Collateral Murder

[CDNBear]

I'd comfortably wager according to most, not just me.

And I'd wager that "most" haven't a clue what they're talking about, including you. If you go back, and read the account of the whole event. You'll see, that there is more to the story then just the video Ton.

They were looking for a reason to shoot the injured. They say as much before the van pulls up. There were no weapons in the vicinity when the van stops and attempts to take the wounded.

They also said clearly, "Go on reach for a weapon".

Could you see if there wasn't a weapon under him? Can you see inside the van? Do you know who these people are?

Anyways, if you want to read the rest of the thread, feel free, I'm not about to type it out it all out again.

 

[CDNBear]

Intent was never a part of what I was originally saying in this thread. I only mentioned it because I was rephrasing what I thought lone_wolf was saying. So no, I don't that people who enter the service intend to kill others.

But that is exactly what you just finished saying.

But I don't think intentions really matter with such a serious choice. My original point, way hack a few pages, was of couse that the US military is a backwards, unethical society that should be avoided at all costs.

Do you feel the same about Adult Swim - Adult Swim

And this current thing with the Apaches in N. Baghdad is a good example of that.

Really? How so?

but it's SOP Ton, that makes it A-OK.

:roll:, don't you have a bible to thump, or some atheists to swear at?

 

[Tonington]

And I'd wager that "most" haven't a clue what they're talking about, including you. If you go back, and read the account of the whole event. You'll see, that there is more to the story then just the video Ton.

I never claimed to have a clue.

I would claim that under these conditions, in my living room, that I have an advantage over the Longbow pilot in being able to decipher what threat the civilian medics posed.

So, indulge my ignorance here Bear. How does the Canadian Military handle this kind of training situation? If those men had red crosses on their arms, would that make a discernible influence on the outcome of this particular instance in the 40 minute long video?

They also said clearly, "Go one reach for a weapon".

Could you see if there wasn't a weapon under him? Can you see inside the van? Do you know who these people are?

Right, they wanted to shoot him. I could see that the mobile people had their hands full carrying the body to the van. I could clearly see that nobody had anything in their hands resembling a weapon, unless they were going to throw a body at the chopper. There is no appearance of a muzzle, or RPG from the van, which is what caused this whole $hit storm in the first place. I could see and hear that they weren't talking about the van's contents, though they were asking the injured man to make their day by reaching for a weapon.

Anyways, if you want to read the rest of the thread, feel free, I'm not about to type it out it all out again.

Then don't. No one is asking you to.

 

[Icarus27k]

But that is exactly what you just finished saying.

No it wasn't. I was saying that intentions don't matter with such a serious choice.



How so? Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is that innocent people were killed by this backwards society we call the military, and then it was covered up. More broadly speaking, one should avoid the military that has leaders that started the crazy war

 

[lone wolf]

No it wasn't. I was saying that intentions don't matter with such a serious choice.



How so? Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is that innocent people were killed by this backwards society we call the military, and then it was covered up. More broadly speaking, one should avoid the military that has leaders that started the crazy war

Which leader(s)?

 

[CDNBear]

I never claimed to have a clue.

Then why come off smug, like you do?

I would claim that under these conditions, in my living room, that I have an advantage over the Longbow pilot in being able to decipher what threat the civilian medics posed.

There were civilian medics now? Holy crap how did I miss the ambulance? Where was that?

So, indulge my ignorance here Bear. How does the Canadian Military handle this kind of training situation? If those men had red crosses on their arms, would that make a discernible influence on the outcome of this particular instance in the 40 minute long video?

Yes, they would be an identifiable group. And operating in said theater, the pilots would have been made aware of their presence. That is also SOP. Although there is the potential for that to break down to.

Right, they wanted to shoot him. I could see that the mobile people had their hands full carrying the body to the van. I could clearly see that nobody had anything in their hands resembling a weapon, unless they were going to throw a body at the chopper. There is no appearance of a muzzle, or RPG from the van, which is what caused this whole $hit storm in the first place. I could see and hear that they weren't talking about the van's contents, though they were asking the injured man to make their day by reaching for a weapon.

No body said it was pretty or right, only that it lacks intent to be murder. I can justify it, but then again, I think like these guys do Ton. Now ask me if I want you to think like me.

 

[CDNBear]

No it wasn't. I was saying that intentions don't matter with such a serious choice.

Hmmm, your posts say otherwise.

How so? Obviously, the first thing that comes to mind is that innocent people were killed by this backwards society we call the military, and then it was covered up. More broadly speaking, one should avoid the military that has leaders that started the crazy war

Why the sudden change in posting style Icarus25k?

I mean, you seemed reasoned and intelligent here...

Adult Swim - Adult Swim

 

[Icarus27k]

Hmmm, your posts say otherwise.

Why the sudden change in posting style Icarus25k?

I mean, you seemed reasoned and intelligent here...

Adult Swim - Adult Swim

You actually Googled "Icarus27k" guy?

You... You want to follow me on Twitter?








You get to see funnys such as: "Dr. Stranglove is my all time favorite movie. I think that shows I have good judgment. Oh, and by 'Dr. Strangelove', I meant 'Good Burger'."

 

[CDNBear]

You actually Googled "Icarus27k" guy?

Sure, you bet. It's called intel. That's how you win wars.

You... You want to follow me on Twitter?

Not really, I'm only sticking around here, because I find your idiotic posts funny to play with.

You get to see funnys such as: "Dr. Stranglove is my all time favorite movie. I think that shows I have good judgment. Oh, and by 'Dr. Strangelove', I meant 'Good Burger'."

Why doesn't that come as a surprise.

Do you have a french cut to?

 

[Icarus27k]

Coincidently, Google is where the US military gets intel as well. That, and a rockin' Sex on the Beach recipe.

 

[CDNBear]

Coincidently, Google is where the US military gets intel as well. That, and a rockin' Sex on the Beach recipe.

Obfuscation aside, why the underhanded approach to joining CC?

Or did you actually have some sort of mental lapse?

 

[Tonington]

Then why come off smug, like you do?

It's your perception...I can't answer that. I was only offering an opinion to an exchange between Wolf and Icarus.

There were civilian medics now? Holy crap how did I miss the ambulance? Where was that?

That's what I would call them. They were helping wounded. What they were doing is what an ambulance would do. Civilians, not professionals.

This is kind of the direction I'm going with the question about medics. It's related to human behavior, and how the Military likes things to be neat and orderly. Only the world isn't neat and orderly, so only giving quarter to a premise that doesn't exist is flawed.

I mean the Israelis use behavior all the time when assessing risk in airports. I think in this case it's easy to see that the people helping the injured posed no threat. There was more than one Apache. They could have watched the van without firing, until it was obvious that they were a risk to some asset or otherwise.

Yes, they would be an identifiable group. And operating in said theater, the pilots would have been made aware of their presence. That is also SOP. Although there is the potential for that to break down to.

So, how does SOP change when your enemy isn't a conventional professional military?

 

[CDNBear]

It's your perception...I can't answer that. I was only offering an opinion to an exchange between Wolf and Icarus.

Ain't perception a bitch?

That's what I would call them. They were helping wounded. What they were doing is what an ambulance would do. Civilians, not professionals.

Civilians, not professionals, then they weren't doing what an ambulance would do. Because IMHO opinion. They looked like civilians just picking up a body. No triage, no attempt at stopping the bleeding, just start getting rid of the survivors and then the weapons, so the US looks even worse.

This is kind of the direction I'm going with the question about medics. It's related to human behavior, and how the Military likes things to be neat and orderly. Only the world isn't neat and orderly, so only giving quarter to a premise that doesn't exist is flawed.

Since when have you see me or Mark claim the military was perfect? lol.

I mean the Israelis use behavior all the time when assessing risk in airports. I think in this case it's easy to see that the people helping the injured posed no threat.

I'm not going to attack that comparison very hard, because I think you made it mildly. Because there is a world of difference between an airport where the security begins when your front tires hit the property line, and a war zone in Iraq.

There was more than one Apache. They could have watched the van without firing, until it was obvious that they were a risk to some asset or otherwise.

True, and again, as I have said since the beginning, I'm not saying it was right, and although I will justify it, but more importantly, there is no mens rea.

So, how does SOP change when your enemy isn't a conventional professional military?

You shout anything that appears to tamper with the scene.

 

[Icarus27k]

Come to think of it, I never intro'd myself. Hi. I'm Icarus (or Icky for short). How's it going?

And I finish a new person's reference to the Helenistic myth every time he/she mentions it when they don't like what I say. "Yeah yeah, too close to the sun. Too ambitious for my own good. I'll get mine eventually. Got it. That is so funny."

 

[Stretch]

Mainstream media ignores Wikileaks video and pays more attention to Tiger Woods

Tags:CORPORATE MEDIA
COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS/PROPAGANDA





also.................................


FLASHBACK - American soldiers shooting civilians

Tags: TORTURE/WAR CRIMES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stq1Gd3OnGk

 

[CDNBear]

Come to think of it, I never intro'd myself. Hi. I'm Icarus (or Icky for short). How's it going?

And I finish a new person's reference to the Helenistic myth every time he/she mentions it when they don't like what I say. "Yeah yeah, too close to the sun. Too ambitious for my own good. I'll get mine eventually. Got it. That is so funny."

Well so much for credibility. So why the dumb act?

 

[CDNBear]

Mainstream media ignores Wikileaks video and pays more attention to Tiger Woods

Tags:CORPORATE MEDIA
COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS/PROPAGANDA





also.................................


FLASHBACK - American soldiers shooting civilians

Tags: TORTURE/WAR CRIMES

That's awesome stretch, now if you have something that pertains to the topic at hand. You can post that in another thread and we can discuss American war crimes there.

 

[Icarus27k]

Well so much for credibility. So why the dumb act?

Act? This is how I normally am. The serious stuff, where I insist on strict logic and responsibility, is the other side of me. The one that I use when I talk about the US military gunning down Iraqi children.


Oh, and as for credibility, I haven't relied on a post with just emoticons in it yet. Seriously, that's like the dunce hat, go-sit-in-the-corner action in a serious discussion.

 

[Machjo]

The Rachel Maddow Show - Wikileaks posts combat video from Iraq showing civilian casualties

Don't the Americans have protocols requiring them to confirm a target as an enemy before attacking? The only 'proof' I saw there was that some men had weapons. I don't know Iraqi law and whether it allows civilians to carry weapons, but even if it doesn't, I can still understand why in such a dangerous part of the world a person would want to have a weapon for self-protection.

Also, let's suppose a Canadian police helicopter had come across the same scene in a Canadian neighbourhood. I can guarantee they'd have approached the scene with more caution than that. From the pilots' choice of words, it's clear that they enjoyed the attack and were even begging for it with repeated requests for permission to engage.

As far as I can tell, they are likely liable to be charged with homocide.

 

[Machjo]

That was some great footage.

Too bad the reporters got too chummy with the insurgents but if your gonna lie with dogs you're bound to catch some fleas. Or in this case 30MM rounds from an Apache.

What proof do you have that they were insurgents?They were men with weapons, yes. I'd like to know how common such weapons are among the general population, and if a US police helicopter coming across the same scene in NYC would have reacted in the same way?