Classified US military video depicting slaying of civilians

[Shoveler]

But using a gunship in a city, with a 30mm cannon to take out people on the ground is in my mind monumentally stupid.

Actually it has been used this way since it's inception 50 years ago. If anything a few rockets on top of that would have been fine. Glad you're getting upset about this now though.

From what I could see in the video, there is a mosque at the far end of the plaza, houses all around, engaging in that situation is despicable...

Well it is a city after all, we invited the insurgents to come out to the open country side to do battle and so that no buildings would be damaged....but they didn't show the rude SOBs.

Not to mention that their comments makes them sound like they are bloodthirsty bastards hoping to get to flex their muscles.

22 million people in Iraq, guess what, most of 'em are still alive!! I know shocking...bloodthirsty please. Doing their jobs effectively is more like it.

The yanks don't have no reason whatsoever to be in Iraq and if they are going to be there they better be willing to commit groundtroops, hey - they might die, but that's their fucking job.

I know, I know. We shouldn't be there cause your probably bleeding heart type of dude that doesn't believe wars should be fought for any reason ever....and as far as ground troops go, we have them there already, dying for our civilians is fine, dying for Iraq's civilians, eh, not so much probably.

Shooting on that mini-van is despicable, and while I'm certain that the guerrilla does the same, they should've taken the high-road and not shot at people assisting wounded people.

About the only point you have that makes a modicum of sense at all. Only except of not firing, I would have fired warning shots to get them to back off as they were driving up the street. But again, they followed those pesky Rule of Engagement and waited for permission to fire before doing anything.

Shoveler out

 

[Mettle]

Actually it has been used this way since it's inception 50 years ago. If anything a few rockets on top of that would have been fine. Glad you're getting upset about this now though.

Been upset over this war since the beginning of 2003 or whenever it was that the US invaded, but that is irrelevant.

According to the manual or RoE perhaps, but the war isn't going to be won by killing civilians in situations where it could've been avoided. It took the groundtroops 8 minutes to get to that location, and even if they took a long time and cleared the way, I'd guess they were atleast 500m away

The enemy only gets more fuel to their fire by these situations.

Well it is a city after all, we invited the insurgents to come out to the open country side to do battle and so that no buildings would be damaged....but they didn't show the rude SOBs.

Humorous, I like it!

They could'nt defeat the NVA or Vietcong in 'nam, and these guys fight in basically the same way. Negating your technical superiority, wich is really clever, innit'?

22 million people in Iraq, guess what, most of 'em are still alive!! I know shocking...bloodthirsty please. Doing their jobs effectively is more like it.

Humor! Woo!

So you mean to say that the gunner/pilot are cool as a breeze then? Acting calmly and giving a good thorough assessment of the situation?

If he had said something along the lines of "Please don't move/Don't go for the gun" he would've come across as more of a coolheaded person, rather than "Please let me shoot that fucker!".

I know, I know. We shouldn't be there cause your probably bleeding heart type of dude that doesn't believe wars should be fought for any reason ever....and as far as ground troops go, we have them there already, dying for our civilians is fine, dying for Iraq's civilians, eh, not so much probably.

No, they should'nt be there, because they have no real reason to be there. I don't mind armies or soldiers, I just think that they should be a defencive force, not an invasionforce.

If the people of the USA did'nt want their troops to die for another countrys citizens while "bringing them democracy, freedom and apple-pie!" they should'nt have set foot in the country.

About the only point you have that makes a modicum of sense at all. Only except of not firing, I would have fired warning shots to get them to back off as they were driving up the street. But again, they followed those pesky Rule of Engagement and waited for permission to fire before doing anything.

Shoveler out

Why thank you.

Well, I disagree, why? They were not doing any directly hostile actions towards anyone. Firing warning shots might've been a better way of doing it certainly, but I have no idea what the RoE details says about that.

 

[Shoveler]

Humorous, I like it!

I try.

Been upset over this war since the beginning of 2003 or whenever it was that the US invaded, but that is irrelevant.

According to the manual or RoE perhaps, but the war isn't going to be won by killing civilians in situations where it could've been avoided. It took the groundtroops 8 minutes to get to that location, and even if they took a long time and cleared the way, I'd guess they were atleast 500m away

They weren't civilians just because the video text says there were. Most were armed, watch the guys in back ground closely, you can see the two guys with the cameras, in addition to the gunmen in the back ground.

They could'nt defeat the NVA or Vietcong in 'nam, and these guys fight in basically the same way. Negating your technical superiority, wich is really clever, innit'?

Negating, depends on perspective, more than 1 million dead NVA, probably closer to 2 million in real numbers. The real problem wasn't NVA negating our technical superiority, the real problem was 99% South Vietnam could have cared less about democracy, or who was in charge. They got a harsh lesson in communist rule directly after the war though. Iraq is a stark contrast to Vietnam in many ways, Iraq is and has been mostly secular, and a lot of the population tends to care about the country's future. And democracy is a part of that.

So you mean to say that the gunner/pilot are cool as a breeze then? Acting calmly and giving a good thorough assessment of the situation?

If he had said something along the lines of "Please don't move/Don't go for the gun" he would've come across as more of a coolheaded person, rather than "Please let me shoot that fucker!"

.

I'd say they were calm in general. Excited during battle? Adrenaline was probably pumping like crazy. I've heard audio from Air to Air combat that was more excited sounding than that. They train countless hours to get a kill, when one come around there is to be some excitement. When a pilot comes back from a mission you think that everyone bows in silence at the dead enemy? Nope, they clap our pilot on back and say "Awesome job". Even if watching the video later disturbs the casual viewer.

No, they should'nt be there, because they have no real reason to be there. I don't mind armies or soldiers, I just think that they should be a defencive force, not an invasionforce.

If the people of the USA did'nt want their troops to die for another countrys citizens while "bringing them democracy, freedom and apple-pie!" they should'nt have set foot in the country.

Iraq was an enemy of the U.S., that's reason enough. Democracy is exactly what they have now, which never would have happened without the U.S.

Armies being only being used as a defensive force has a long history....of losing when they are faced with no other choice but to defend themselves. Due to having NO EXPERIENCE in warfare they tend to get steamrolled.

Well, I disagree, why? They were not doing any directly hostile actions towards anyone. Firing warning shots might've been a better way of doing it certainly, but I have no idea what the RoE details says about that.

Doesn't really matter much, they made a call and it was the wrong one in regard to the van. The initial attack is 100% justified in my estimation of viewing the video repeatedly, including every second of the long version.

Shoveler out

 

[fedaykin]

Respect is not needed and not required, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments those Soldiers were making.

Hehe. I doubt you'll thinking that when you're captured by insurgents and crying for mommy five minutes before your brutal decapitation is filmed.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Negating, depends on perspective, more than 1 million dead NVA, probably closer to 2 million in real numbers. The real problem wasn't NVA negating our technical superiority, the real problem was 99% South Vietnam could have cared less about democracy, or who was in charge. They got a harsh lesson in communist rule directly after the war though. Iraq is a stark contrast to Vietnam in many ways, Iraq is and has been mostly secular, and a lot of the population tends to care about the country's future. And democracy is a part of that.

You assume that Iraqis understand democracy which, from all I've read and heard from experts, is not the case. Democracy is not a part of their culture so most of the civilians don't really understand it.

I'd say they were calm in general.

Agreed, only a couple of them were really a problem (such as the gunner), most seemed pretty under control.

Iraq was an enemy of the U.S., that's reason enough. Democracy is exactly what they have now, which never would have happened without the U.S.

No, it really isn't. Had that been the official reason annouced by the US Government neither the populace nor the international community would have allowed it to happen. There was a reason that the Bush administration fabricated evidence about WMDs and later switched to the cold war rallying cry of bring democracy to the barbarians.

Respect is not needed and not required, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments those Soldiers were making.

Hehe. I doubt you'll thinking that when you're captured by insurgents and crying for mommy five minutes before your brutal decapitation is filmed.

Exactly. If the US Military accepts this as the proper mindset then they no longer have any right to complain when their enemies torture or kill their soldiers in the most brutal ways possible (basically fail to fallow the Geneva Convention). Lack of respect is what caused the PoWs to be stripped naked and photographed in various positions in the prison. Shit like that only inflames the enemy, which is far less significant when that enemy is a nation but when the enemy is a collection of militant organizations, it only fuels their cause. Something the military seems to have failed to realize (a carryover from Vietnam) is that you don't win through military conflict but by through gaining support of the populace and you can't get support from the populace as long as you don't respect them and make a conscious effort to minimize actions which will inflame them. Of course there's always the totalitarian approach but the political ramifications in the rest of the world would destroy the US.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Hehe. I doubt you'll thinking that when you're captured by insurgents and crying for mommy five minutes before your brutal decapitation is filmed.

Hehe. I doubt I will be captured when I go out killing as many of the fuckers as possible or setting off a frag grenade and taking them with me. Do tell, do you know how many Marines have been captured since the War on Terror? Once you figure that out compare it to how many Marines have been deployed to the area and I will let you theorize on how unlikely a scenario that is.

Regardless in all seriousness I assure you, knowing what we know of our enemy and how they treat prisoners, I will not be taken alive. Selling myself dearly and killing as many of them as humanly possible seems to be a much more pleasant fate to only be captured and killed to fuel the Jihadi propaganda war.

But thank you, that just strengthens my resolve even more. Kill everyone who even comes off as remotely hostile to your position, never give them a chance to react. It actually reminds me of a humorous story that happened to a friend.

Before you ship to Iraq they sit you down in a room and give you a lecture about how wonderful the Iraqi people are and blah blah blah, just making sure you don't go over there and starting wasting civilians. They were showing pictures of Iraqis and one of them was a guy fiddling with his watch, A Sgt Major looked at it and said "Well hell id light that mother fucker up hes about to set off an IED!"

I refuse to have respect for an enemy who acts in accordance to the one we are currently facing. Viewing them as Sub-Human is putting it nicely and I imagine I would feel more remorse by putting down a rabid dog before gunning down a hundred of those cave rats.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think you miss the point, you should eventualy read Garlics post. If you dont start to "respect" the enemy you will loose a war against him. Vietnam was a example for it. Afghanistan showed it with the Soviets. And Iraq will be no difference.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

I think you miss the point, you should eventualy read Garlics post. If you dont start to "respect" the enemy you will loose a war against him. Vietnam was a example for it. Afghanistan showed it with the Soviets. And Iraq will be no difference.

I think you miss the point, I will be an enlisted Marine. My job will be to follow my orders to the best of my ability and carry out the function of my MOS. At no time in the foreseeable future will I be in a position of a policy maker or someone who determines the direction of the war. Merely a tool that those people use as a means to achieve an end.

 

[Shoveler]

You assume that Iraqis understand democracy which, from all I've read and heard from experts, is not the case. Democracy is not a part of their culture so most of the civilians don't really understand it.

Iraq 2009: 7.5 million of more than 14 million registered voters went to the polls, more than 50% (only 22 millon or so total people in the country, I guess the other 8 million are under voting age maybe)

U.S. 2008: 231 million registered US voters, 132 million of which voted in 2008 = 56.8% turnout

Seems like they understand fairly well to me, and that's over fifty percent under threat of car bombs and worse.

No, it really isn't. Had that been the official reason annouced by the US Government neither the populace nor the international community would have allowed it to happen. There was a reason that the Bush administration fabricated evidence about WMDs and later switched to the cold war rallying cry of bring democracy to the barbarians.

LOL....oh man, look it, I get your official reasons, but the real reason came down to cold hearted revenge. As soon as Bush Jr. was elected Saddam had to know it was coming. Hell, Saddam tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated, Jr. was gonna finish daddy's work one way or another. People will say oil this and oil that, but the reality is that our oil consumption from Iraq hasn't increased much at all.

But beyond that, Saddam never honored the CEASEFIRE (meaning there is still a state of war officially anyway) at the end of Gulf War I that the UN resolutions outlined, firing at coalition planes for 10+ years after. Refusing to co-operate with inspectors....the list goes on. To say they were an enemy of the U.S. is putting it lightly at best. To bad the Iraqis couldn't ouster Saddam at his weakest point along with his murderous sons, coulda saved the world lots of troubles.

 

[x'il]

I think you miss the point, I will be an enlisted Marine. My job will be to follow my orders to the best of my ability and carry out the function of my MOS. At no time in the foreseeable future will I be in a position of a policy maker or someone who determines the direction of the war. Merely a tool that those people use as a means to achieve an end.

A future-events-based cop-out, how nice. Also, pretty irrelevant to Crni Vuk's point, if i may say so (which makes it a double cop-out with a twist, wow! ).

No offense, but from your posts in this thread it seems pretty clear that you just want to be a "hero" who kills some "untermensch" (or you are just trolling). Either way, mildly interesting stuff. Good luck and all.

As for the "respect" stuff, i think the reasoning goes like this; the more innocent civilians get accidentally (or "accidentally") killed, the more eager volunteers your insurgent enemies are gonna get amongst the population, therefore the more tools who will have to blow themselves up to avoid capture and all that. Such killings of innocent civilians most be avoided at all costs, not only for ethical reasons and all that stuff which gets easily disregarded with "in war everything goes" kind of one-liners, but for your own troops sake (very practical reasons).

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

As for the "respect" stuff, i think the reasoning goes like this; the more innocent civilians get accidentally (or "accidentally") killed, the more eager volunteers your insurgent enemies are gonna get amongst the population, therefore the more tools who will have to blow themselves up to avoid capture and all that. Such killings of innocent civilians most be avoided at all costs, not only for ethical reasons and all that stuff which gets easily disregarded with "in war everything goes" kind of one-liners, but for your own troops sake (very practical reasons).

When dealing with religious zealots you will never have a shortage of recruits, civilian deaths may fuel the propaganda flames but do not kid yourself into thinking that even with no civilian causalities (an impossibility) that Muslim extremist will ever have a shortage when it comes to finding recruits to fight a Jihad.

Which is fine, because we have the most powerful military in the world. We own the Air, Land, and Sea. We a limitless arsenal of the most sophisticated weapons in the world and more people wanting to man them then we even need.

Do you know there is actually a waiting period to get into Infantry right now in the Marine Corps? No joke, it is booked solid for months, People by the droves are REQUESTING 03XX. Our recruiting station commander jokingly said that for all he knew you could be waiting for a spot for next summer, there are just so many people trying to get in that finding people who are willing to pick up a rifle and wear the uniform is a non-issue.

 

[Professor Danger!]

I think you miss the point, you should eventualy read Garlics post. If you dont start to "respect" the enemy you will loose a war against him. Vietnam was a example for it. Afghanistan showed it with the Soviets. And Iraq will be no difference.

I find it hard to respect a suicidal enemy that takes out innocent people with them. Then again, that's just me.

 

[Tremer]

Which is fine, because we have the most powerful military in the world. We own the Air, Land, and Sea. We a limitless arsenal of the most sophisticated weapons in the world and more people wanting to man them then we even need.

hahaha thats funny

tell other joke

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

hahaha thats funny

tell other joke

Or you could not act like a dipshit and actually attempt to disprove said statement unless you are not capable of doing so.

 

[Blakut]

Which is fine, because we have the most powerful military in the world. We own the Air, Land, and Sea. We a limitless arsenal of the most sophisticated weapons in the world and more people wanting to man them then we even need

Well. the US military may be powerfull and all, but it's been fighting primitives with rifles for like 30 years...I mean, the enemy has no airforce, artillery, elite troops, paratroopers etc... no tanks...and when it does, they're all shitty.
If China invades the US, all it has to do is parachute 80% of it's population over the US. No guns, no weapons, armed just with knives and forks they'll eat all of the US's supplies, starving anyone to death...

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think you miss the point, you should eventualy read Garlics post. If you dont start to "respect" the enemy you will loose a war against him. Vietnam was a example for it. Afghanistan showed it with the Soviets. And Iraq will be no difference.

I think you miss the point, I will be an enlisted Marine. My job will be to follow my orders to the best of my ability and carry out the function of my MOS. At no time in the foreseeable future will I be in a position of a policy maker or someone who determines the direction of the war. Merely a tool that those people use as a means to achieve an end.

Thankfully we Germans had our lesson from 1933 - 45 regarding orders and "how" to obey them. I know you probably dont mean this kind of orders but its just to make a point. I am sure the marines just obeyed orders in Vietnam as well.

If youre really think orders are everything in the military and following them is your job then its a fallacy. Obviously there are officers and orders. But youre a human beeing with a brain and nothing will change that. The US military just like any other western military has to take up supordinate to the human rights which even count for the enemy. And every soldier has the right to dismiss orders if he is thinking that its unethical. If he is thinking coletaral damage is to high or if he cant exclude the killing of civilians. Maybe he will never become a general that way. But still the right is there. No officers can demand from someone the things that happend in Guantánamo or Abu-Ghuraib.

I think the principle in the German military today is pretty different from the midset of the usual US marine and army. At least it seems to me. Cause we think that even a simple soldier is responsible for his actions.

When dealing with religious zealots you will never have a shortage of recruits, civilian deaths may fuel the propaganda flames but do not kid yourself into thinking that even with no civilian causalities (an impossibility) that Muslim extremist will ever have a shortage when it comes to finding recruits to fight a Jihad.

Just that most of them are not even that religious. psychologists working in Israel have discovered while talking to captured suicide warriors that many of them have been recruited and many had more or less usual lifes, with jobs and family. But many loost a lot of it at some point. They suffered heavy depressions which makes it easy for others to recruit them for suicide actions. Today though the shift is toward children and females. Which is very worrysome.
One should not forget that suicide warriours are NOT a new thing nor are they a tactic specificaly tied to our century. One might remember the terror from the Kamikaze pilots ? Such things also happend in limited numbes in western Europe once the Germans faced the wall. And surprisingly most suicide pilots in the Japanese army havnt been zealots either.

Afghanistan is another example. Here you have as well pretty few realy religious zealots. Many are simply mercenaries which get money for what they do. Others are used with fighting enemies since the first Afghan war with the Soviets and later fighting some warlords for them the US are just "another" force to deal with. They dont know anything else.

The Iraq is a complex region cause of the many different groups you have there starting with the bigest of Suni and Shia to certain nations like the Kurds. To make a simple "enemy" here isnt possible. And aditionaly you also have foreign mercenaries as well. Not just islamic ones but also those from western nations (black water anyone ?) which do not really help in the situation either but just make it more complex caues it means more armed forces.

To postmark them all as simple religious zealots is just as helpfull like it would be after 1945 to postmark every German SS, Wehrmacht or civlian as furious Nazi. Some for sure are. And will probably never chang etheir mind. But you still have to offer the people options if you really want to create a better future or prevent fighting.

Saddam keept everything together with force and terror. The US is trying it with the sheer power of military force. For many that is not much difference. For us its easy to judge it while looking outside on the Iraq and we see a difference. But beeing there is a different issue. And we see that not many things did changed neither in Afghanistan nor Iraq and I doubt a military presence be it 5 or 10 or 20 years will change here much. I have no clue what should be done in such areas like Iraq of Afghanistan. I am not a expert. But you know the Soviets have been 12 years down there. 12 years and it changed nothing.

 

[iii]

Which is fine, because we have the most powerful military in the world. We own the Air, Land, and Sea. We a limitless arsenal of the most sophisticated weapons in the world and more people wanting to man them then we even need

Well. the US military may be powerfull and all, but it's been fighting primitives with rifles for like 30 years...I mean, the enemy has no airforce, artillery, elite troops, paratroopers etc... no tanks...and when it does, they're all shitty.
If China invades the US, all it has to do is parachute 80% of it's population over the US. No guns, no weapons, armed just with knives and forks they'll eat all of the US's supplies, starving anyone to death...

Bullshit all China has to do is to drop (without a parachute) 10% of its soldiers wearing this:

out over the us. Each Chinese soldier has the order to hit an American citizen...

Et Voilà... The USA will turn into an uuninhabitedplace.

I think the principle in the German military today is pretty different from the midset of the usual US marine and army. At least it seems to me. Cause we think that even a simple soldier is responsible for his actions.

Well we have the doctrine of "Zivilisten in Uniform" (civilians in uniform), meaning that the uniform is not the most important thing that should determine your decision.

 

[Hoxie]

hahaha thats funny

tell other joke

Or you could not act like a dipshit and actually attempt to disprove said statement unless you are not capable of doing so.

The person that may as well be wearing jackboots with a pretty little armband, calling others a dipshit.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I think the principle in the German military today is pretty different from the midset of the usual US marine and army. At least it seems to me. Cause we think that even a simple soldier is responsible for his actions.

Well we have the doctrine of "Zivilisten in Uniform" (civilians in uniform), meaning that the uniform is not the most important thing that should determine your decision.

exactly!

 

[Dragula]

Heer was better before.