone, doesn't know enough to display a flag of truce? Any white cloth will do. That machine guns are going to err on the side of caution and blast any potential threat away is a given ... and by this time, the folks on the ground certainly knew bullets were floating in from somewhere.
These are considerations, people who don't understand the environment, just won't think about.
Neither you nor I, find the neutralization of the van tasteful, but we are capable, because of varying circumstances, of understanding what and why the crew took the action they did.
The fact that most people are coming to their conclusions based on how it is interpreted to them by people with agenda's, which of course you and I could easily be described as, only compounds the issue.
I'm not sure LW, but I think you and I agree that invading Iraq was a bad choice, no?
I still would like to see the whole unedited video (can't find it anywhere)
Wikileaks would certainly not post anything contrary to their agenda...
Wikileaks would certainly not post anything contrary to their agenda...
Sad ain't it? Yet people look to them with up most certainty to bring them impartial facts that might otherwise go unknown. Or so wikileaks would have them believe...
Iraq was a bad choice - I think one of Georgie 2 trying what Georgie didn't do: finish the job.
I understand the demise of that van from an aircrew point of view too. If the bullet doesn't hurt, bumping into the ground probably will. All gallows humour aside, someone was swallowing his eyeballs to keep from tossing lunch. It will haunt him.
I understand the demise of that van from an aircrew point of view too. If the bullet doesn't hurt, bumping into the ground probably will. All gallows humour aside, someone was swallowing his eyeballs to keep from tossing lunch. It will haunt him.
I agree, Iraq was a bad choice. Afghanistan wasn't but Iraq was. But once we pulled the trigger their we had to stick around and see it through.
The 30-minute gap
Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science - by Zahir Ebrahim - 2010-04-08
Wikileaks left a 30-minute gap in its Iraq slaughter presentation, a gap which contained material somewhat less damning to the Pentagon, leaving a hole right-wingers can drive a propaganda truck through. This gap seems to put Wikileaks back into the category of Pentagon media manipulation tool. {from xymphora}
Update from Gawker
Convince People of Absurdities and get them Acquiescing to Atrocities: The Enduring Power of Machiavellian Political Science - by Zahir Ebrahim - 2010-04-08
Civilians are the target in total war. The economic mortars kill more than all the machine guns ever made.
Yep.
Which i have stated since day one. On both Iraq and Afghanistan. Thrusting democracy on any group, is foolhardy, period. Democracy is a system of Gov't, that one must yearn for and ultimately bleed for. Without those to prerequisites, one will never full appreciate it.
Agreed.
I beat your edit, but even that proves my point, you are well on your way to being conditioned to absorb the propaganda you seek.The 30-minute gapWikileaks left a 30-minute gap in its Iraq slaughter presentation, a gap which contained material somewhat less damning to the Pentagon, leaving a hole right-wingers can drive a propaganda truck through. This gap seems to put Wikileaks back into the category of Pentagon media manipulation tool. {from xymphora}Update from Gawkerhttp://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage
From your link.What happened during that missing half-hour? The Jawa Report cites the sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack. One pilot said in his statement that between the attack on the journalists and the second attack, two events occurred which may have softened the picture of the pilots provided by the video: 1) The pilots went to assist soldiers under attack, but saw a child and other "noncombatants" and held their fire. 2) The pilots saw a red SUV that may have contained insurgents, but held their fire because they couldn't get a positive identification. Here is the relevant part of the statement. (Click to enlarge.)
Neither of these events were shown in the video, which cuts off after the first attack and picks just before the second. The helicopter fires three hellfire missiles into an abandoned building where insurgents are believed to be hiding. Here is how the pilot described this attack in his statement:
The full version appears to leave out two instances of the pilots holding their fire, while including footage of them destroying a building (and hitting a passerby on
Bringing a Battle to Their Kids
By Jay Barr April 8, 2010
There are certainly many gut-wrenching scenes in the "Collateral Murder" Wikileaks video currently making huge waves on the internet. Though even the hardcore U.S. military apologentsia are having a (relatively) hard time justifying the slaughter of the unarmed men who arrived on the scene of the initial massacre in a black van to evacuate a wounded Reuters photographer, the fact that two children inside the van were seriously injured by a hail of 30mm shells fired from the Apache helicopter gunship has been a particularly sensitive subject for the self-appointed defenders of the troops.
In classic blame-the-victim mode, one of the participants in the event who opined in the skies above Baghdad, "Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" was echoed by the Weekly Standard’s Bill Roggio who asked "And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?" Perhaps distracted by their deep concern for the children, it is almost as if they forgot who brought the battle and the war zone to Iraq in the first place. True, years of U.S.-enforced sanctions in the 1990s had already killed an estimated half-million Iraqi children before the 2003 invasion, but I am pretty sure there were still some Iraqi children alive when this war of choice shocked and awed the newly liberated. The difficulty for Baghdadi parents since Operation Iraqi Freedom nearly destroyed their city would be to drive their kids somewhere that was not the "middle of a war zone," especially since the safest parts of Baghdad, in the Green Zone, are off limits to them unless they are serving the occupiers in some capacity.
Besides the obvious projection of blame onto Iraqis for the deadly consequences of the invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked the United States, there is a sickening sense of parental superiority inherent in these comments. The Apache gunner (or pilot, it is difficult to tell which one makes the statement) and Roggio both condemn the would-be rescuers in the van, apparently not comprehending that sometimes parents are accompanied by their children when unforeseen circumstances require the parent to act. For example, if I am driving down the road and see a gunshot victim bleeding to death on the sidewalk, should I just keep driving because my son is in the car? Or because I do not want blood on my upholstery? Clearly the people who were ultimately gunned down for trying to help were not so selfish.
Even if the occupants of the van were "insurgents" as the Apache crew presumed, the idea that they are reprehensible for risking the lives of their children would likewise cast blame on parents in the United States. The legal age to enlist in the military in the United States — with parental consent — is 17, not necessarily a "child" but also not an adult. Many American soldiers killed in Iraq initially joined the military at that age, though the youngest American soldiers to die in Iraq have been 18. Therefore, even if the van rescuers were indeed carrying out hostile activities and risking their children’s lives (and there is no evidence that they were), they should not be criticized any more or less than their American counterparts who do the same. However, no American laptop bombardier would ever condemn a parent for helping their 17-year-old child join the military, as long as it saves the chickenhawk and his or her ilk from having to sacrifice anything for the wars they so desperately cheer and promote (Though to be fair, Roggio, a veteran, is not necessarily included in that group).
For an American to defensively disparage Iraqis for "bringing their kids into a battle" is even more extraordinary when you consider that even in July 2007 no one under the age of 16 had even been alive at a time when the United States was not bombing, sanctioning, invading, or occupying Iraq. As of today, no one under the age of 19 could even have a memory of such a time when Iraqis were not being collectively punished by the United States. Clearly the well-being of an entire generation of Iraqis has been profoundly and constantly put at risk, not from Iraqi parents bringing them into a battle, but from Americans bringing a battle to them.
By Jay Barr April 8, 2010
There are certainly many gut-wrenching scenes in the "Collateral Murder" Wikileaks video currently making huge waves on the internet. Though even the hardcore U.S. military apologentsia are having a (relatively) hard time justifying the slaughter of the unarmed men who arrived on the scene of the initial massacre in a black van to evacuate a wounded Reuters photographer, the fact that two children inside the van were seriously injured by a hail of 30mm shells fired from the Apache helicopter gunship has been a particularly sensitive subject for the self-appointed defenders of the troops.
In classic blame-the-victim mode, one of the participants in the event who opined in the skies above Baghdad, "Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle" was echoed by the Weekly Standard’s Bill Roggio who asked "And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?" Perhaps distracted by their deep concern for the children, it is almost as if they forgot who brought the battle and the war zone to Iraq in the first place. True, years of U.S.-enforced sanctions in the 1990s had already killed an estimated half-million Iraqi children before the 2003 invasion, but I am pretty sure there were still some Iraqi children alive when this war of choice shocked and awed the newly liberated. The difficulty for Baghdadi parents since Operation Iraqi Freedom nearly destroyed their city would be to drive their kids somewhere that was not the "middle of a war zone," especially since the safest parts of Baghdad, in the Green Zone, are off limits to them unless they are serving the occupiers in some capacity.
Besides the obvious projection of blame onto Iraqis for the deadly consequences of the invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked the United States, there is a sickening sense of parental superiority inherent in these comments. The Apache gunner (or pilot, it is difficult to tell which one makes the statement) and Roggio both condemn the would-be rescuers in the van, apparently not comprehending that sometimes parents are accompanied by their children when unforeseen circumstances require the parent to act. For example, if I am driving down the road and see a gunshot victim bleeding to death on the sidewalk, should I just keep driving because my son is in the car? Or because I do not want blood on my upholstery? Clearly the people who were ultimately gunned down for trying to help were not so selfish.
Even if the occupants of the van were "insurgents" as the Apache crew presumed, the idea that they are reprehensible for risking the lives of their children would likewise cast blame on parents in the United States. The legal age to enlist in the military in the United States — with parental consent — is 17, not necessarily a "child" but also not an adult. Many American soldiers killed in Iraq initially joined the military at that age, though the youngest American soldiers to die in Iraq have been 18. Therefore, even if the van rescuers were indeed carrying out hostile activities and risking their children’s lives (and there is no evidence that they were), they should not be criticized any more or less than their American counterparts who do the same. However, no American laptop bombardier would ever condemn a parent for helping their 17-year-old child join the military, as long as it saves the chickenhawk and his or her ilk from having to sacrifice anything for the wars they so desperately cheer and promote (Though to be fair, Roggio, a veteran, is not necessarily included in that group).
For an American to defensively disparage Iraqis for "bringing their kids into a battle" is even more extraordinary when you consider that even in July 2007 no one under the age of 16 had even been alive at a time when the United States was not bombing, sanctioning, invading, or occupying Iraq. As of today, no one under the age of 19 could even have a memory of such a time when Iraqis were not being collectively punished by the United States. Clearly the well-being of an entire generation of Iraqis has been profoundly and constantly put at risk, not from Iraqi parents bringing them into a battle, but from Americans bringing a battle to them.
Try hardly any. At Marine Basic Training we had about 55 recruits and one 17 year old.
He washed out within the first week.
I guess 1 out of 55 counts as "many".
FAILED