Leaked video of U.S. Military killing civilians and Reuters journalists.

[Thomas]

WELL, seems as though the Americans were right:



BUT

I still don't see why they had to go and kill the cleanup crew along with those kids, or run over the body and laugh about it.... :/

It was common practice in Iraq for insurgents to be dropped off and picked up by other insurgents in vehicles. When this happens the vehicle is considered an instrument of war. and the people in them as combatants. As was pointed out before the van was the same one that was parked about a block away at the mosque. they knew and most likely watched the attack happen. And then rushed to the scene with children.

As far as the cavalier attitude it is most likely the result of extended combat duty. Where you become desensitized to a certain extent.

If they had known there were children present. Or if the press had properly identified themselves by wearing the proper clothing. I am sure the pilots would have held their fire.

 

[Ingis]

I just have few things to say about this video ---

1) What were these two civilian journalists doing in a war zone with armed insurgents?

2) Why will these journalists walk with insurgents especially when a US Apache helicopter was hovering on top?

3) Why were the people in the medevac van carrying children along with themselves? I mean, who brings children to a war zone?

Some of the blame needs to be directed at the US for its "rules of engagement". But, at the same time, most of the blame needs to be directed at those late journalists too for their irresponsible behavior.

At the end of the day, the Apache helicopter was justified to fire at those armed insurgents.

 

[FreekiN]

Why not? The only 'rescuers' who are immune from attacks in a combat zone are IDENTIFIABLE medics. Any attacks on any medical personnel (or vehicle) who CLEARLY distinguished himself with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol are prosecutable offense. Any use of any vehicle that is marked with the Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol for any purposes OTHER THAN medical is a prosecutable offense. Do you see any Red Cross or Red Crescent symbol in the area or on those 'rescuers'?

How could they know it is a prosecutable offense? What if someone got shot in the street across your house and you were pretty sure the attackers left, you would go and help right? You would get him out of the street and take him to your house or a hospital or help his wounds yourself right?

God knows if they could even read English let alone know what the Red Crescent sign means.

 

[gambit]

It was common practice in Iraq for insurgents to be dropped off and picked up by other insurgents in vehicles. When this happens the vehicle is considered an instrument of war. and the people in them as combatants. As was pointed out before the van was the same one that was parked about a block away at the mosque. they knew and most likely watched the attack happen. And then rushed to the scene with children.

As far as the cavalier attitude it is most likely the result of extended combat duty. Where you become desensitized to a certain extent.

If they had known there were children present. Or if the press had properly identified themselves by wearing the proper clothing. I am sure the pilots would have held their fire.

It is also common in Iraq and Afghanistan for a man to pick up a rifle, shoot off a few rounds as an 'insurgent', toss the rifle away and become a 'civilian'. If he was killed by return fire, he was counted as a 'civilian', his death became a 'murder', he became a 'martyr' and the entire event became fodder for anti-Americanism as seen here.

 

[Jigs]

Read previous comments about everything you said.

My comments regarding what exactly ?

 

[gambit]

How could they know it is a prosecutable offense?

With the same kind of intelligence that tell them to send suicide bombers to a marketplace instead of to a troop garrison.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------

My comments regarding what exactly ?

Everything.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Your performance in this discussion is like that of a know-it-all teenager who got caught with his intellectual pants down his ankles. You made this statement...


Therefore you are implying that you speak from experience. It does not matter if I or anyone else here have military experience or not. What matter is that YOU present relevant experience to support your charge. I could also say that an experience aviator would have done exactly the same and there is nothing you can do about it, youngster.

Experience and knowledge automatically confer authority to speak about a subject. The greater of both the greater the authority. So if you disqualified me and therefore practically EVERYONE else in this forum since no one else claimed to be a helo pilot let alone a combat experienced one, then who/what qualified you to make the above charge?

You are dismissed...Again...And the longer you continued to show yourself in here, the greater the ignorant fool you will appear to everyone...

You make absurdly incoherent arguments which is expected from a high school graduate.

You rejected my statement, and have not proven otherwise except for this vague statement which I have posted before:

Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike.

I wonder why throughout this entire thread you would only post a generally vague statement of how revelant your analysis is in this situation.

Instead you beat around the bush and go on rambling about how much "experience" you have being a 10 year USAF Ground Pounder.

I make my point clear?

 

[Jigs]

With the same kind of intelligence that tell them to send suicide bombers to a marketplace instead of to a troop garrison.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ----------


Everything.

Are you saying i am contradicting myself ? You don't find it morally wrong if someone after hurting a little girl goes "oh well" is that how it works ?

 

[Forrest Griffin]

It is also common in Iraq and Afghanistan for a man to pick up a rifle, shoot off a few rounds as an 'insurgent', toss the rifle away and become a 'civilian'. If he was killed by return fire, he was counted as a 'civilian', his death became a 'murder', he became a 'martyr' and the entire event became fodder for anti-Americanism as seen here.

You post contradictory statements. Maybe you should use another source besides Wikipedia.

Compare your statement above to your statement in your previous post:

Soldiers do not like to fight against an uncertain combatant and this is why the Geneva Conventions stresses on having clear distinctions between combatants and noncombatants. A 'civilian' can be a legal combatant and if he made it clear that he is a combatant, he is accorded full Geneva Conventions protection. A 'civilian' who picks up a rifle and shoot then tosses it away to claim 'civilian' immunity is an illegal combatant and any soldier who kill him will not be prosecuted. Like it or not, that is the reality of war as much as we can codify and regulate the conduct of war. In a combat zone where combat have been authorized, no soldier is under the burden of proving to himself and to any authority that he is facing a combatant holding a genuine weapon instead of a farm implement that happen to look like a weapon from a certain angle under certain lighting condition.

Make up your mind, is he going to be considered a civilian or an illegal combatant?

 

[gambit]

Are you saying i am contradicting myself ?

No...Am saying that just about everything you brought up have been addressed in previous pages. Please take some time and read them. If you have any questions, post them after you cite/quote the comment you want to challenge or seek further clarifications. Refrain from making insults, either against the individual you wish to converse with or against the unknown characters in this video. Refrain from making insults against the US. These are the marks of a matured participant in an anonymous and publicly accessible forum. But if you receive unwarranted insults, feel free to response in kind with all you got.

You don't find it morally wrong if someone after hurting a little girl goes "oh well" is that how it works ?

The comment by the pilot may sound callous and even repugnant, but hardly morally offensive in anyway. He was only expressing his frustration at the fact that he is fighting against an enemy that, to his perception, sees nothing wrong with bringing children into a combat zone in anticipating their deaths to use as moral hammers over America's head.

Before we landed in Kuwait City, we were briefed on the possibility of Iraqi special operations units that remained behind to conduct guerrilla warfare against Allied forces in Kuwait and that to expect unwilling civilians as part of their tactics. That never happened but the point were never off the number one on the list of dangers we may faced. Saddam Hussein himself never shied away from using unwilling civilians as 'human shields'.

 

[gambit]

You post contradictory statements. Maybe you should use another source besides Wikipedia.

Compare your statement above to your statement in your previous post:



Make up your mind, is he going to be considered a civilian or an illegal combatant?

Sonny...You have neither the education nor the intellect to debate on the Geneva Conventions, the military and warfare in general. Dismissed.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Sonny...You have neither the education nor the intellect to debate on the Geneva Conventions, the military and warfare in general. Dismissed.

I'm sure your GED is going to take you far in life.

 

[Canaan]

why then the cover up from the army? if in fact they didn't do anything wrong they would never have tried to cover up the mess. This alone clearly indicates that they did something they shouldn't have done.

 

[Thomas]

why then the cover up from the army? if in fact they didn't do anything wrong they would never have tried to cover up the mess. This alone clearly indicates that they did something they shouldn't have done.

no cover up there was an investigation after it happened.

 

[Jigs]

No...Am saying that just about everything you brought up have been addressed in previous pages. Please take some time and read them. If you have any questions, post them after you cite/quote the comment you want to challenge or seek further clarifications. Refrain from making insults, either against the individual you wish to converse with or against the unknown characters in this video. Refrain from making insults against the US. These are the marks of a matured participant in an anonymous and publicly accessible forum. But if you receive unwarranted insults, feel free to response in kind with all you got.


The comment by the pilot may sound callous and even repugnant, but hardly morally offensive in anyway. He was only expressing his frustration at the fact that he is fighting against an enemy that, to his perception, sees nothing wrong with bringing children into a combat zone in anticipating their deaths to use as moral hammers over America's head.

Before we landed in Kuwait City, we were briefed on the possibility of Iraqi special operations units that remained behind to conduct guerrilla warfare against Allied forces in Kuwait and that to expect unwilling civilians as part of their tactics. That never happened but the point were never off the number one on the list of dangers we may faced. Saddam Hussein himself never shied away from using unwilling civilians as 'human shields'.

My opinions were directly of the video and i shared them. So i do not have to refer to any other post that addressed my thoughts because i don't plan on changing them. Running over dead bodies(then laughing and zooming in on them) and quickly writing off hurt girls isn't something that is acceptable nor professional imo. Just because someone brings children doesn't mean you get to kill them just so you can "get" the militants. Keep defending their actions though if you think they were ok.