US army murder footage released

Politics is continually a popular topic of conversation at AD.info, and to allow our members to discuss it, we've created this forum.

Moderators: FrankM, el

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:37 am

What makes you all think that the 'targets' were aware of the Apache?
Never said they were. Did they have to be aware? Is it a law of warfare that you must alert your enemy that he is about to be shot before pulling the trigger? As the 30mm rounds would have been pretty much supersonic, the first indication that they were being targeted would have been a sucking chest wound (well actually given the Ammo was probably 30mm HE -not much would be left).

The Iraqi insurgents would have known that there is a very good chance that a UAV, an observation chopper or even a foot patrol could be surveiling their position. Why then be stupid or arrogant enough to assume you can walk around carrying AK's and not attract fire? Maybe they had done it many times before and felt that they would be safe - the optics on many platforms offer the type of view in the video from kilometers away. This time they were seen and targeted. Engaging an armed enemy is legitimate in war. The aim is to inflict maximum casualties on your enemy whilst receiving minimum casualties yourself. I'm not a fan of some of the commentary on the audio feed but the objective of killing their enemy was achieved. I'm sure the insurgents don't go around issuing warnings before detonating bombs or shooting US/UK/Aussie soldiers - war is a nasty business. It's unfortunate that others who were not armed were also killed - but how do we know that those others (apart from the reporter and driver) weren't also insurgents? My earlier comment stands - the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:56 am

I bet that those in the van who tried to save lives would be considered heroes if circumstances and nationalities had been different.
Per
I cannot view the longer footage (firewall) - did the van have red crescent or red cross markings on it? Was the bloke who got out wearing medical clobber? If not and if he was a good samaritan - then I feel sorry for the guy and his kids. From the point of view of the gunner in the Apache who's to say that he wasn't another insurgent trying to rescue a bloke who was his insurgent cell's chief bomb maker? The gunner did the right thing. The driver if he wanted to be a hero should not have exposed his kids to that level of danger.

Maybe he would have been considered a hero - or maybe that bloke who was killed was the chief bomb maker of that insurgent cell, in which case killing him may have saved dozens of innocent Iraqi lives (you know the poor bastards that get killed and maimed in the dozens whenever the insurgents try to take out a military target) and the lives of tens of coalition soldiers.

The point is, I don't know, you don't know. The only thing we do know is that two members of the press were killed - but they were not wearing any ID (vests with "Press" and they looked like the insurgents they were there to film. Everything else is speculation. One small comment - despite the gunners verbal wishes that his 'target' go toward a weapon - he withheld fire as per his Rules of Engagement (RoE). Contrary to what most think, armies operate by strict RoE's. The crew identified a threat - radioed to ensure there were no good guys in that area, checked between each other that they did in fact see weapons then got on and did their jobs. People died - that's war.

I'll say again, I don't think Iraq needed to be invaded in the first place, I was pissed enough at our conservative government backing Bush and going in to Iraq that I voted against them for the first time in my life. However, from what I saw on that video, apart from the cowboy comments, the Rules of Engagement were followed, and those insurgents learned that it is a bad idea to show yourself in public areas with weapons.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:08 am

did the van have red crescent or red cross markings on it? Was the bloke who got out wearing medical clobber? If not and if he was a good samaritan - then I feel sorry for the guy and his kids. From the point of view of the gunner in the Apache who's to say that he wasn't another insurgent trying to rescue a bloke who was his insurgent cell's chief bomb maker? The gunner did the right thing.
He broke his own rules of engagement and the Geneva convention
the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.
The Iraqi people know that the coalition forces and the insurgents have treated the whole of Iraq as a free fire zone, that why millions of them have left the country and that's why the coalition forces are on the same moral level as the insurgents, perhaps even lower, at least the insurgents can claim they are acting in a patriotic stance of resisting an invasion and occupation.

What was the reason for the coalition forces to be there again?
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Ancient Mariner » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 pm

What makes you all think that the 'targets' were aware of the Apache?
Never said they were. Did they have to be aware? Is it a law of warfare that you must alert your enemy that he is about to be shot before pulling the trigger? As the 30mm rounds would have been pretty much supersonic, the first indication that they were being targeted would have been a sucking chest wound (well actually given the Ammo was probably 30mm HE -not much would be left).

The Iraqi insurgents would have known that there is a very good chance that a UAV, an observation chopper or even a foot patrol could be surveiling their position. Why then be stupid or arrogant enough to assume you can walk around carrying AK's and not attract fire? Maybe they had done it many times before and felt that they would be safe - the optics on many platforms offer the type of view in the video from kilometers away. This time they were seen and targeted. Engaging an armed enemy is legitimate in war. The aim is to inflict maximum casualties on your enemy whilst receiving minimum casualties yourself. I'm not a fan of some of the commentary on the audio feed but the objective of killing their enemy was achieved. I'm sure the insurgents don't go around issuing warnings before detonating bombs or shooting US/UK/Aussie soldiers - war is a nasty business. It's unfortunate that others who were not armed were also killed - but how do we know that those others (apart from the reporter and driver) weren't also insurgents? My earlier comment stands - the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.
You keep repeating war and warfare. Is it?
Insurgents,
Noun 1. insurgent - a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
freedom fighter, insurrectionist, rebel
mutineer - someone who is openly rebellious and refuses to obey authorities (especially seamen or soldiers)
crusader, meliorist, reformer, reformist, social reformer - a disputant who advocates reform
revolutionary, revolutionist, subversive, subverter - a radical supporter of political or social revolution
Young Turk - a member of one or more of the insurgent groups in Turkey in the late 19th century who rebelled against the absolutism of Ottoman rule
2. insurgent - a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
guerilla, guerrilla, irregular
guerilla force, guerrilla force - an irregular armed force that fights by sabotage and harassment; often rural and organized in large groups
Maquis, Maquisard - a guerrilla fighter in the French underground in World War II
urban guerrilla - a guerrilla who fights only in cities and towns
warrior - someone engaged in or experienced in warfare
I'm from a country where our "insurgents" in a small way aided our allies in freeing the country after WWII. Thankfully our allies didn't have to stay, but this time our allies, and we, are the occupants. How times change.
Per

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Ancient Mariner » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:57 pm

I bet that those in the van who tried to save lives would be considered heroes if circumstances and nationalities had been different.
Per
I cannot view the longer footage (firewall) - did the van have red crescent or red cross markings on it? Was the bloke who got out wearing medical clobber? If not and if he was a good samaritan - then I feel sorry for the guy and his kids. From the point of view of the gunner in the Apache who's to say that he wasn't another insurgent trying to rescue a bloke who was his insurgent cell's chief bomb maker? The gunner did the right thing. The driver if he wanted to be a hero should not have exposed his kids to that level of danger.

Maybe he would have been considered a hero - or maybe that bloke who was killed was the chief bomb maker of that insurgent cell, in which case killing him may have saved dozens of innocent Iraqi lives (you know the poor bastards that get killed and maimed in the dozens whenever the insurgents try to take out a military target) and the lives of tens of coalition soldiers.

The point is, I don't know, you don't know. The only thing we do know is that two members of the press were killed - but they were not wearing any ID (vests with "Press" and they looked like the insurgents they were there to film. Everything else is speculation. One small comment - despite the gunners verbal wishes that his 'target' go toward a weapon - he withheld fire as per his Rules of Engagement (RoE). Contrary to what most think, armies operate by strict RoE's. The crew identified a threat - radioed to ensure there were no good guys in that area, checked between each other that they did in fact see weapons then got on and did their jobs. People died - that's war.

I'll say again, I don't think Iraq needed to be invaded in the first place, I was pissed enough at our conservative government backing Bush and going in to Iraq that I voted against them for the first time in my life. However, from what I saw on that video, apart from the cowboy comments, the Rules of Engagement were followed, and those insurgents learned that it is a bad idea to show yourself in public areas with weapons.
RoE was followed? As in killing unarmed civilians trying to help?
Based on you logic, or lack thereof, kill them all........just in case.
Good luck at winning "hearts and minds", you just might need it.
Per

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:25 pm

did the van have red crescent or red cross markings on it? Was the bloke who got out wearing medical clobber? If not and if he was a good samaritan - then I feel sorry for the guy and his kids. From the point of view of the gunner in the Apache who's to say that he wasn't another insurgent trying to rescue a bloke who was his insurgent cell's chief bomb maker? The gunner did the right thing.
He broke his own rules of engagement and the Geneva convention
Maybe - but do you know all the intricacies of the RoE? I don't - I commented earlier that it seems that people have to be visibly carrying arms to start an engagement. Understandably the RoE is not disclosed as the enemy will use it to their advantage.
the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.
The Iraqi people know that the coalition forces and the insurgents have treated the whole of Iraq as a free fire zone, that why millions of them have left the country and that's why the coalition forces are on the same moral level as the insurgents, perhaps even lower, at least the insurgents can claim they are acting in a patriotic stance of resisting an invasion and occupation.

What was the reason for the coalition forces to be there again?
Don't know. I suspect it was the larger political game of ensuring that there was another friendly regime in the region in case the House of Saud falls to radicals. That would then present America and its allies with a bit of a pickle (most of the world oil being in control of people who hate the US). Either way, I don't agree with the reasons, and I didn't think it was a smart move for the Australian government to follow like a dog on a lead.

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:42 pm

What makes you all think that the 'targets' were aware of the Apache?
Never said they were. Did they have to be aware? Is it a law of warfare that you must alert your enemy that he is about to be shot before pulling the trigger? As the 30mm rounds would have been pretty much supersonic, the first indication that they were being targeted would have been a sucking chest wound (well actually given the Ammo was probably 30mm HE -not much would be left).

The Iraqi insurgents would have known that there is a very good chance that a UAV, an observation chopper or even a foot patrol could be surveiling their position. Why then be stupid or arrogant enough to assume you can walk around carrying AK's and not attract fire? Maybe they had done it many times before and felt that they would be safe - the optics on many platforms offer the type of view in the video from kilometers away. This time they were seen and targeted. Engaging an armed enemy is legitimate in war. The aim is to inflict maximum casualties on your enemy whilst receiving minimum casualties yourself. I'm not a fan of some of the commentary on the audio feed but the objective of killing their enemy was achieved. I'm sure the insurgents don't go around issuing warnings before detonating bombs or shooting US/UK/Aussie soldiers - war is a nasty business. It's unfortunate that others who were not armed were also killed - but how do we know that those others (apart from the reporter and driver) weren't also insurgents? My earlier comment stands - the Iraqi people would know that if you associate with insurgents you may be hit by collateral fire.
You keep repeating war and warfare. Is it?
Why do you think it is not? Iraq at the time was a country under occupation, a country that was almost lost in the 'peace' that followed due to incredibly poor planning after the main battle was lost. Insurgents use massive bombs, mortars, RPG's and light arms - that to me doesn't equate to a criminal gang. Are you having a whinge about the fact that blokes armed with small arms were engaged by a chopper originally designed as a tank killer? Is it the whole 'fairness' issue that is bothering you? An apache seems to be a very sensible platform if you are looking to limit US casualties (which the US brass is trying to do) - it has excellent connectivity (radios to higher HQ), has excellent optics (day and night), has excellent manouvreability and deployability and can take action if required. It would be nice to think that there could be a million troops deployed so you could have troops on the ground 24/7 everywhere - that way you can perhaps identify the insurgents from the innocents, but that's not how war works today. A million troops would mean massive expense and an unacceptable level of casualties.
Insurgents,
Noun 1. insurgent - a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
freedom fighter, insurrectionist, rebel
mutineer - someone who is openly rebellious and refuses to obey authorities (especially seamen or soldiers)
crusader, meliorist, reformer, reformist, social reformer - a disputant who advocates reform
revolutionary, revolutionist, subversive, subverter - a radical supporter of political or social revolution
Young Turk - a member of one or more of the insurgent groups in Turkey in the late 19th century who rebelled against the absolutism of Ottoman rule
2. insurgent - a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
guerilla, guerrilla, irregular
guerilla force, guerrilla force - an irregular armed force that fights by sabotage and harassment; often rural and organized in large groups
Maquis, Maquisard - a guerrilla fighter in the French underground in World War II
urban guerrilla - a guerrilla who fights only in cities and towns
warrior - someone engaged in or experienced in warfare
I'm from a country where our "insurgents" in a small way aided our allies in freeing the country after WWII. Thankfully our allies didn't have to stay, but this time our allies, and we, are the occupants. How times change.
Per
Fine, call them heroic freedom fighters or something. It won't stop them from being killed. You and I both know that one persons freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. As I am on the side of the engagement that labels the blokes who blow up Yanks, Poms and Aussies "insurgents", I chose to use that term. Unfortunately, I did not know all of their names, so I could not refer to them as 'Mr Muhommad, Mr Fahdi' etc. When you find out their personal details, please let me know and I'll change the way I talk about those insurgents.

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:57 pm

RoE was followed? As in killing unarmed civilians trying to help?
Based on you logic, or lack thereof, kill them all........just in case.
Good luck at winning "hearts and minds", you just might need it.
Per
How do you know he was unarmed? Did he have a mortar or a dozen RPG's in the van? He was associating with armed insurgents seconds after a battle. Do you have proof he was just an unarmed good samaritan?

As to winning the hearts and minds the US lost that battle a day after winning the 'invasion' phase. Little things such as sitting in a Blackhawk doorway showing the soles of your feet (a massive insult) to the Iraqi's below, the Youtube footage of US Humvees pushing their way through traffic by physically shunting some poor Iraqi's car out of the way when he has no place to pull out of the way etc. I understand why they felt they needed to shunt vehicles (risk of being caught stationary) but it cannot have helped with the hearts and minds campaign. The best way to handle the hearts and minds issue was to get the blokes out of their armoured vehicles and for them to be in with the opulation protecting them. BUT, they did not have the manpower, and did not want to incurr the much larger number of casualtes that would have entailed. The Poms in Basra were doing a better job (helmets off, berets on, no sunglasses, dismounted patrols) but lacked the numbers to really have an effect.

People with half a brain realized that invading Iraq would just end up strengthening anti-US/coalition sentiments and the AlQueda network - which is why I didn't think we should have gone in there. Afghanistan, well, that might have worked with the correct emphasis, buckets of troops, a 40 year commitment
and untold billions of dollars, but as none of that was provided it was not going to work either.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby PurduePilot » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:21 am

People with half a brain realized that invading Iraq would just end up strengthening anti-US/coalition sentiments and the AlQueda network - which is why I didn't think we should have gone in there.
Concur. Our more ignorant citizens think Muslims hate America because we're not Muslim, when in reality they hate America because America has been f***ing around in their sandbox for as long as the average person there has been alive. The religion/Jihadist thing is just a tool used by leaders (like OBL and, more historically, the Christians) to garner support.

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Ancient Mariner » Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:54 am

RoE was followed? As in killing unarmed civilians trying to help?
Based on you logic, or lack thereof, kill them all........just in case.
Good luck at winning "hearts and minds", you just might need it.
Per
How do you know he was unarmed? Did he have a mortar or a dozen RPG's in the van? He was associating with armed insurgents seconds after a battle. Do you have proof he was just an unarmed good samaritan?
Being unarmed outside the vehicle carrying/pulling a wounded to safety could very well be an indication, no?
Per

User avatar
Procede
Posts: 646
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:40 am

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Procede » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:08 am

If it moves, shoot it.
If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway, it might move later...

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Giles » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:29 pm

US Humvees pushing their way through traffic by physically shunting some poor Iraqi's car out of the way when he has no place to pull out of the way etc. I understand why they felt they needed to shunt vehicles (risk of being caught stationary)
This reminded me of when Patton's convey was held up by a mule towed cart on a bridge. He shot the mule and had it thrown off the bridge.

PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby PurduePilot » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:33 pm

US Humvees pushing their way through traffic by physically shunting some poor Iraqi's car out of the way when he has no place to pull out of the way etc. I understand why they felt they needed to shunt vehicles (risk of being caught stationary)
This reminded me of when Patton's convey was held up by a mule towed cart on a bridge. He shot the mule and had it thrown off the bridge.
It was in the movie and everything...

User avatar
Giles
Posts: 1791
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Giles » Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:37 pm

It was in the movie and everything...
huh?

are you saying it wasnt true?

from TIME Dec 6 1943;
In Sicily, a Patton outburst was touched off by a mule cart which blocked a bridge. Patton ordered the cart tipped over, then ordered the mule shot.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 81,00.html

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:28 pm

I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."
During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."
"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."
"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."
"While on our initial convoy into Iraq in early June 2003, we were given a direct order that if any children or civilians got in front of the vehicles in our convoy, we were not to stop, we were not to slow down, we were to keep driving. In the event an insurgent attacked us from behind human shields, we were supposed to count. If there were thirty or less civilians we were allowed to fire into the area. If there were over thirty, we were supposed to take fire and send it up the chain of command. These were the rules of engagement. I don't know about you, but if you are getting shot at from a crowd of people, how fast are you going to count, and how accurately?"

Moon brought back a video that shows his sergeant declaring, "The difference between an insurgent and an Iraqi civilian is whether they are dead or alive."

Moon explains the thinking: "If you kill a civilian he becomes an insurgent because you retroactively make that person a threat."
Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions speaks to the "basic rule" regarding the protection of civilians:

"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."
http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we ... re-us58378
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

User avatar
Verbal
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:04 pm
Location: Planet Bacterion

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Verbal » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:13 pm

Astoundingly, two guys gave identical testimony. The fix is in.
"I'm putting an end to this f*ckery." - Rayna Boyanov

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:04 pm

LAHORE: Of the 60 cross-border predator strikes carried out by the Afghanistan-based American drones in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their actual targets, killing 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders, besides perishing 687 innocent Pakistani civilians. The success percentage of the US predator strikes thus comes to not more than six per cent.

Figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities show that a total of 701 people, including 14 al-Qaeda leaders, have been killed since January 2006 in 60 American predator attacks targeting the tribal areas of Pakistan. Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians while three
attacks conducted in 2007 had slain 66 Pakistanis, yet none of the wanted al-Qaeda or Taliban leaders could be hit by the Americans right on target. However, of the 50 drone attacks carried out between January 29, 2008 and April 8, 2009, 10 hit their targets and killed 14 wanted al-Qaeda operatives. Most of these attacks were carried out on the basis of intelligence believed to have been provided by the Pakistani and Afghan tribesmen who had been spying for the US-led allied forces stationed in Afghanistan.

The remaining 50 drone attacks went wrong due to faulty intelligence information, killing hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children. The number of the Pakistani civilians killed in those 50 attacks stood at 537, in which 385 people lost their lives in 2008 and 152 people were slain in the first 99 days of 2009 (between January 1 and April 8).

Of the 50 drone attacks, targeting the Pakistani tribal areas since January 2008, 36 were carried out in 2008 and 14 were conducted in the first 99 days of 2009. Of the 14 attacks targeting Pakistan in 2009, three were carried out in January, killing 30 people, two in February killing 55 people, five in March killing 36 people and four were conducted in the first nine days of April, killing 31 people.

Of the 14 strikes carried out in the first 99 days of April 2009, only one proved successful, killing two most wanted senior al-Qaeda leaders - Osama al Kini and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan. Both had lost their lives in a New Year’s Day drone strike carried out in the South Waziristan region on January 1, 2009.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=21440
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

OldSowBreath
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby OldSowBreath » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:34 pm

I'm sure the others were innocents. The news report says so.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:23 pm

I'm sure the others were innocents. The news report says so.
According to the figures compiled by the Pakistani authorities...
Your friends and allies.
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

rattler
Posts: 921
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:41 pm
Location: Med
Contact:

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby rattler » Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:39 pm

I do not know which of the vids you are commenting here, there is a short (17 minutes, and all weapon carriers edited out) and a long (39 minutes, you can see the situation before the 17 min vid starts where ppl with AKs and what seems to be a RPG (as long time photo journo I can tell for sure it was neither a camera nor a tripod, looks straightforward RPG to my untrained eye) join up with the journos and form the group that 2 minutes later is attacked.

I am not saying I think the pilots were under fire as they reported, but weapons surely were visible and, as their buddies were engageged in ground fight just a block away could be rightly or not interpreted as a threat (just to make my personal stance clear w/o repeating myself, you find it here: http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/the-mi ... /#msg12987)

Also, for the record, this vid does not show what the AH crew saw on their monitors necessarily, its the gun cam. OTOH, from muzzle velocity and time lag to impact indeed the AH was around a mile+ away 792 m/s, energy dissipation allows for shells to travel 100 mtrs in just under 2 secs, 3000 mtrs 12.2 secs).

The van appears earlier in the long vid version and looks he indeed is collecting weapons from firefight sights, and not wounded. Also in the long version you can clearly hear ground groups comment that at least one of the bodies has aaa RPG missile under his body.

My problem with the vid is not the actions of the pilot/gunner, it is what happened afterwards: Agaain, in a situation that raises doubt, nobody faced court martial (though the own investigators had problems), no public discussion, right the opposite: "Doubless acting in self defense after coming unter fire" etc. were the then-time press statements, the victims wree expressively dubbed "insurgents", and those *are* wrong and should not happen, especially if you can prove that ROEs were followed and made sense at the time and the situation. It is this same attitude that allowed for so many whitewashs and coverups that were not necessary (I have a short list over here: http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/569510-post.html) that now is displayed also by google by desactivating comments on youtube.

Sources:

Short, edited, version of the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Long, unedited, version of the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

Commented vid of the parts Wikileaks edited out: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c1b_1270800204

Investigation files in this order: Sworn Statements, 1st Cav 15-6 Investigation, 2nd BCT 15-6 Invesgiation : http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/C ... nts%20.pdf , http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/C ... gation.pdf , http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/C ... gation.pdf

Original reactions quotation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ap ... raq-attack

Rattler
Sincere condolences to all Norwegians! I guess you will need some aquevit to get over this.

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:33 pm


The van appears earlier in the long vid version and looks he indeed is collecting weapons from firefight sights, and not wounded. Also in the long version you can clearly hear ground groups comment that at least one of the bodies has aaa RPG missile under his body.

Care to state the frame time on the longer version of the video that indicates the occupants of the van were collecting weapons?
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

User avatar
Sickbag
Posts: 2969
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:10 pm
Location: Spine-fuhrer of Hoboken

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Sickbag » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:42 am

American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing and wounding civilians, and igniting angry anti-American demonstrations in a city where winning over Afghan support is pivotal to the war effort.
The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a “tragic loss of life” and said that troops fired in the early morning light not knowing that the vehicle was a passenger bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing bombs from a highway.

But there were disputes over details including the number of dead, the relative positions of the convoys, and how the troops could not have understood that the vehicle was a passenger bus.

It was also unclear whether the troops had first shot flares and warned the driver to stay back, as military rules typically require. NATO said they did.

The governor of Kandahar Province, Tooryalai Wesa, called for the commander of the military convoy that opened fire to be prosecuted under military law.

“If you want to stop the bus, it should be shot in the tires,” Mr. Wesa said. “Why shoot the people inside?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world ... lobal-home


Shit happens in a war right? The same shit, again and again and again....
2022: The year of the Squid Singularity

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:53 am

American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing and wounding civilians, and igniting angry anti-American demonstrations in a city where winning over Afghan support is pivotal to the war effort.
The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a “tragic loss of life” and said that troops fired in the early morning light not knowing that the vehicle was a passenger bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing bombs from a highway.

But there were disputes over details including the number of dead, the relative positions of the convoys, and how the troops could not have understood that the vehicle was a passenger bus.

It was also unclear whether the troops had first shot flares and warned the driver to stay back, as military rules typically require. NATO said they did.

The governor of Kandahar Province, Tooryalai Wesa, called for the commander of the military convoy that opened fire to be prosecuted under military law.

“If you want to stop the bus, it should be shot in the tires,” Mr. Wesa said. “Why shoot the people inside?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world ... lobal-home

You are correct - its another own goal for NATO forces. Question for you though - do you know whether the insurgents (sorry, there's that word again) have used a bus before as transport for a VBIED? Have insurgents ever been that worried about killing the innocent? Could it have been that the NATO troops despite signalling the vehicle thought that they were about to be blown to kingdom come by a suicide bomber? The insurgents hold 95% of the cards in this conflict - if the Nato tropps don't react enough they get killed. If because a driver either doesn't see or chooses to ignore repeated signals to stop or stay away the troops react and kill innocents the insurgents win again (and the soldiers who pulled the trigger will have to live with the knowledge that they killed a woman and young child)

Its nice to think that shooting out the tyres hollywood style would stop the bus, but have you ever tried to hit a small moving target from the back of another moving vehicle (and the roads wouldn't be autobhan smooth)? Even with flat tyres a punctured radiator and a holed engine block if the driver was a suicide bomber he'd keep driving on the rims - all the knobs that keep driving after losing all 4 tyres on those police chase shows should prove that a vehicle won't be stopped by a flat tyre. Besides, any shots that missed could in all probability had ricochetted up and through the floor of the bus killing passengers anyway. That argument about shooting out the tyres reminds me of the same argument that the bleeding hearts use when the police shoot to kill " They should have just shot him in the leg".
Shit happens in a war right? The same shit, again and again and again....
Yep, and here's a prediction, a stack more innocents will be killed before NATO, the US and us extricate ourselves. Its the nature of taking on an enemy that blends in with the population.

Marc 1
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Marc 1 » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:56 am

I'm kinda curious Sickbag, how would you have handled the situation faced by the NATO troops?

User avatar
Ancient Mariner
Posts: 3774
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:24 pm

Re: US army murder footage released

Postby Ancient Mariner » Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:57 am

NATO, the US and us
One and the same, no?
Per


Return to “Political Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests