Classified US military video depicting slaying of civilians

[Arr0nax]

And seriously, the guys couldn't hear the helicopter circling around? WTF?

Someone on another board has calculated the distance of the helicopter to around 2400 meters (based on the time delay of the 30 cal shootings).
That is FAR, and that is clearly not a range at which you feel endangered by a RPG and AK-47 even if they existed.
So much for approaching and confirming the threat.

Also, WikiLeaks has published the ROE from after the incident and the "Hostile Intention" paragraph near the end is very interesting, since you are basically allowed to shoot anyone that show Hostile Intention.
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf

This paragraph clearly states :

Determination of hostile intent must be based on convincing evidence that an attack is imminent prior to the use of proportional force in self-defense. [...] Evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorists : is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position ; is preparing to fire, launch or release weapons against the US, US Forces [...] ; is preparing to lay mines [...] ; or attempts to gain control of an information systems [...]

Neither of which was the case in the situation we are talking of. So much for the "but they just followed the protocol" argument.
I'm not saying the first shooting was illegal regarding these ROE, there is probably a paragraph somewhere that would allow it, like for example the one that allow you to shoot a designated target regardless of the hostile intent.
The point is more that the protocol can be interpreted in many ways, that the ROE contained pieces of "common sense" they should have followed regarding this situation, and that they willfully ignored them.

 

[Blakut]

That is FAR, and that is clearly not a range at which you feel endangered by a RPG and AK-47 even if they existed.

Ground troops were close.

 

[Miwenskee]

it seemed so cause the guy kept the camera zoomed almost the whole time.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce3664OkewA[/youtube]

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

In other words, neither do you so you have no more field experience than him. Also, bragging about enjoying being indoctrinated by the military only damages your position when making judgment calls about their policies and attitudes as you are essentially admitting that you are accepting them without thought or question.

I already admitted that when I said as far as I knew no one (that includes me) has any real experience here. What I can say I do know however is how the average grunt thinks. I have been DEPed in for almost a year now and being around Marines and Marine Corps mentality and tradition has been a daily routine.

And yes, I would accept and carry out my orders to the best of my abilities without question.

so just because there are more idiots out there who find it exhilarating to kill people it's perfectly fine and nothing wrong about it?

it might not have anything to do with intelligence, but it has everything to do with empathy and respect for other peoples lives. and you clearly lack both.

taking pride and pleasure in ones job is one thing, but it should be for the right reasons. even I as a pacifist who despises war find it honorable to decide to go into battle and defend innocent lives and human rights. but one should never ever take pleasure in taking another persons life - if you do, there's something horribly wrong with you.

You say there is something horribly wrong, I say it makes you a more efficient killer. Efficient killers is what you want your Infantrymen to be. Psychologically sane mind you, but still efficient all the same.

Lacking empathy and respect I will give you, because I openly admit that when compared to the lives of Americans I do see those people as inferiors. Not that I am saying we should openly execute them or anything along those lines, just that I put the lives of American Service members and even my countries own citizens above those of any foreign nation.

You may not agree with you but what it comes down to is that the Marine Corps and United States Government does not care if Marines and Soldiers "enjoy" the killing. They might scold it openly but it has been going on for a very long time and it will continue to go on. So long as you are enjoying killing the right people in the eyes of the Government there are no issues.

Fuck no, what kind of moronic logic do you follow? I pray that you are and have always been a civilian where such ideas have never actually managed to apply to real life situations.

Soldiers jobs is to defend civilians. Killing Civilians invalidates that job.

Actually no, a Marine or Soldiers job is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and follow orders from his Commanding Officers and the President of the United States.

Now mind you our current mission dictates that we protect civilian life but don't try to say that it is always a job or a number one priority. Our Government its self invalidates that position by its use such of things such as Predator Drones to take out select targets despite the collateral damage. Sometimes accepting civilian causalities are a means to an end.

None of that matters regardless, it still does not change the fact that in the thick of the fight you are going to watch out for your comrades before a foreign citizen whose country you currently are engaging combat operations in.

 

[Professor Danger!]

Soldiers jobs is to defend civilians. Killing Civilians invalidates that job.

Yeah, but those guys were civilians with guns. They don't wear uniforms. They deliberately bring children to battle and do ops in civilian territories. And then, the guys that kill them are the monsters...

Didn't you get the memo? America's baaaaaaad. But the people that dress up like civilians, shoot innocents, and bomb shit. They're good.

 

[Crni Vuk]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce3664OkewA[/youtube]

Reminds me to that tank commander which gave some interview about the fighting in Iraq and how he explained that what they loved to do was blowing stuff up while listening to rock music inside the tank, well dunno.

Though some guys should eventualy calm down regarding the behaviour of US soldiers beeing something exceptional or harsh. It might be true that the behaviour isnt always good. But one should eventualy go and read comments from Soldiers which saw service in WW2 and they would explain how much fun they had when they could blow some old stuff up. Be it churches, or other kind of buildings.

 

[the_cpl]

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.

Not my "bubble". I know that.

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

I did see other videos too. An injured civilian, without rifle, on the middle of the street. A soldier shot at him and lauged, when he killed the civilian. How is this an "accident"? Can you explain this to me? Sounds like a war crime to me.

And like I said, if you are not sure about the target, don't shoot. And even if you kill your enemies, you don't laugh and such things.

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

I thought they are trained to shoot at sure enemies. Not about random people who are maybe badguys. You know what happens to policemen, if they shoot random people on the street, because "one of them had a camera what is looked like a pistol".
Trained to kill? Probably. But if they are trained, why they act like kids who having fun with COD4? That is not too professional.
And they are not trained to don't shoot at people who has no rifles, and just helping the injured people on the street?

War isn't about being nice to the other guys and showing respect

I thought there are international war-rules. Maybe I was wrong.

it's about beating the opponent. If you aren't fighting to win, then don't fight at all.

Something republican politican said the war is on, even if the US can't win. How is that about "fight to win"?
And how they win? If they don't massacre every single arab there, they can't win, because there are always another badguy.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Reminds me to that tank commander which gave some interview about the fighting in Iraq and how he explained that what they loved to do was blowing stuff up while listening to rock music inside the tank, well dunno.

He was listening to Drowning Pool - Bodies.

Quite a fitting song truth be told.

 

[Professor Danger!]

Reminds me to that tank commander which gave some interview about the fighting in Iraq and how he explained that what they loved to do was blowing stuff up while listening to rock music inside the tank, well dunno.

He was listening to Drowning Pool - Bodies.

Quite a fitting song truth be told.

Why aren't people all up in arms about that guy's crappy taste in music?

 

[Deleted member 53669]

His trailer park he came from wasn't DSL equipped.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

Why aren't people all up in arms about that guy's crappy taste in music?

He was listening to an Ozzfest CD, so yeah not exactly my first pick but I listen to Black and Death metal mostly so I am not in the norm myself.

The correct thing to be listening to would have been this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9Tye_bzl9U[/youtube]

This time we're here to finish a job
Started a decade ago
Driving the animals out of their holes
To bury them 6 feet below
Armoured tanks of mass destruction
Killers in the east
Rats who dares to stand before us
Feel our guns go live

Pro-Iraq War Metal FTW.

 

[Professor Danger!]

Why aren't people all up in arms about that guy's crappy taste in music?

He was listening to an Ozzfest CD, so yeah not exactly my first pick but I listen to Black and Death metal mostly so I am not in the norm myself.

The correct thing to be listening to would have been this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9Tye_bzl9U[/youtube]

This time we're here to finish a job
Started a decade ago
Driving the animals out of their holes
To bury them 6 feet below
Armoured tanks of mass destruction
Killers in the east
Rats who dares to stand before us
Feel our guns go live

Pro-Iraq War Metal FTW.

There we go. If you're gonna kill people and blow up shit to music. Definitely pick something that rocks.

That guy might as well have been blasting some Lady Gaga.

 

[Ravager69]

Note that even though the youtube video is a bit pixelish, the guys in the Apache have a lot better video quality. That's why I don't understand how they could mistake two, non-hostile behaving people sourrouned by unarmed group (come on, they were walking casualy through the middle of the road and chatting, which terrorist does that?) for armed and dangerous criminals. They didn't even for a second consider that, perhaps, they weren't out to kill and that's what's worse. Fuck it, they may be soldiers, but they take responsibilty for what they do, they aren't some fucking robots. Nobody was in direct danger even if those guys were indeed armed, so why did they insist on engaging an unconfirmed target? For some sport?

Also, writing "meh, so they killed a bunch of innocent people, so what, happens during war" is a bit too cynical for people who never been on war (I assume most of folks here weren't) IMO. Being realistic is one thing, behaving like dick is entirely another.

 

[Blakut]

That's why I don't understand how they could mistake two, non-hostile behaving people sourrouned by unarmed group (come on, they were walking casualy through the middle of the road and chatting, which terrorist does that?) for armed and dangerous criminals.

They were armed with RPGs and AK47s. The two reporters were walking with the armed individuals.

Nobody was in direct danger even if those guys were indeed armed,

How do you know what direct danger is? This is not a video game. There are numerous people in the field, not just the guy holding the camera.

 

[Sander]

I did see other videos too. An injured civilian, without rifle, on the middle of the street. A soldier shot at him and lauged, when he killed the civilian. How is this an "accident"? Can you explain this to me? Sounds like a war crime to me.

That's an entirely seperate incident. Wilfull killing and targeting of civilians is just as scrutinized whatever side does it. But that has nothing to do with this, what appears to be mostly an accident.

And like I said, if you are not sure about the target, don't shoot. And even if you kill your enemies, you don't laugh and such things.

The first is a completely unrealistic way of waging war. The second is not something I can give two shits about. Why are people so worried about the proprieties surrounding people killing other people?

I thought they are trained to shoot at sure enemies. Not about random people who are maybe badguys.

Every action in a war carries a risk of innocent victims. It's the job of the soldiers to determine when that risk is acceptable. It's easy to condemn them when you know the context, but suppose this video was released as is, without the knowledge that innocents were being shot. What would the response have been then?

You know what happens to policemen, if they shoot random people on the street, because "one of them had a camera what is looked like a pistol".

Policemen don't operate in war zones.

I thought there are international war-rules. Maybe I was wrong.

The initial shooting isn't breaking any of those rules. The shooting of the van might be, but I don't know the full context of what vans that sprint in usually mean in that warzone.

Something republican politican said the war is on, even if the US can't win. How is that about "fight to win"?

Do you seriously think the US military isn't trying to win? One republican politician does not determine the actual military strategy.

 

[Ravager69]

They were armed with RPGs and AK47s. The two reporters were walking with the armed individuals.

AFAIR, only two men out of the whole crowd held anything that would resemble a weapon, and that was a camera. Soldiers *thought* it was weapons.

 

[Sander]

From 3:20-3:45 in the video you can see it clearly. First, the video points out the two journalists carrying cameras. Then it pans up, and you see several other people carrying what appear to be AKs.

 

[Shoveler]

They were armed with RPGs and AK47s. The two reporters were walking with the armed individuals.

AFAIR, only two men out of the whole crowd held anything that would resemble a weapon, and that was a camera. Soldiers *thought* it was weapons.

Nope, the intro to the short version states that some of the men were armed. Just re-watched it. Watching the FULL version at 2:15-2:00 watching some of the guys in the background they are clearly carrying weapons, and one appears to be an RPG. What ever it is it's very long and heavy, as he rests it on the ground while still standing erect. At 2:34 is when one of the camera men pokes his head around the corner and appears to take a photo of the helo. If I didn't know ahead of time that was a camera I would easily mistake it for the business end of an RPG. Watch it closely. They were definitely with armed men.

The Van situation though is shady.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I think the US is a occupation force in the Iraq right now.

Indeed, choose your favorite euphemism.

Yeah, but those guys were civilians with guns. They don't wear uniforms. They deliberately bring children to battle and do ops in civilian territories. And then, the guys that kill them are the monsters...

What guys? The guys in the video? I saw nothing that was clearly identifiable as a weapon and the people who brought there children there were rendering medical assistance to those who were injured, not reinforcements.

There is also the question of gun laws within the nation. Is it legal to own weapons in Iraq? I know their laws were very loose under Sadam. Is it illegal to carry those arms in public? If yes then the assumption that an armed civilian is an "insurgent" is ridiculous and the complete opposite of the law.

And yes, I would accept and carry out my orders to the best of my abilities without question.

Orders and policies and attitudes are seperate issues. That said, if you were ordered to fire on US civillians, would you?

Lacking empathy and respect I will give you, because I openly admit that when compared to the lives of Americans I do see those people as inferiors.

Sieg heil! Whoops, nationalism got the better of me for a second there.

Why are people so worried about the proprieties surrounding people killing other people?

That is how you judge whether or not the action was justifiable and reasonable. Since I think you're more asking about the attitudes of the soldiers, I think it's reasonable to want your military to be calm, rationale, and reasonable so that you can be confident that they are making rational decisions. You don't want soldiers who seem likely to just start shooting people for fun.

That said, I don't think that most of the soldiers were bad and there were really only a couple of things said that sounded like it was from a kid on the internet, laughing about running over the body was one of them

It's easy to condemn them when you know the context, but suppose this video was released as is, without the knowledge that innocents were being shot. What would the response have been then?

Agreed, I was thinking the same thing this morning. It'd be interesting to see what people would say about it without knowledge of what it's about.

Policemen don't operate in war zones.

Ah yes, but they deal with riots and other armed criminals. How exactly do you wage a traditional war against enemies without countries, formal militaries, and who don't all answer to the same leadership?

The initial shooting isn't breaking any of those rules. The shooting of the van might be, but I don't know the full context of what vans that sprint in usually mean in that warzone.

Shooting the van as it drove toward the bodies, maybe, shooting the van and those within it after they had gotten out and started helping the wounded is an entirely different manner. Besides which, that van hardly seemed to "sprint" in, it seemed to take it's time.

Do you seriously think the US military isn't trying to win?

Whether or not they are trying to win and whether or not they can are seperate issues. We know from the past that the US military isn't very good and judging whether or not a situation is winnable or not from Vietnam, as the military didn't want to leave and thought that they were winning.

Nope, the intro to the short version states that some of the men were armed. Just re-watched it. Watching the FULL version at 2:15-2:00 watching some of the guys in the background they are clearly carrying weapons, and one appears to be an RPG. What ever it is it's very long and heavy, as he rests it on the ground while still standing erect. At 2:34 is when one of the camera men pokes his head around the corner and appears to take a photo of the helo. If I didn't know ahead of time that was a camera I would easily mistake it for the business end of an RPG. Watch it closely. They were definitely with armed men.

Not really since you could see him pop around the corner and back so you could see the profile of what he was holding. If it was a RPG, it's side profile would be clear. I saw what appeared to be an RPG as well but when they stated that the enemy had RPGs the camera incident that you described. They may have been armed but the video resolution makes it hard to really point to objects and say definitively that they are weapons. I seem to remember the chopper asking people on the ground to document the scene so if there were weapons present, there should be pictures of them that the military could show as proof. Again, the manner in which the US military has handled the situation has been reprehensible.

EDIT: Still, I'm more with you. The innitial attack has a good possibility of being justifiable but the van wasn't.