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

This is how an embedded journalist is supposed to identify himself.



If you don't, you might get shot at.

 

Check out 4:13 to 4:19 you will see an insurgent with the RPG.

 

Not being funny, but war should make your heart hurt. I can see your point, but I don't think this was totally a baseless attack. It sucks hearing the soldiers as they are, but thats the world they live in. Like the earlier poster said about not knowing what its like to live in the Iraqis' shoes, how many here casting stones know what its like to be in the soldiers' position?

 

I just don't see how a human can do that. Like salivating at the mouth for the ok to engage. That seems disgusting to me. I'm not trying to judge soldiers since I have family in the Marines but I cannot fathom the thought of actually taking another person's life and acting so casual about it. Even at people that are carrying a wounded man. Just makes no sense to me.

 

Unfortunately dressing like that in Iraq will probably get you either kidnapped or killed by the insurgents (probably both).

It takes some serious balls to be a journalist in Iraq.

 

You seem to think physical action is the only action. IMO your way of thinking justifies terrorism.

 

Honestly,

If this video justifies pre-approval of the action and the action itself, then any Iraqi can be killed.

They are all holding weapons. All of them hold weapons because the country is destabilized, because both sides have engaged in unjust murder, rape, etc

You would be holding a gun too.

All this whining about "they don't care about us they don't care about us"....

You're in THEIR country.

YOU ARE INSIDE THE COUNTRY WHICH BELONGS TO THOSE PEOPLE.

If they (shooters in the video) really didn't want to be there and they were really concerned about those insurgents hurting them, they wouldn't be yee-hawing and laughing it up as if it were an arcade shooter game.

My compassion goes out to all people who have/had family over there. If you/they use criminal behavior of the other side to fuel racist,UNJUST, HATEFUL killing of human beings who are suspected to be inurgents.. I truly feel sorry for you.

We don't forgive a serial killer for the 10th crime just because he is a "natural" and has lost that value in human life. For that same reason, I am disgusted with those who are saying soldiers can't make judgement calls. They certainly can, they certainly should and, in this case, they certainly did. It was not automatic at all.

 

Official response to video leak due out maybe today.

Wikileaks may shape the story, but the video is worthwhile regardless - no retraction needed. And no, I don't think being offended by the gratuitous joy illustrated in the video by the soldiers is "besmirching" them. Their attitude was beyond callous. I don't blame them for what they did per say, but I'm damn sure repulsed by their gleeful exclamations and desire to kill. It's totally unproductive to the ass-backwards "mission" we have over there.

EDIT: And again - I think the focus should be on the coverup. Everyone seems to want to pretend that part never happened.

 

If the Iraq civillians really badly wanted peace and stability, then this war would be over in 3 days. A guerrilla war cannot survive if the populace has completely turned on them (see Anbar). If the civillians actually mobilized and informed our soldiers, then we would be able to easily clear them out, and this whole **** would be done. But they don't, and so **** like this happens.

Wrong.
The new Iraqi government has laws explicitly against wandering around in the streets with weapons, and has warned that if you wander around with an AK, don't be surprised if a Marine sniper blows your head off.

It easily makes sense to me. If I couldn't trust any of the populace and a good chunk of them were trying to kill me, I'd be pretty callous towards them too.

That isn't the job of soldiers. You don't send in the Army to win hearts and minds and make people love you, you send them to blow **** up. And sometimes things are going to get blown up that really shouldn't have, but once again, it's war.
And yeah, if you have an insurgent who's trying to drag off another insurgent for treatment, of course you open fire. You're not going to sit and wait for them to heal up and try to kill more of our men.

 

Tuesday, Apr 6, 2010 06:07 EDT
Iraq slaughter not an aberration
By Glenn Greenwald

WikiLeaks
Previously classified footage of a July 2007 attack by U.S. Apache helicopters that killed a Reuters journalist and several other non-insurgents, published on WikiLeaks.(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV - Update V)

I was just on Democracy Now along with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange discussing the Iraq video they released yesterday, and there's one vital point I want to emphasize. Shining light on what our government and military do is so critical precisely because it forces people to see what is really being done and prevents myth and propaganda from distorting those realities. That's why the administration fights so hard to keep torture photos suppressed, why the military fought so hard here to keep this video concealed (and why they did the same with regard to the Afghan massacre), and why whistle-blowers, real journalists, and sites like WikiLeaks are the declared enemy of the government. The discussions many people are having today -- about the brutal reality of what the U.S. does when it engages in war, invasions and occupation -- is exactly the discussion which they most want to avoid.

But there's a serious danger when incidents like this Iraq slaughter are exposed in a piecemeal and unusual fashion: namely, the tendency to talk about it as though it is an aberration. It isn't. It's the opposite: it's par for the course, standard operating procedure, what we do in wars, invasions, and occupation. The only thing that's rare about the Apache helicopter killings is that we know about it and are seeing what happened on video
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/06/iraq/index.html

 

This is not the point. You can't justify the actions of the soldiers with "forget everything else, look at the situation" and not allow that same standard for Iraqis.

You are biased and you appear to be extremely ethnocentric here.

You're first paragraph reminds me of a rape scene from a movie - (paraphrased from memory) tell your sister that if she shuts up and co-operates, this will be over much sooner.

I'm sure it would be over sooner if everyone bent over. It wouldn't need to be "over" if the US wasn't there in the first place. Most of all, they don't want it to be the kind of "over" you're talking about.

This is not a mission to kill all the insurgents - that has never happened anywhere in the world in the history of mankind. This is a mission of bringing democracy to Iraq (since there are no WMD's) and ensuring that the new democracy-lovers are also America-lovers who love to share their oil. As a consequence of those things, the army must be present on the ground.

According to you, as a consequence of the army being present, the Iraq insurgents should ignore the conflicting role that the US plays in Iraqi politics and just step back or be killed.

I ask you this - do you see an end to insurgency? Have you seen any indicators?

Do you know that, essentially, anyone who carries a gun for self-defense (as Americans do in their country) and speaks out against America (as Americans do in their country) is an insurgent? They don't even have to fire a weapon to become insurgents - according to you and other apologists. That's an insurgent. That's who they're shooting. They can't call him a terrorist or a criminal or anything. They call them insurgents.

Lost in the middle of a good stand up comedy act, a classic line about insurgents, which is true and funny at the same time.. An image I never forget..

War

 

I don't think anyone knows what the eff the mission is anymore. All I know for sure is that the tools in place (military) were not designed for the nebulous goals they're supposed to achieve. This was relayed directly to me by a Lt. Colonel in Afganistan.

 

That's kinda what the definition of being a soldier is. They kill. That's what a war is about.

The person who gave the command isn't overseeing the soldiers assessment, they are making sure there's no chance that they are firing on american soldiers (no Americans in the area). That's their job - they have no idea what the soldiers are seeing on the ground.

The soldiers attitude doesn't sit right - that's for sure, but that's not enough to condemn them as criminals. They thought the guys had weapons and were insurgents, that's enough to fire upon them.

War is a sick, disgusting affair. Like I said, if you support any war, you accept these kinds of acts. They will happen. And even if there was abuse or mal-intent, most of the time, they will get away with it.

 

Sure. I'm a huge nationalist. So what?

Analogy fail. Yeah, we shouldn't have gone there, but we're there, and we have a mission to ensure stability among other things, and if the Iraqis want stability, they should cooperate.

Yes, if you are carrying weapons in the middle of the street (which is banned under Iraqi law), are out with a bunch of guys carrying AKs and RPGs (and there is ZERO justification for an non-insurgent Iraqi to be carrying a RPG), are out in the streets during a battle (note how the streets are empty - this was during an intense firefight), and even aim down the sights with said RPG down a street, than yeah, you might be an insurgent and hence a target.

Um, yes. The insurgents laying down their arms and stopping the fight would be good.

Huh? The insurgents are clearly weaker today than they were when this video was taken.

 

It isn't an aberration, it is SOP, but that is war. The enemy is war, not soldiers.

 

Why the hell did a van carrying two young children drive up to a scene with many dead bodies and a helicopter still circling? The helicopter didn't necessarily have to light it up because it appears to be driving away. He was asking for the order to shoot long before it took off. He could have possibly feared rocket fire from the van?

1. I don't like the tone from the soldiers in the helicopter, but you would be pretty fired up if you felt like an RPG was about to be fired at you. There is visual confirmation of AK's and what looks to be said RPG. In a war zone, if you are carrying anything that appears to be a weapon, you are making a HUGE mistake.

2. War journalists are some of the bravest people on earth. They know that they put their life in danger every single day.

3. Video is edited unfairly. But some people are going to put up a stink to any war (and rightfully so).

4. I will be pissed if we refused to treat the girls and delayed medical attention to them because of a "cover up."

 

Oh they sound perfect to be a soldier trying to help a population . One of the worst things in the video is the eagerness of the soldiers to kill the people. When you start enjoying killing people you are not suited as a soldier (or a human being in general).

It is sad how some people here react, they do not seem to care that people Innocent people died. They would react differently if the people who died were their loved ones instead of people who live on the other side of the world. For some people not all live is equally important.

The sad thing is that these things happen all the time in war. That is why you shouldn't invade a country and then complain that the people are not happy you are there.

I find it funny that the people who agreed with the war, and defended it. Now say that this is unfortunate but that those things happen in a war, so you shouldn't blame the soldiers. How in the world can you agree with a war if you know that a lot of innocent people will die?

 

If you sister/brother/wife/husband was just shot down, and you might be able to safe his life wouldn't you drive up to them hoping you will be able to get them to a hospital and safe them? Even if it meant you might get hurt? I know I would.

 

You would drive your kids, or any child for that matter, through a war zone to save another family member being shot at?

 

Edit, misread you post.

Maybe they thought that they would be safe in a fan since they didn't show any agression towards the helicopter.

But there must be a reason for them to do this since I do not believe they did it so their children would be shot.

If Mrs arno_ed was shot I do not know what I would do. And if I ould think rationally. i would ofcourse want to get revenge on the people who shot her.