again, if you want to debate this in context, references like yours are irrelevant to this situation. whether you agree if we should be there in the first place makes no difference to the guys blown apart by a .30 machine gun. the point of this is to try and decide if the men, in the context of this war, should have been fired upon.

4/8/2010 10:58:27 AM

You just said they were insurgents or 'loosely related' to insurgents. You can't be serious, can you?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are either currently in the military or you have served in the military?

4/8/2010 10:59:59 AM

I dont know if they were insurgents or not for certain. I am not sure how anyone could say with 100% they were innocent people or combatants. I am trying to look at the situation objectively to determine whether or not they were in my opinion and whether or not I think the Apache pilot's actions were justified.

based on their actions, I dont think the ones in the van were al-queda radical jihadists. I do think they had an affiliation with those who were (maybe they were neighbors, maybe they attended a jihad meeting, maybe they didnt like US forces, maybe they were forced to help the insurgents...who knows) and because of that, made a decision to try and aid the wounded/gather weapons, etc..which made them legitimate targets...I believe the first group of killed/wounded were insurgents, based on the activity in the area and their armament.

what does my military affiliation have to do with anything?

4/8/2010 11:23:54 AM

Quote :

"based on their actions, I dont think the ones in the van were al-queda radical jihadists. I do think they had an affiliation with those who were (maybe they were neighbors, maybe they attended a jihad meeting, maybe they didnt like US forces, maybe they were forced to help the insurgents...who knows) and because of that, made a decision to try and aid the wounded/gather weapons, etc..which made them legitimate targets...I believe the first group of killed/wounded were insurgents, based on the activity in the area and their armament. "

this makes 0 sense. But I guess you and the Jihadist have something in common in your way of thinking. They attack innocent civilians here because you know, we have an affiliation with those responsible for their peoples suffering...either our neighbors are in the military, hold a government office, or we've attended a town council or two *shrug*

Quote :

"what does my military affiliation have to do with anything?"

well for starters it would explain your backwards ignorant way of thinking and it would also let me know that I am wasting my time with this discussion. I'd have better luck trying to convince insurgents to give up

4/8/2010 11:28:44 AM

Quote :

"this makes 0 sense. But I guess you and the Jihadist have something in common in your way of thinking. They attack innocent civilians here because you know, we have an affiliation with those responsible for their peoples suffering...either our neighbors are in the military, hold a government office, or we've attended a town council or two *shrug*"

I expected this point from you and I doubt you will acknowledge the significant difference between taking action on a battlefield and civilian a relationship. had the group in the van maintained a civilian relationship with the insurgents (their "loose" affiliation) and remained off of the battlefield they would be alive today. they choose to step into a hot area and take physical action with the enemy and they paid for it. how is this so difficult for you to comprehend? if I were step on this battlefield and give aid to US Marine, I become a target....regardless if I am wearing a uniform, holding a gun or representing a 'direct' threat to the opposition.

and for the record, I am not military. I am not blind to the fact that mistakes are made and this is a tragic situation that should be investigated and discussed (as I hoped we could do). obviously, your blinders prevent you from looking at this with any rationality or making any kind of logical point as you quickly have resorted to stereotyping and name-calling to make your argument. well done.

4/8/2010 12:09:01 PM

Quote :

"They attack innocent civilians here because you know, we have an affiliation with those responsible for their peoples suffering"

I'm not sure how you're defining "they" and "peoples" here, but to be sure, the terrorists who attack civilians in the U.S. are not doing it in defense of Muslims. They are waging a war of conquest, make no mistake about it. They are the imperialists, and you can be sure that they won't be spreading anything like freedom or democracy. You've had almost nine years to figure this out. What's taking you so long?

Quote :

"Did you just post some post-invasion bullshit to link Al Qaeda to Iraq?"

He wouldn't have had to. Hussein's regime had plenty of ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups before the invasion.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 12:14:35 PM

Quote :

"Hussein's regime had plenty of ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups before the invasion."

I haven't been paying attention at all to this thread, but lol at this.

Please enlighten us.

4/8/2010 12:29:17 PM

Which claim are you disputing?

4/8/2010 1:21:38 PM

The one that was disproved by the 9/11 commission.

4/8/2010 1:25:11 PM

The 9/11 Report doesn't disprove either, so I guess I don't follow you.

4/8/2010 1:50:37 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report#Findings

Quote :

"In addition, while meetings between al-Qaeda representatives and Iraqi government officials had taken place, the panel had no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaeda in preparing or executing the 9/11 attacks."

4/8/2010 1:53:27 PM

Indeed, that is one of the several passages in the 9/11 Report that confirms Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda. Thanks for pointing that out.

4/8/2010 2:01:58 PM

Are you people that naive? There are also WMD yet to be found. Its a well known FACT that the Bush administration fabricated whatever they needed to sell the public on declaring war on Iraq to complete his fathers legacy. Anyone that believes it had anything to do with 9/11 is a sheep and naive. 9/11 was nothing more than an opportunity and selling tool for the invasion of Iraq.

Quote :

"I'm not sure how you're defining "they" and "peoples" here, but to be sure, the terrorists who attack civilians in the U.S. are not doing it in defense of Muslims. They are waging a war of conquest, make no mistake about it. They are the imperialists, and you can be sure that they won't be spreading anything like freedom or democracy. You've had almost nine years to figure this out. What's taking you so long?"

lol what? *scratches head*

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 2:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2010 2:07:49 PM

Quote :

"again, if you want to debate this in context, references like yours are irrelevant to this situation. whether you agree if we should be there in the first place makes no difference to the guys blown apart by a .30 machine gun. the point of this is to try and decide if the men, in the context of this war, should have been fired upon."

NO, NO, NO.

APACHES DO NOT HAVE A .30 CALIBER MACHINE GUN, LOL. There are lots of hand held rifles that fire a .30 caliber round, the 7.62x51mm NATO is the standard .30 caliber round we use in rifles and machine guns.

Apaches have a 30MM CANNON, big difference. Notice the size difference in the rounds my son.


30x113mm rounds (The total length of the round is actually 200mm, the case is 113mm):




.30 Caliber Machine Gun rounds (7.62x51mm):

4/8/2010 2:12:14 PM

sorry bout that

4/8/2010 2:15:51 PM

I just want to make it clear how insanely nasty getting hit directly by an Apache's cannon would be, particularly HEI rounds.

DO NOT WANT.

4/8/2010 2:21:27 PM

Quote :

"*scratches head*"

You implied that "jihadis" attack the United States on behalf of "their peoples". I'm not sure whether you meant this generally, or if you had a specific example in mind, but in either case you would be completely off the mark. Jihadis don't have peoples, nor do they give a shit about the suffering of Muslims.

4/8/2010 2:24:33 PM

i pretty much don't want to get shot with any bullet

for that reason, i'm going to avoid helping insurgents on an active battlefield

i suggest that you guys do the same

4/8/2010 2:25:43 PM

Yeah, I'm simply going to stay out of the battle unless I have a reason to be in it (ie - I'm fighting).

4/8/2010 2:28:03 PM

The interesting thing is that people are arguing an issue that is factually inaccurate. You mention the possibility that those who came to help were al Qaeda sympathizers, and that insurgents shouldn't carry weapons openly, etc., etc. We should not be arguing that point at all, because, once again, none of these people were insurgents.

All of those killed or wounded were innocent civilians. Everyone coming to help was a civilian. No one was doing anything wrong. There is no way you can blame the victim here. There is no justification in any way that can center on these individuals being in the wrong.

You can have a separate debate about insurgents and our ROE with respect to them, but the issue here is that knowing the facts that these people WERE NOT COMBATANTS. Focus on the argument at hand, and stop bringing other NON-facts into the discussion.

4/8/2010 3:07:04 PM

might want to doublecheck all that. it appears that some of them were actually armed.

4/8/2010 3:12:55 PM

Oh, they were? If that's the case, then I do need to double check. I was not aware of that.

4/8/2010 3:33:29 PM

Quote :

"The interesting thing is that people are arguing an issue that is factually inaccurate. You mention the possibility that those who came to help were al Qaeda sympathizers, and that insurgents shouldn't carry weapons openly, etc., etc. We should not be arguing that point at all, because, once again, none of these people were insurgents. All of those killed or wounded were innocent civilians. Everyone coming to help was a civilian. No one was doing anything wrong. There is no way you can blame the victim here. There is no justification in any way that can center on these individuals being in the wrong. You can have a separate debate about insurgents and our ROE with respect to them, but the issue here is that knowing the facts that these people WERE NOT COMBATANTS. Focus on the argument at hand, and stop bringing other NON-facts into the discussion"

where did you get all of that? they were armed and US soldiers were being engaged in the area.

4/8/2010 3:33:49 PM

Wait, THESE people were armed? The ones who were shot in the video? Based on what I was reading, there was an engagement in the area, but not these individuals. Is there somewhere it says that THESE individuals were somehow involved in the insurgency?

(I'm looking through the web now, and I can't find anything substantial that says these were insurgents who were armed...if that is the case, then I understand a little more of the wrong place, wrong time mentality...right now, though, all I see is the U.S. government's quotes that these people were all insurgents, etc...basically a bunch of the same stuff that was part of the cover up)

If you find any evidence that these people who were killed were armed, it's a different story. If not, then everything I wrote is correct.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 3:45 PM. Reason : f]

4/8/2010 3:36:38 PM

No, the crux of the issue is not whether or not these people were armed - it is whether or not the soldiers who fired upon them thought they were armed.

4/8/2010 3:45:11 PM

^haven't we established that the civilians in iraq can carry weapons? if so, that clearly makes it a murky area, as being armed does not necessarily constitute a threat.


if the tables were turned, and this were on US soil, every single person in here would be claiming that the executions (mostly the second wave) were rutheless and unwarranted, and worthy of war-crime prosecutions. civilians were killed, and there's no excuse for that.

what bothers me about the "war is ugly" response is that it forgives these types of accidents. I will admit that the first round of shootings could be placed under the "war is ugly" category, and that sometimes mistakes and collateral damage occur. The second wave of fire, though, I am less tolerant of. another point of contention is the concern that "neutering" the forces would debilitate them. i don't buy this argument. we absolutely need whistle blowers and media coverage, as it is currently the only check-and-balance that we have. without it, there would be little to no accountability. i expect our soldiers to be held to the same level of scrutiny as a police officer (which is another topic, but somewhat related). there is no reason to think a soldier shouldn't have to think about the consequences of his/her actions before pulling the trigger.

we can argue all day as to whether the right call was made during the heat of battle, but once the facts come to light, the productive argument would be to revise our tactics so that these types of errors occur with less frequency. as times/methods of warfare change and advance, so should our protocol. if our army is to be an effective killing machine, it is surely less efficient to be wasting our resources killing innocent civilians, and far much more consuming to be spending time trying to cover our dirty tracks.

4/8/2010 3:45:14 PM

ITT mls09 draws a comparison between a peaceful cul-de-sac in Cary to a raging urban battle against a heavily armed militia

4/8/2010 3:47:23 PM

heavily armed lol

4/8/2010 3:47:57 PM

RPGs and massive IED = heavily armed in my humble opinion.

i acknowledge the fact that you wish the iraqi insurgents had even heavier weaponry with which to inflict greater casualties on our troops.

4/8/2010 3:49:13 PM

ITT Solinari argues that the richest country in the world that invests $550,000,000,000 in defense can't beat the Bad News Bears of military opponents.

4/8/2010 3:52:01 PM

I know, right? No way a bunch of guys running around in pajamas with AK-47s could beat the US military.

4/8/2010 3:57:26 PM

Quote :

"ITT mls09 draws a comparison between a peaceful cul-de-sac in Cary to a raging urban battle against a heavily armed militia"

*sigh* what makes the cul-de-sac peaceful? if an apache aircraft is flying over your neighborhood, does it cease to be peaceful? just for some shits and a little bit of giggles, let's hypothetically assume your neighborhood is transformed over night into an urban battlefield. are you no longer allowed to walk the streets with your camera? if you were mowed down for stopping your car to help someone wounded on the street, would your friends and family say, "hey, he was in a battlefield, shit happens. no point in crying over spilt milk." i am curiously interested in seeing if you maintain the same position.

i can't tell if your joking or if you are blinded by your nationalism. unfortunately, i suspect its the latter. i really don't see why its so un-american to expect our troops to practice a little fucking discretion.

4/8/2010 4:02:35 PM

RPGs and AK-47s constitute being heavily armed, no matter how you spin it.

4/8/2010 4:04:35 PM

Quote :

" RPGs and AK-47s constitute being heavily armed, no matter how you spin it. "

Considering any 15 yr old boy can legally get an AK-47 for this birthday I do not consider this true.

Quote :

"He wouldn't have had to. Hussein's regime had plenty of ties with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups before the invasion."

NO

Quote :

"Apaches have a 30MM CANNON"

that can really fuck some shit up.

4/8/2010 5:00:42 PM

Its sad that innocent civilians died.

However, the soldiers doing the killing are under the impression that they are firing on armed enemy combatants. Who would kill them or their fellow soldiers at the drop of a hat.


It sucks that this wasn't true in this case.

4/8/2010 5:19:22 PM

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/?partner=rss&emc=rss

This is an editorial quoting other people who wrote blogs about the event who DO know what they're talking about.

For example, this man can tell by the pixels what went on.

Quote :

"I have spent quite a lot of time (a conservative estimate would be around 4500 hours) viewing aerial footage of Iraq (note: this time was not in viewing TADS video, but footage from Raven, Shadow, and Predator feeds)… Between 3:13 and 3:30 it is quite clear to me, as both a former infantry sergeant and a photographer, that the two men central to the gun-camera’s frame are carrying photographic equipment. This much is noted by WikiLeaks, and misidentified by the crew of Crazyhorse 18. At 3:39, the men central to the frame are armed, the one on the far left with some AK variant, and the one in the center with an RPG. The RPG is crystal clear even in the downsized, very low-resolution, video between 3:40 and 3:45 when the man carrying it turns counter-clockwise and then back to the direction of the Apache. This all goes by without any mention whatsoever from WikiLeaks, and that is unacceptable. At 4:08 to 4:18 another misidentification is made by Crazyhorse 18, where what appears to clearly be a man with a telephoto lens (edit to add: one of the Canon EF 70-200mm offerings) on an SLR is identified as wielding an RPG. The actual case is not threatening at all, though the misidentified case presents a major perceived threat to the aircraft and any coalition forces in the direction of its orientation. This moment is when the decision to engage is made, in error. (note: It has to be taken into consideration that there is no way that the Crazyhorse crew had the knowledge, as everyone who has viewed this had, that the man on the corner of that wall was a photographer. The actions of shouldering an RPG (bringing a long cylindrical object in line with one’s face) and framing a photo with a long telephoto lens quite probably look identical to an aircrew in those conditions.) I have made the call to engage targets from the sky several times, and know (especially during the surge) that such calls are not taken lightly. Had I been personally involved with this mission, and had access to real-time footage, I would have recommended against granting permission. Any of the officers with whom I served are well aware that I would continue voicing that recommendation until ordered to do otherwise. A few of them threatened me with action under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for doing so. Better officers than they, fortunately, were always ready to go to bat for me and keep that from happening. That said, if either of the clearly visible weapons been oriented towards aircraft, vehicles, troops, or civilians I would have cleared Crazyhorse 18 hot in a heartbeat and defended my actions to the battle staff if needed."

So you really can identify that some of the ppl on the ground had stuff to blow things up. Not that that had anything to do with the slaughter b/c they clearly couldn't have seen it...

Another military guy points out the obvious - it's not a good idea to be seen carrying things in Iraq.

Quote :

"Despite the advances in thermal and optical sensors, it’s still extremely difficult for an air crew to tell an insurgent from a civilian. The Apache pilots believed that they saw AK-47s and RPGs in the hands of the figures in the video. An examination of the video, however, is inconclusive. They could really be carrying anything."

Finally...

Quote :

"It seems plausible that some of them were combatants. It is not clear that all of them were. Among the dead were individuals who were apparently being paid by Reuters as journalists. I am not suggesting that merely being employed by Reuters was grounds for killing them, but Reuters was notorious for hiring insurgents to obtain “news” for them when said stringers were not helping to manufacture propaganda for the insurgency, so count me as unimpressed by the concern about danger posed to journalists. My only concern is whether the people killed were justified in being killed, how the decision to kill them was made, and whether we have learned anything from it. Schmedlap goes onto argue: “At worst, the events in this video show individuals wanting to get into a firefight first and wanting to analyze their actions second – kind of like the guys who shot first at Pat Tillman and worried about positive identification later. I suspect the reality lies somewhere between the best and worst.”"

That's about how I see it.

4/8/2010 5:29:13 PM

This is how accidents happen in a warzone


[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM. Reason : See the tiny picture? Is it a gun, is it dangerous?]

4/8/2010 5:45:02 PM

I'm shocked, shocked! that a civilian could have been injured during the prosecution of an urban battle.

WTF?! HOW DOES THIS SHIT HAPPEN!!!

4/8/2010 5:48:25 PM

I bet the helicopter moves significantly when they fire the rounds. That's some serious impulse there.

4/8/2010 6:19:02 PM

one would think they could compensate for such a thing

4/8/2010 6:20:19 PM

^^^don't be dense. nobody is arguing for 100% civilian-casualty-free war. the argument is that every opportunity to diminish civilian losses should be explored. the real tragedy would be if we missed this opportunity to refine our operations just because people like you shrug off human losses as no big deal. just because these people live in shabby war-torn villages doesn't mean that they should be forced to live with the likelihood that they could be killed for eating a pear that looks suspiciously like a grenade. you seem to value life just as little as the supposed enemy insurgents we're fighting against.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 6:27 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 6:22:03 PM

dude like i said before, when you hold your country to a standard of perfection, the underlying motive is transparent for all to see.

4/8/2010 6:28:13 PM

^please, enlighten me. i hold my country to a standard of accountability. and why on earth would anybody not want to approach perfection? christ, with that attitude, nobody should ever try to improve anything.


this isn't an issue of "if it ain't broke." something went wrong. the corrective issues should be analyzed and addressed.



and i'd still like for you to answer my hypothetical question about your neighborhood turning into an urban war-zone (or suburban war-zone, which is probably more likely). i'm guessing you won't, and instead dismiss it as irrelevant, conveniently allowing you to avoid some type of critical thought.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 6:32:47 PM

no, you hold this country to the impossible standard of perfection because that is what you use to excuse the vitriol that you enjoy spitting at your own nation.

4/8/2010 8:54:22 PM

Quote :

"NO"

Yes?

Are you guys really disputing this? Hussein probably didn't have anything to do with 9/11, but the fact that he had ties to Al Qaeda is indisputable. The fact that he had ties to other terrorist groups is also well known.

Quote :

"Wait, THESE people were armed?"

Yes, with two RPGs and an AK-47, according to the army report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike#Release_of_Army_report

Quote :

"if the tables were turned, and this were on US soil, every single person in here would be claiming that the executions (mostly the second wave) were rutheless and unwarranted, and worthy of war-crime prosecutions."

If the United States was in the middle of an existential war, with sectarian thugs constantly attacking the government, its allies, and (most often) the civilian population, I would probably be more concerned with the prosecution of the insurgents.

And if the government or its allies was having a massive shootout with said insurgents, I probably wouldn't roll up to the scene with a van full of toddlers. Just sayin'.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 9:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 9:00:12 PM

^ well why the fuck not? They have every right to drive around wherever they want! If there happens to be a shoot-out in progress, well its the burden of the soldiers to triple check each target before shooting, no matter how fierce or confusing the battle may be!

4/8/2010 9:20:26 PM

they don't "roll up to a shoot-out." they arrive to a scene post massacre, and try to help the lone survivor. it is very possible that they had no idea what happened prior, but were trying to help someone who was dying. are you now saying that it's their fault for being at the wrong place at the wrong time? they're citizens, not forensic scientists. how can you possibly hold them accountable for knowing what happened earlier? if i were to "roll up to my neighborhood" only to see dead bodies and a person (possibly a friend) dying, is it then my fault for not knowing that the assailants are still in the area, ready to take me out as well? christ, the logistical gymnastics some of you are pulling to vilify the victims is quite simply astonishing. it's one thing to acknowledge that a mistake was made, but quite another to blame the victims for not practicing what you consider (stupidly, i might add) to be sound judgment.

Quote :

"If the United States was in the middle of an existential war, with sectarian thugs constantly attacking the government, its allies, and (most often) the civilian population, I would probably be more concerned with the prosecution of the insurgents."

you're dodging the question. i doubt you would be concerned with much of anything if you were being fist-fucked by 30 MM cannons from the supposed people trying to liberate you.

Quote :

"no, you hold this country to the impossible standard of perfection because that is what you use to excuse the vitriol that you enjoy spitting at your own nation."

what, are you five years old? you seem to love your country the way a toddler loves his mommy, when it should be the other way around. instead of admitting that a horrible mistake was made (and it was a mistake - unless you consider the deaths of civilians to be an objective), you cover your ears because you are afraid to hear any negative judgment cast upon your precious, infallable army, and it's fucking pathetic.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 9:53:20 PM

Quote :

"i doubt you would be concerned with much of anything if you were being fist-fucked by 30 MM cannons from the supposed people trying to liberate you."

4/8/2010 10:26:13 PM

^^ it was an honest mistake, not a moral or ethical mistake.

get off your fucking high horse. talk about pathetic... there's nothing more pathetic or childish than a wimpy college kid backseat driving a military operation that he saw on youtube.

4/8/2010 10:28:31 PM

whatever, i've made my arguments pretty soundly (none of which you bothered to address, because it's simply easier for you to label someone as an "america hater" rather than attempt to engage in any actual debate)


your only real argument seems to be that the iraqi's had it coming simply for being in iraq.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2010 10:33:07 PM