[IRAQ] US Forces with an example of "Collateral Damage"

I don't know what the procedures for surrender are according to the ROE. If they follow those procedures, whatever they are, the shooting should stop.

In practice, I don't know whether it would have been possible for the people of either group to actually signal a surrender, given the speed and severity of the attack. They were all pretty much dead or dying before they could form a complex thought along those lines.

I appreciate that someone is probably going to say something like, "The army should have approached them and asked them to surrender before shooting." Fundamentally, that is an unworkable idea. The insurgent plan is shoot and disappear. By trying to talk to them, you let them know that now is the appropriate time to move from phase one of that plan, to phase two. And it ends up you've let them shoot at you, not shot back, and you just have to repeat the whole thing again the next day. Either that, or you get close enough that they get a chance to kill you while you are formulating your question. Neither outcome is optimal for the Army, whose plans require killing insurgents rather than being killed.

 

Wow just wow.
I didn't want to post anymore since there is no way either side will convince the other side, and all arguments have been said many times.

But if this is the mindset of the US army no wonder most people in Iraq and Afghanistan hates them.

Why doesn't the army just nuke the whole country/region than you are sure that all "enemies" are dead. Ofcourse you have some colleteral damage. But who cares they are not Americans. And we have saved the lifes off many American soldiers

 

ignore them, reading there comments is just sad, its sad that human beings can have such an ideology.

 

Whats ironic is that these islamic jihadists function off of the same mindset that MiddleMan is going off of. Killing innocents to achieve a radical basis of what they believe is right, and showing no remorse.

Its a pitiful endless cycle that you subject yourself, and the rest of us by association to.

 

Wait... what? When did they become terrorists? You don't even know if they've ever fired a single bullet in their lives!

Why are they terrorists?

That's awesome, it doesn't matter because the US Army (shock) determined that the belief was not unreasonable.

I know you hate wikipedia, but here's a link you clearly have no clue about, so you shoud read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

In response to being called ethnocentric. Nice.

I just wanted to say I loved these posts for various reasons. Some of my favourite things about this thread:

- Ottomaton never ever strays from facts and solid proof. Except when it's about soldiers - then the facts start getting mixed with excuses. It's not a cop and a bank robber. It's a cop in a house without a warrant and a guy who may have a knife - the cop begs for authorisation to shoot the guy, celebrates doing it, and later discovering that he had a kitchen knife + chopping board + was cutting tomatoes. Later, the reason becomes "I thought he had a knife, he was potentially a murderer and may have had a knife so I begged for authorisation to shoot him because he may have thrown the knife across the house straight into my head."

Cop and robber. lol. Can't believe you tried to pull that.

- Kojirou has already admitted that his buds hate ALL Iraqis. Why he bothered to talk, or I bothered to speak to him, after that, is beyond me.

- MiddleMan can roam the streets a free man but a guy lights a cigarette on a plane, he's a terrorist.

- How insurgency is so broadly defined to be any Iraqi who might have a gun and is not holding a sign saying "NOT AN INSURGENT".

 

That's true.

They're innocents to us. But to the terrorists/jihadists/whatever, they have rationalized for themselves that "this is not an innocent".

 

You are right the american people hijacked those planes and crashed them into buildings, killing innocent people. Keep defending the insurgents.

 

WTF???

 

Can you tell us the connection between the Iraqi insurgents and the people who hijacked those planes?

I didn't know there was one.

 

Insurgent is a better word. I'm sure you object to that term as well, but let me explain. I'm going to go back to the cops, which apparently bothers you, but police are the only people in the USA walking around with guns and a mandate to use them. We don't have soldiers with guns patrolling the streets. Obviously, you're got some anger with that, and me in general, but please try and step back from that for a second.

Imagine a police officer sees you skulking around behind a warehouse and thinks you are doing something illegal. Maybe you have a perfectly good reason to be there, but the situation is such that the policeman has a legitimate question whether that is the case (maybe there's been a series of warehouse break-ins in the last month), and he walks over to investigate. As he approaches, you look over at him, get a frightened look in your eye, pull a realistic toy gun out of your shirt, crouch down and point it at him. Imagine the police officer then shoots you and you die.

So when police shoot anybody, there is a board of inquiry which will ask, "Is this shooting justified?" Did the police officer have reasonable suspicion that he was in danger when he shot. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that the "gun" was a toy. What maters is what the police officer believed his life to be in danger when he acted, and that believe was reasonable. The normal standard is that if he reasonably believed there to be a danger, his actions are considered justified. No charges will be filed against the officer. Plenty of people will flip out and blame the cops. In fact, in the USA this situation is not unheard of (it happened so often that there is a law requiring red paint on the end of a toy gun barrel to make it easier to identify) and when it happens you see people marching on police station looking for blood. But in the eyes of the law, if the police officer could reasonably believe you had a gun, the shooting is justified. Here is one example of a similar scenario occurring in real life. Even though the officer was in no real danger, a reasonable perception of danger justifies the shooting and makes it not murder, but rather justifiable homicide. The officers will never go beyond the requisite Grand Jury required for every homicide. If you would like other examples, similar Google will gladly provide them.

And that is roughly analogous to the standard that the US Army is using here in evaluating fault (not 100% analogous, because the helecopter pilots were never in danger, and they are soldiers and not police officers) - was it possible for the soldiers in a combat zone responding to calls of shots fired to reasonably mistake the reporters with cameras for insurgents with guns. That is the factual standard that I'm talking about here. Based on the video, my opinion is that that test seems to have been passed. On the other hand, if someone has other information indicating that these soldiers knew that they were shooting at unarmed reporters, I'd be glad to reevaluate. If they knew they were shooting unarmed reporters, they should be tried for murder. I would be glad to document and discuss other facts if you'd like. If you will kindly point out these nonfactual statements and I'll do my best to provide you the facts that support them.

While we're at it, another fact is that this is the position articulated by several former US army officers, independent of me. Here is one example. Again, Google can find you more.

 

You are right the Iraqi people invaded the US, killing innocent people. Keep defending the warcriminals.
(not saying that soldiers are war criminals, but soldiers that kill innocent people without a good reason are).

 

I'm glad you retracted the word terrorist. I hope, and so should you, that it was a fluke error or lapse in judgement on your part and nothing more. Terrorist is not a worse word, it is the wrong word.

I understand what you are saying. I work in a place with similar beaurocracy. I see that you think the soldiers were acting on "reasonable expectation".

Here are my issues with your analogy:

- It ignores the begging for a rushed authorisation.

- It ignores the celebration. This is especially disturbing since me, you and them all agree that it was based on a suspicion rather than a certainty.

- The people who determined that the soldiers were reasonable in their decision are the people who suffer the most if they were not reasonable.

- In your example, the officer would have to think that he saw a gun shaped object and I would never direct it at him. That's the equivalent. Not me getting on the ground and aiming for his head with a toy gun.

- I don't care about other cases and other people acting irrationally. I am making my own rational argument, even after you have shown me past irrational arguments vaguely similar to the topic.

Let me give you an analogy and maybe between my analogy and your analogy we can see/agree/disagree on the difference.

Imagine a police officer sees you skulking around behind your warehouse and feels you are doing something to resist the government's potential "re"posession of the warehouse - a matter on which the courts are making a decision as to whether the government is within its rights to do. Maybe you have a perfectly good reason to be there, but the situation is such that the policeman has a legitimate question whether that is the case (maybe there's been a series of warehouse break-ins in the last month), and he walks over to investigate while knowing that a person skulking around behind a warehouse is very common. As he approaches from a distance with his bulletproof vest, he sees you and steadies his Barrett XM500. He takes out a walkie talkie and, among other things, says "come on hurry up, please!!" when asking for authorisation. Oh, he is in not on level ground, he has a good 10 feet vertical advantage while being a safe enough distance away. You eventually look over at him and **** your pants. In one split second, the police offer starts shooting and you take out an air rifle and point it at him. Obviously, you never had a chance and were not even aware of the threat, so the police officer then shoots you over and over till you die. Just then his friend shows up and he says "THAT WAS AWESOME!! I can't believe you missed it!! hahahahaha. DUDE I murdered that b*stard." I've honestly seen no mention of this: but, let's assume he then goes and checks to see if his suspicions were true.

That's, in my opinion, more analogous. I'm sure you will object to certain terminology.

The place where facts were missing was where you said that soldiers become killing machines incapable of making certain decisions carefully. They either enjoy or become indifferent to murder. Essentially, you were describing a brainwashed individual. If the responsibility of acting human is taken away from these people, then there must be solid proof to show that they are brainwashed.

 

Osama, is that you?

 

Interesting story from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?hp

Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video

 

Great article, Sweet.

 

Insurgents who are help by Al-Queda and Iran. That is why Iran is in the crosshairs next. Innocent people die all the time in a WAR.

 

How many american lives were taken in 9/11 how many were kids??? That is why we are at war, we are going after the terrorist groups in the region. Since they hit us first, we cannot be a victim again.

 

what does Iraqi people have to do with 911?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?hp

The men in the Apache helicopter in the video flew into an area that was being contested, during a broader conflict in which a number of helicopters had been shot down.

Mission Accomplish.