Classified US military video depicting slaying of civilians
- Thread starter Arr0nax
- Start date
Eh...why? From the looks of it, and I admittedly haven't watched the entire video, they identified a group of people with weapons including an RPG, perceived them as hostile and opened fire. Sadly two journalists were amongst those people. It's tragic and all, but this doesn't look much like horrible slaying, just a sad mistake.
Then again, actual news outlets point out that the gunship also fired at people coming in to help the victims. That's a bit worse.
Then again, actual news outlets point out that the gunship also fired at people coming in to help the victims. That's a bit worse.
el_jefe_of_ny
Still Mildly Glowing
Er.
Yeah. Well. If I was a normal, non - animal of a human being, I would have not brought 2 children into an Apache 30mm gun firefight.
Also, notice the combat stretcher in a van.
How many of your dad's have those? I always bring mine for Sunday drives into the forest, never know when your friends are going to get caught living up a jihad.
Prior to afghan war, US had Iron Hammer. I counseled a guy who was in charge of firing very large missles on 2 Afgan cities. They were civillian only targets to make a statement the next day after the WOrld trade center went down. It wasnt on the radio or tv, the towns were completely destroyed.
THis is how war works. It looks crappy when you dont have better weapons to fight back. But, thats how it works.
Spread that.
Yeah. Well. If I was a normal, non - animal of a human being, I would have not brought 2 children into an Apache 30mm gun firefight.
Also, notice the combat stretcher in a van.
How many of your dad's have those? I always bring mine for Sunday drives into the forest, never know when your friends are going to get caught living up a jihad.
Prior to afghan war, US had Iron Hammer. I counseled a guy who was in charge of firing very large missles on 2 Afgan cities. They were civillian only targets to make a statement the next day after the WOrld trade center went down. It wasnt on the radio or tv, the towns were completely destroyed.
THis is how war works. It looks crappy when you dont have better weapons to fight back. But, thats how it works.
Spread that.
Sander said:
The video needs to be spread for a wide range of reasons.
First, it needs to be spread because the American government doesn't want it to be spread. It's a piece of information depicting a critical event and should be made public for the sake of freedom of information.
Second, it needs to be spread because it features the killing of unarmed civilians. The so-called "RPG" seems to be nothing but the camera of the photograph itself. The shooting of the rescuing van is depicted in the video, you can clearly see that they are just picking up the body of a dying men, and two children at the front of the car.
Third, it needs to be spread because the behavior of the military involved is just disgusting. They are literally impatient to sheding blood and it's quite interesting to hear them. You can clearly hear the impatience of the shooter with phrases like "let me shoot". You can hear him enjoining the dying crawling men to "pick up a weapon" so he can kill him. You can hear him laughing about a humvee rolling over a dead body.
Fourth, it needs to be spread because people tend to forget there's a real war going on at the other end of the world, for shading reasons, and that you're lucky not to be the civilian living next door to these massacres.
THis is a fair point, though it's hardly a critical event.Arr0nax said:
The initial attack seems to be nothing but a sad mistake, really. They identify the men, seem to identify what is being carried as weapons (and it does seem like there's more people with items that look like weapons than just the two journalists), and talk about recently being fired upon in the area.Arr0nax said:
The shooting at the van pulling in seems bad, but I don't know what they are supposed to do in those cases. It isn't a clearly identified medical vehicle, either.
I always find it interesting when people are disgusted at soldiers wanting to kill. What do you expect from people whose job it is to kill and who are trained to feel as little remorse as possible at killing?Arr0nax said:
I'm glad to know that from the safeness of your place you don't consider the accidental killing of civilians a critical event. It may have to do with the fact said war is not happening in your country ?
In such a context, a mistake has another name : a crime. In this particular case, not one but more than a dozen.
About the soldiers, I'm sorry if I expect them to kill soldiers because of contextual necessity instead of killing civilians because of juvenile bloodthirst.
In such a context, a mistake has another name : a crime. In this particular case, not one but more than a dozen.
About the soldiers, I'm sorry if I expect them to kill soldiers because of contextual necessity instead of killing civilians because of juvenile bloodthirst.
It may have to do with the fact that civilians get killed accidentally a lot in wars. This event is no more important than the others and the only thing making it 'critical' is the exposure it is getting due to this video being released.Arr0nax said:
The wilfull killing of civilians is a war crime. This looks like an accident where the soldiers followed protocol. Hardly a war crime.Arr0nax said:
From all the chatter in that video it looks like they assumed they were killing enemy combatants, not just wiping out civilians.Arr0nax said:
So it's just the kind of thing that happen, and we should tell nothing about it ? By saying "no more important than the others", are you implying the others weren't important ?Sander said:
Again, I suppose all this objectiveness about wars (as if a war was always equal to another) is heavily linked to the fact you're really far away from this mess.
The way I see it, every single civilian death in Iraq is critical.
And since images are a hundred times more powerful than words, this video has its importance, because you see the killing happening live and can't overcome it as you can overcome reading a few words.
Sander said:
They assumed a couple of the 12 persons present here were armed and therefore combatants. Then they decided to kill the whole bunch.
It's also important to stress on the "assuming" part. The limit between assuming something and making it up is somewhat shady.
You can basically justify any killing since anyone can be suspected and anything can look like a weapon. It doesn't change the fact there's a point where you kill innocents and there are people that "assume" more than others and kill more civilians. If this eventuality doesn't disturb you at all then fine, but I guess some people will be and they will have something to say about it. Hence why it should be spread.
No, but we shouldn't make more of it than it is: a tragic consequence of war. But hardly a 'critical' event in any form, as it is no different from dozens of similar events and it carries no special consequences outside the consequences created by the release of this video.Arr0nax said:
So your point is that this video is important because it shows the consequences of war, not because the event itself is important?Arr0nax said:
Yes, I know, all innocent human lives lost are important. But you can't really worry about all of those deaths, because thousands of innocent people die violent deaths each day.
They saw weapons, had been recently fired upon in the area and deduced that these were the enemy combatants. Yes, they killed everyone in the group, because the group as a whole was obviously coherent and seen as dangerous.Arr0nax said:
This is how war works. If they don't do that, then they runa great risk of letting enemy combatants live to kill another day. Yes, it's ugly. That's war.
Do they really kill more civilians than others? As I said, they seem to be following protocol perfectly.Arr0nax said:
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Arr0nax said:
Spread it all you want, no one in any position of power gives a shit. Videos such as these have been around since 2003 with Gung-Ho Marines yelling OohRah! as they gun down people from roof tops.
Granted the videos are usually grainy and out of focus, the actual people dying being quite far away and for all the youtube posters know could have actually been armed, that does still not stop the hippies from screaming atrocity when they know nothing of the conditions our Marines and Soldiers are thrust into.
Arr0nax said:
Well you can just get over that shit, it is not going to change. What more can you honestly expect? We train our Marines and Soldiers to be able to take life at the whim, to be the best warriors in the world and you cry foul when they enjoy what they do?
Before PT starts at our functions if we are not talking about girls we are talking about how bad we want to get to Afghanistan so we can kill as many of those fuckers as possible, the indoctrination starts even before boot as our recruiters join in the convo and encourage it.
On a side note I ship to Parris Island April 12th.
Arr0nax said:
But people don't care, the vast majority do not. They just want to go to work, come home, eat a hot dog and watch CSI or what ever the devil it is people watch these days. No one gives a shit when some random Iraqi or Afghani happened to be mixed up with insurgents and got lit up by mistake.
War sucks, mistakes are made on both sides but things go on. The difference being you actually have the luxury of sitting at home and whining about it on the internet.
It's critical because these people should be alive and because some people we know very well are responsible for this.Sander said:
Obviously part of what makes these killings critical is that they are taking part in the context of a precise war that's heavily criticizable itself. That make both the soldier and the state responsible for this "mistake".
But they could have deduced otherwise, and in deducing this (impatiently and ponctuated with a lot of "let me shoot") they were wrong. Where's the problem then ? Is it the protocol ? Is it the soldier ? Is it the whole war that's fucked up ? I don't know but there's something wrong going on here.
Ok, so let me rephrase :
It doesn't change the fact there's a point where you kill innocents and there are protocols that "assume" more than others and kill more civilians than others.
Bal-Sagoth
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Arr0nax said:
Deducing that could have possibly cost an American Marine or Soldier his life, which is unacceptable.
No, actually, this has very little to do with the right or wrong of the war itself. This has everything to do with an incident.Arr0nax said:
Yes yes, this wouldn't have happened if they hadn't invaded. Fine. Whatever. That's not what people are going to take away from this video, they're going to take away impressions about an incident, not an entire war.
Yes. It's called war. People die in war. Innocents die in war. This is a fact of life and no war will be ever fought without that happening. Yes, war is terrible. But when you fight a war, you fight to win it. And even with the most humane rules regarding lethal combat, shit like this will happen because in war you cannot act casual about possible threats.Arr0nax said:
So they've been recently fired upon, they see a group of possible insurgents with what they think are weapons, they get permission from their mission leader before opening fire...what more do you want people to do?Arr0nax said:
Wow, way to underplay the seriousness of the matter, guys. "It's war" is not a very persuasive argument and doesn't justify negligence. Recall that they fired at the people coming from the van as well as at the downed journalist without identifying any weapons, thus they were not identified as enemy combatants. Also, recall that chapter I, article 3 of the First Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field states that violence against those rendered incapable of fighting is prohibited. But why should the US heed such petty conventions, right?
It seems that, whereas the initial shooting may have indeed been an honest mistake, the shooting of the van looks like total carelessness and trigger-happiness.
It seems that, whereas the initial shooting may have indeed been an honest mistake, the shooting of the van looks like total carelessness and trigger-happiness.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
People act like the soldiers involved have no sense of repercussion from these type of incidents, and act carelessly or vulgarly without regard to protocol.
No. Just no. That line of thinking is just pure ignorance.
Also, on the Van, it's been common knowledge sense the beginning of warfare that firing on routing troops is an effective way to continue breaking the enemies forces logistically.
But, the problem with this whole video is that it shows that this is not a traditional war. This war is a PR and Ideological one fueled by religion with no regard to territory and economics. The protocol used by the AH-64 pilots in this incident was perfectly correct for a conventional warfare situation. One of those conventional situations that the AH-64 Attack Helicopter was originally designed for being firing on Russian troops in uniform in a rural or urban setting, disregarding non-uniformed personnel and going after marked targets.
This theater of operations requires that visual and social ques of combat action be disregarded, and combatants and soldiers are now "Insurgents". This from the macro level is what has caused the dangerous and problematic deployment of U.S. forces in the Middle Eastern theater. The system in place is not designed for this type of warfare, and incidents like these are the consequences of using them as such.
No. Just no. That line of thinking is just pure ignorance.
Also, on the Van, it's been common knowledge sense the beginning of warfare that firing on routing troops is an effective way to continue breaking the enemies forces logistically.
But, the problem with this whole video is that it shows that this is not a traditional war. This war is a PR and Ideological one fueled by religion with no regard to territory and economics. The protocol used by the AH-64 pilots in this incident was perfectly correct for a conventional warfare situation. One of those conventional situations that the AH-64 Attack Helicopter was originally designed for being firing on Russian troops in uniform in a rural or urban setting, disregarding non-uniformed personnel and going after marked targets.
This theater of operations requires that visual and social ques of combat action be disregarded, and combatants and soldiers are now "Insurgents". This from the macro level is what has caused the dangerous and problematic deployment of U.S. forces in the Middle Eastern theater. The system in place is not designed for this type of warfare, and incidents like these are the consequences of using them as such.
Here's some tidbits:))<>(( said:
Yeah, those guys seem pretty responsible, with a healthy sense of repercussion, not vulgar and very careful indeed. Look at how carefully he placed that shot right through the windshield! Nothing to see here, move along, just some clean, wholesome COD4 fun.
I don't know about that. It would seem like common sense to stop troops from helping other troops. Rememberfedaykin said:
Also your partial quoting of the video is hardly fair or relevant. If you do quote people, do so in context.
Then again, this:
"06:33 Come on, buddy.
06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon. "
Makes the soldiers seem like pricks, but it also shows that they are definitely waiting for the proper reasons to shoot.
And honestly, I don't care if soldiers are assholes or enjoy killing people. It's what they're trained to be doing and I'm amazed people don't understand that.