Classified US military video depicting slaying of civilians

[Sander]

What guys? The guys in the video? I saw nothing that was clearly identifiable as a weapon

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.

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.

Eh...what? This is not business as usual, you know. It's a warzone. The legality of people walking around brandishing weapons isn't really relevant there, it's the implications this has in a warzone.

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.

The fact that they followed protocol and waited for permission to fire is good enough for me.

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?

To compare a warzone to the working environment of policemen is pretty odd. Yes, they have to contend with criminals who could use weapons. But they don't have to deal with a group of people trying to kill as many of them as possible. The US military in Iraq does.

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.

Did it? Because I've heard that opinions were split on that issue.
And I wasn't talking about the realism of the situation. I was talking about the comment 'the_cpl' referred to: that of a Republican politician saying they'll just do as much damage as they can even if they can't win. That's not the objective of the military.

 

[Arr0nax]

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?

Without any context, we have a video of US soldiers shooting and killing a bunch of people that showed no hostile intent as it is described in the ROE. The first bunch being armed, the second unarmed (and you kindly did put a "interrogation mark" on this action)
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf
Carrying arms is not hostile intent in itself.
Like I said before, hostile intent is defined within these ROE as follows :

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 [...]

 

[Blakut]

: is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position

You would die pretty quick in a war if you'd wait for the enemy to fire first. What, when you see a bunch of enemies that don't show hostile intent you can't kill them? You have to say hello first, to get their attention? Maybe wait to let them fire a few rounds?

In WW2 the Germans were defeated because of carpet bombing of cities, relentless destruction of civilian and military materiel. No one complains about anything, not then and not now.

 

[Shoveler]

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?

Without any context, we have a video of US soldiers shooting and killing a bunch of people that showed no hostile intent as it is described in the ROE. The first bunch being armed, the second unarmed (and you kindly did put a "interrogation mark" on this action)
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf
Carrying arms is not hostile intent in itself.
Like I said before, hostile intent is defined within these ROE as follows :

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 [...]

You'd be right about the ROE in this case if it weren't for one thing. They mistakenly thought the guy poking his head around the corner with the camera was trying to fire at them. They THOUGHT they were under fire. Once they THINK they are under fire, all bets are off. Us knowing ahead of time that they had cameras is interfering with our objectivity on this one I think.

If I watched this video not knowing any details at all, I would 100% agree with the initial attack. You've got armed dudes (which are visually confirmed with RPGs and AKs), one appears to take a shot from around the corner of the building, seriously why did he duck and try to take cover for just a lousy photo? Suspicious behavior in hindsight.

The Van attack is another story as far as I'm concerned. These fellas appeared to be rendering aid and nothing more. Someone made the comment of the Van not being marked as an emergency vehicle. This isn't New York City were talking about here, almost always the first responders in most places will be civilians trying to render aid (you'd hope anyway). Emergency vehicles will take much longer to respond, the guy they were helping probably only had minutes to live and time was critical. I didn't see them attempting to pick up weapons, or bodies or anything else besides him.

 

[Dead Guy]

In WW2 the Germans were defeated because of carpet bombing of cities, relentless destruction of civilian and military materiel. No one complains about anything, not then and not now.

Maybe that's because the germans threatened to take over half the world, whereas this is the most one sided conflict since Darth Vader vs the sand people?

 

[Professor Danger!]

In WW2 the Germans were defeated because of carpet bombing of cities, relentless destruction of civilian and military materiel. No one complains about anything, not then and not now.

Maybe that's because the germans threatened to take over half the world, whereas this is the most one sided conflict since Darth Vader vs the sand people?

That's not completely true. It's not one sided. There are enemies. It's just that the whole reason for the invasion wasn't as clear-cut or even "right" like WWII seemed to be. America was attacked by Japan. Germany was running around attacking shit and playing finders keepers.

Not that any of this has anything to do with the video.

 

[Blakut]

Maybe that's because the germans threatened to take over half the world, whereas this is the most one sided conflict since Darth Vader vs the sand people?

Japan is in this too. They bombed the country into submission. What would the insurgents stand to lose if they surrendered?

What would the civilians lose if the insurgents surrendered?

 

[SuAside]

A bit late to the party, but I'll give my opinion anyway.

I'm a bit underwhelmed with the video really. I saw it before anyone told me what happened in it, and therefore I think I am less biased than most here.

First part I was unsure, I saw weird bags, but couldn't identify guns, although the pilots throught they saw some assault rifles. I did see a sling, so it was not an entirely stupid jump to conclude they might have weapons.
Then they bunch up and the guy takes a peek behind the wall. Pilot says 'RPG' and I must say that was a damn credible claim!
They then lay waste to the group of people around the supposedly armed men. With ground troops receiving fire further down the road, it didn't strike me as totally wrong. Not even when they fired on the wounded guy crawling.
Remember, if you were in that chopper and your countrymen were under fire. You think you saw a weapon. Then more weapons and suspect behavior. You make a decision and open fire. But the decision is never absolute. It is never based on truth or reality. It is based on perceived reality and limited information. On top of that, the decision is made by a human... The mind has a way of showing you what you expect to see. There are enough tricks and jokes to prove that.

But then the van came in, and tried to help. They opened fire there too, even if there was no evidence of them being armed or hostile. I understand that enemies often try to remove evidence and aid fallen comrades, but I didn't get the feeling they should open fire in this particular instance. If they had gone for an AK on the ground, by all means, waste the fuckers. But they simply aided a wounded man. Friend or foe, both could lend aid to wounded people... They should have fired warning shots, not killing shots in my opinion. If the van stayed, then yeah, maybe you could use deadly force. This must be seen in the context of their RoE btw. Maybe their RoE specifically said to fire on anyone lending aid to fallen enemies. I doubt it, but it's possible.

Then the building under construction. Blowing the building with the first Hellfire was ok with me, though I do not know their specific RoE. I suppose it was ok.
But the following Hellfires? Were those necessary? It was clear civies were walking past. While collateral damage can sometimes not be prevented, it is questionable the following Hellfires had any use, save for potentially hurting enemies who might have survived the initial assault. It was however too likely to hurt civies in my book.

YMMV.

 

[Crni Vuk]

actualy what I find most disgusting is some of the comments. While I understand preasure and the issue of stress its still worrisome in my eyes with what kind of ruthlessness they seem not care about possible hurted and killed children. I understand that you cant avoid it at some point particulary if you have enemies that use children as strategy. But god damn show at least some respect to the dead. Others can do that too, even to the enemy.


If this US WW2 tanker can feel sorry for the enemy, why cant others ?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g[/youtube]

 

[victor]

I doubt he had big issues with it while it was happening. You don't know if those soldiers will feel remorse when they're in their 80's.

I've read the adrenaline rush of combat does that to people. They seem all excited and happy while it's happening.

 

[Bal-Sagoth]

actualy what I find most disgusting is some of the comments. While I understand preasure and the issue of stress its still worrisome in my eyes with what kind of ruthlessness they seem not care about possible hurted and killed children. I understand that you cant avoid it at some point particulary if you have enemies that use children as strategy. But god damn show at least some respect to the dead. Others can do that too, even to the enemy.

Respect is not needed and not required, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments those Soldiers were making. Sure, you don't agree with it and there is a reason you will probably never be in a combat situation.

There will always be those out there with the mentality needed to make great warriors.

 

[Crni Vuk]

how is respect toward the enemy not required as soldier ? Mind you I am not saying that you should invite them to a cup of tea before the killing starts.

Its about beeing human. And to acknowledge that your enemy is a human beeing too. Even if we forget that in the tide of a battle. But when the adrenalin dissapears and you have a sane mind again you should eventualy remember that point. It helps to prevent war crimes. I will not condamn someone for the feelings he got when had to experience harsh situations and see his comrades die next to him in a bloody trench. But that doesnt mean that you cant expect respect toward civlians or the enemy in general.

The French foreign legion requires exactly that from all of its members. To treat the enemy with respect. And that for a reason.

Respect is not needed and not required, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments those Soldiers were making. Sure, you don't agree with it and there is a reason you will probably never be in a combat situation.

There will always be those out there with the mentality needed to make great warriors.

Where did I heard that again ? Ahh right some Wehrmachtreport regarding Russian soldiers. How was that saying "forget about history and you repeat it".

 

[Shoveler]

how is respect toward the enemy not required as soldier ? Mind you I am not saying that you should invite them to a cup of tea before the killing starts.

Its about beeing human. And to acknowledge that your enemy is a human beeing too. Even if we forget that in the tide of a battle. But when the adrenalin dissapears and you have a sane mind again you should eventualy remember that point. It helps to prevent war crimes. I will not condamn someone for the feelings he got when had to experience harsh situations and see his comrades die next to him in a bloody trench. But that doesnt mean that you cant expect respect toward civlians or the enemy in general.

The French foreign legion requires exactly that from all of its members. To treat the enemy with respect. And that for a reason.

The US military expects the same, we render aid to all sides after a conflict, countless insurgents have been nursed back to health by our Dr's and nurses. We could have just left them to rot. Our Dr's and nurses aren't the only ones either, how about the GI's that lift them into the choppers, and how about the pilots that get them to the medical facility in barely minutes. All done by US military staff. The French Foreign Legion as prestigious as it may be, isn't the only respectable military.

EDIT: I wouldn't word it as respect for the enemy, just for life in general. I think US personnel as a whole have that in spades.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Thats why I didnt said "I am disgusted with the US military" but "actualy what I find most disgusting is some of the comments." which I meant more toward the individual.

I know the US military as whole isnt better or worse then most other military forces in the world (the ones that do actualy follow some rules)

 

[Blakut]

Oh be thankfull these things come to light so you can comment on them.

I haven't seen leaked russian military footage or any comments on countless decapitations carried out by the same men being shot in the streets...

 

[victor]

I haven't seen leaked russian military footage or any comments on countless decapitations carried out by the same men being shot in the streets...

There's plenty of that stuff all over the Internets. Just sayin'

 

[Blakut]

I mean here. Cause this one thread gathered like 7 pages of comments.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The Russians arent runing around claiming to bring democracy to various nations. If they go in somewhere you know why. (by the way I am sure there have been topics about that as well, though no one stops you to open a topic about Russian actions in here).

The US forces are not better or worse then others. But its the picture they show to the public like everything they do beeing more or less humanitarian as whole and the way how the US feels about its politics. Hence why there is more focus on that.

Who do you think will get more attention, the brat doing bad things which everyone knows about or the brat which tells everyone how neat and nice he is and is doing the same things anyway ?

 

[Miwenskee]

Respect is not needed and not required, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments those Soldiers were making. Sure, you don't agree with it and there is a reason you will probably never be in a combat situation.

There will always be those out there with the mentality needed to make great warriors.

There is a difference between the words ''soldier'' and ''warrior''... many people can be soldiers but not all of them are warriors. When I hear this word there is something else that comes to mind... a kind of feeling... nobility of some sort... having said that, I'm thinking... what in the case of war can be considered noble? Hm... maybe... um... having respect for ALL the human beings around you? Defeating your enemy, but honoring them afterwards? A warrior is a self-conscious human being fighting for what he/she thinks is right or in the worst case for survival, not a machine taking and executing orders without any hesitation.

I will never be fit for battle... I'm not a pacifist, I'm all for fighting for one's cause but when it comes to the literal meaning of ''fighting'', I think I'll never have the balls for it. However, I wish that wars never end. You know why? So that people like you can stay on the field making their country proud by using their full might in combat... and nowhere else.

 

[Mettle]

I'm not expert in weapons and so forth, and the quality of that video is definitely not good enough for me to make out anything with any certainty, the cameraslings could easily be mistaken for weaponslings by me. But using a gunship in a city, with a 30mm cannon to take out people on the ground is in my mind monumentally stupid.

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, not to mention that the gunner frigging laughs when he misses by what seems to be 50 meters. Not to mention that their comments makes them sound like they are bloodthirsty bastards hoping to get to flex their muscles.

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. Sorry Bal-Sagoth. - or a scouting mission to get a closer view of what's going on and who's who doing what. USA needs to win their hearts and minds, and that engagement does nothing but hurt their cause.

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.

As someone said earlier in the thread, soldiers jobs are to protect civilians, not kill them.