Classified US military video depicting slaying of civilians

[jorj82]

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.

Deducing that could have possibly cost an American Marine or Soldier his life, which is unacceptable.

So... the life of an American > life of all others? I can't believe this bull.

 

[fedaykin]

Sander, yes, it makes sense to stop troops from helping other troops, but not when they're not even identified as troops. As we can see from the video, the guys from the van don't come bearing weapons and they don't pick up weapons and the downed guy is not even capable of getting up. The chopper crew still decides to fire.

I made sure not to quote anything out of relevant context and you can hear everything in the video anyway, feel free to check. The quotes were meant as a juxtaposition to ))<>(('s (I want to name my kids after him) statement. If anything, the context of the part you quoted speaks for my interpretation, because even though they wait for proper reasons they still get permission to fire without identifying the van guys as combatants, as we can see from the video.
Comments like:
04:31 Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.
04:36 Nice.
are pretty clear to me even without context.

Understanding that they're trained to act like this is one thing. Whether it's right or wrong is another.

 

[Sander]

So... the life of an American > life of all others? I can't believe this bull.

No, from the perspective of the soldiers though, the life of an American soldier is definitely worth more than the life of an enemy insurgent.

Sander, yes, it makes sense to stop troops from helping other troops, but not when they're not even identified as troops. As we can see from the video, the guys from the van don't come bearing weapons and they don't pick up weapons and the downed guy is not even capable of getting up. The chopper crew still decides to fire.

Yes, but this is where it gets murky. They still think the men on the ground were enemy combatants, and there's little reason to believe that a van that comes speeding in doesn't belong with them either.

I made sure not to quote anything out of relevant context and you can hear everything in the video anyway, feel free to check.

An isolated 'fuck' is relevant how, other than painting a picture of swearing people?

Understanding that they're trained to act like this is one thing. Whether it's right or wrong is another.

I'd rather have my soldiers be efficient than overly cautious.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGoJ4UEJs9I[/youtube]

 

[cronicler]

*Sander; the person identified as RPG carrier was the Reuters correspondent carrying photograph machine. Reuters has been trying to get this footage (info on how he died) for about 3 years and they were being stonewalled.

That little piece of information is what makes this incident, a serious breach of ethics, not the mistargeting or shoot first mentality of the pilots who are working their butts off in a hostile zone.

 

[shihonage]

The first volley of fire seems justified, because there's clearly a guy with something that might be a portable rocket of some sort, acting suspiciously, who clearly spotted the chopper. RPG guys have to get close yet remain unnoticed, because the shot makes a flash and smoke trail which makes them vulnerable to return fire. The guy was hiding and leaning behind a building wall. This painted his entire group as hostiles.

The later van shooting however I just don't get. Looks like U.S. Army shot itself in the ass with that one. BIGTIME.

On a side note its amazing how well COD4 captured the details of this type of mission. The delay between firing and explosions, the smoke and debris, the SHAPE of debris, the type of chatter... mind you the COD4 chatter was less bloodthirsty.

 

[Manu]

I don't understand how people can defend such actions, even in conscript armies like we had years ago such laxed ROE's are not permitted.

You don't engage unless you are fired upon or have 100% visual/other confirmation of target

The german one where they killed 200 by opening fire in a tanker is even worse and it's quite revealing of the 'hadj' mentality

meaning iraq/afghanii lives are deemed expendable and invaluable

 

[Kilus]

Yes, but this is where it gets murky. They still think the men on the ground were enemy combatants, and there's little reason to believe that a van that comes speeding in doesn't belong with them either.

I'd rather have my soldiers be efficient than overly cautious.

Little reason? People are dying. Most people try to help in that situation. There is a little thing called empathy. I counted 3 minutes from the shooting stops till the Van shows up(in the edited video).
And even if they did belong to the same group it's clear to anyone they are attempting to help wounded. As in medically help.

And your last sentence there. Wow, that's like 0 Kelvin.

 

[Kahgan]

I for one, am disgusted, but then again, sitting here in peace I'll probably forget about it in a couple of minutes.
None the less I never stop to be amazed at how similar the comments soldier-boys in videos like that are to the ones you hear on gaming videos. This could easily have been a video from COD4 or something like that, with the voices of juvenile teenagers in the background.
I also find it funny how killing a bunch of people who clearly weren't hostile at that point is just what happens in war, while one or two western soldiers getting killed is a fucking tragedy.
And I don't think people who are "trained to killed" need to be like that, there are plenty of examples in history where opposing forces have no problem with showing respect for each other. Maybe because they weren't sitting comfy in a chopper and pressing buttons, but actually had to see the mutilated bodies up close.
And if they are the well trained hard core manly men they are said to be they should be able to identify that situation as not hostile, and not succumb to such nervous impulsive actions.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Meh. Accidents happen. War accidents just involve a few more dead people.

As sad as it might be, but yeah I have a similar feeling. I mean its a military war zone. What do people expect ? Everything working nicely and a debate about if the used force was right or wrong or to much ?. Thats not how military actions work.

Sometimes police officers kill inocent people, sometimes a fireman is making a wrong decision and he is loosing either a good comrade or even some people he wanted to rescue. A doctor might perform a wrong action and kill a patient.

All this things are tragic. But its human. We have to do everything to prevent such situations of course. But there are many things to consider and sometimes you dont have the time to decide and thus you make mistakes.

It reminds me to a similar situation where German soldiers killed a few Afghan people which drove with a car toward them at some checkpoint but ignored all shouts and warnings so the soldiers shoot them and sadly killed them. Its a hard situation and its not easy to decide what is wrong or right.

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 ?

Thats not what he was saying remember one of his statements earlier:

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.

THis is a fair point, though it's hardly a critical event.

To make informations public is one thing and it is a good thing (usualy). Particularly when it comes to a conflict or warzone.

I doubt Sander wants to say now such events are not important. Though I doubt that starting a campaign against US soldiers or the military isnt the correct execution either.

When such cases happen there has to be a investigation about the subject and check to see who was eventualy responsible. Regardless if it are troops from the US, Germans or other nations.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Hah, wow.

It's so funny when people actually see what war is really like.

No wonder there was a press blackout during the First Gulf War.



Then again, if more people were aware of it in the first place, and turned over a few cars and set fire to trashcans in front of the white-house because of it, maybe this wouldn't happen in the first place.

 

[Crni Vuk]

yes, particularly a situation like wars should be completely open to the public even with all its harsh conditions. People should see and decide by them self if they think such conditions legitimate a conflict.

 

[Blakut]

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".

Let me see, i can quote Orwell too, just like the video:

"We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us."

That and of course they are eager to kill, they are professional soldiers. Only drafted personnel may show some restraint in war... those who realy want to be there are there to kill.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Killing is the oldest profession.

Abhorrence to killing is the oldest welfare program.

 

[the_cpl]

And liberals say the guns are good for the military, but not for the civilians. I don't know, but the civilians look less dangerous with their rifles.

Oh, they were in a helicopter, they cannot see the target. Well, then they shouldn't shoot. If they were not sure, just hold the fire. That's it.

Somebody posted on the youtube to this issue: "why don't the enemy wear red hat, then the military could see them".
With a monochrome black&white camera? How do you see colors on them? Or what sould they wear? T-shirts with a target symbol on it?

People also say "oh, it's not a big deal, civilians die in wars".

First of all, if the arabs shoot at civilians, the world say "muslims must die". If the US military does the same, the world say "it's ok, it was an accident". WTF.
(I don't support anything or anybody, but this is a fact.)

And what the hell is wrong with these soldiers? They think they playing COD4 Modern Warfare? Man, you are KILLING people. Not NPCs! Dead bodies are "nice"? Where is your psychiatrist?

That is also scary, when the army bombs a wedding party there and Hillary says in the TV: "Whopsy, sorry. It was an accident."
Yeah, I bet the family members who didn't die in that "accident" forgive.

Bush said the war is over, and it's only a peacekeeping mission. I don't see any peacekeeping. Bring the soldiers home. How many people must die for... wait, I don't even know why. Why?

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

And what the hell is wrong with these soldiers? They think they playing COD4 Modern Warfare? Man, you are KILLING people. Not NPCs! Dead bodies are "nice"? Where is your psychiatrist?

This is starting to get fucking retarded. I hate to burst your bubble but the guys in the video are not a minority, go spend time around enlisted Marines in the 03XX field, this is how the majority act and talk.

If you are building an effective fighting force would you rather your warriors show remorse at the actions they take? Fuck no, you want them to relish in the blood shed, to love the thrill of gunning down another human being.
That being said you still want them to do it in a professional manner, to love the feeling of killing the right targets and not just random murder, that is the fine line that must be walked.

I can justify the death of civilians due to being overtly cautious in protecting your fellow Marine and Soldiers lives but I am not saying we should just go over and start randomly executing people.

That and of course they are eager to kill, they are professional soldiers. Only drafted personnel may show some restraint in war... those who realy want to be there are there to kill.

.

 

[Sander]

Somebody posted on the youtube to this issue: "why don't the enemy wear red hat, then the military could see them".
With a monochrome black&white camera? How do you see colors on them? Or what sould they wear? T-shirts with a target symbol on it?

People also say "oh, it's not a big deal, civilians die in wars".

First of all, if the arabs shoot at civilians, the world say "muslims must die". If the US military does the same, the world say "it's ok, it was an accident". WTF.
(I don't support anything or anybody, but this is a fact.)

You don't see the difference between a military accident and a terrorist attack purposefully targeting civilians?

And what the hell is wrong with these soldiers? They think they playing COD4 Modern Warfare? Man, you are KILLING people. Not NPCs! Dead bodies are "nice"? Where is your psychiatrist?

Soldiers are trained to kill. If they stop, ponder every kill and feel remorse they wouldn't exactly be very good soldiers.

And I don't think people who are "trained to killed" need to be like that, there are plenty of examples in history where opposing forces have no problem with showing respect for each other. Maybe because they weren't sitting comfy in a chopper and pressing buttons, but actually had to see the mutilated bodies up close.

It's easy to have officers show eachother respect after the fighting is over, it's a different thing entirely while fighting the enemy. War isn't about being nice to the other guys and showing respect, it's about beating the opponent. If you aren't fighting to win, then don't fight at all.
I highly doubt you have any actual knowledge of what, throughout history, the reactions of common soldiers during and after battle was.

Little reason? People are dying. Most people try to help in that situation. There is a little thing called empathy. I counted 3 minutes from the shooting stops till the Van shows up(in the edited video).
And even if they did belong to the same group it's clear to anyone they are attempting to help wounded. As in medically help.

It's easy to see that when sitting at home watching that tape and knowing the context of it. However, neither you nor I know what vans sprinting in toward insurgents are usually doing. They expressly say that the van may be picking up weapons, too.

Everyone seems to be treating this as if it were not a warzone and a battlefield.

And your last sentence there. Wow, that's like 0 Kelvin.

I'd call it realistic.

 

[Miwenskee]

Not that i claim to be competent and all (i'm surely not)... but doesn't protocol state that you should fire only if you are fired upon? even if they did carry weapons (which i have to admit, i didn't see clearly, but i can't deny it nevertheless) i don't think that should automatically make them hostile. The same goes for the people in the building... and especially for the van that came before that. And i would really like it if someone corrects me in case i'm wrong.

 

[Professor Danger!]

So a situation in which a war is going on and "collateral damage" happens occasionally is worse than when some asshole goes around and rapes/murders innocent people?

I don't see a big need to spread this shit around. Apparently people who are interested will find it anyways. I love the fact that people are angry at a strained killer is actually waiting for an order instead of just opening fire on everything. Damn.

Sander pointed out that the soldiers may seem like assholes. So do cops. When you're in a volatile situation, you need to make sure you get through it, especially with yourself and your fellow soldiers (or officers if they're cops) still alive.

I don't see the huge deal. Yeah, it always sucks when people die. But, what the fuck are you going to do about it? Innocent people die in car accidents. No one is really boo-hooing about that.

 

[Arr0nax]

If you are building an effective fighting force would you rather your warriors show remorse at the actions they take? Fuck no, you want them to relish in the blood shed, to love the thrill of gunning down another human being.

This is ridiculous. I'm not in the military but I'm pretty sure the UN and NATO forces engaged in peace keeping and peace making operations over the world put more value on life than the picture you are depicting. And I'm pretty sure they did less mistakes and "oops I killed 10 civillians" than the first army of the world during Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
You can be effective at killing and maintaining peace without being a fucking mono-neuronal beast. And you can maintain peace without having ROE that basically allows you to kill the entire population of the city you are fighting in on the assumption that they could bear arms.

So a situation in which a war is going on and "collateral damage" happens occasionally is worse than when some asshole goes around and rapes/murders innocent people?

People don't get murdered that often in my country. But there would surely be a lot to say about the murder rate in the united states, it's just not the topic of this thread. Also, murder is a phenomenon you can't totaly eliminate inside society.
War is. Especially idiotic wars that don't have any rationale to start with and where the invading country act like they own all the land and people living there.

It's easy to see that when sitting at home watching that tape and knowing the context of it. However, neither you nor I know what vans sprinting in toward insurgents are usually doing. They expressly say that the van may be picking up weapons, too.

Everyone seems to be treating this as if it were not a warzone and a battlefield.

You seem to be treating this as if the helicopter was in direct danger. It was not. The helicopter was clearly out of range and they could have waited to get a better overview of the situation without risking anyone's life. Instead of having this fucking urge to kill a bunch of people immediately.