US Helicopter / Civilian Shootings (ca.2007) [Split from News Stories]

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

It's quite clear at least some of the men in the group were carrying items that looked to be weapons.

Not everyone carrying a weapon in Iraq is an insurgent though. Saying they had guns is not an excuse, since they were obviously not firing them there.

[Roger Rambo]

I'd like to take a moment to strongly advise that the people who have only watched the shortened 17 minute version of the wikileaks guncam video, to take the time to watch the full 39 minute version.


I'd also suggest reading the army investigation into the incident.

I'm not entirely satisfied with Wikileaks being entirely forthcoming with the edited down video when it comes to full context...

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Not everyone carrying a weapon in Iraq is an insurgent though. Saying they had guns is not an excuse, since they were obviously not firing them there.

This is why context is VERY important. The reason why the Apache was called on station was because the US ground troops (the Bushmaster element) had been under fire all morning. So when the chopper spots a group of armed men moving to a corner (from which they will have LOS with us ground vehicles, only a 100 meters away) the conclusion they come to is pretty reasonable.

Especially when they observe what looks like to them, one of the individuals with an "RPG" setting up around the corner to fire on said US troops a scant 100 meters away. At least with the first encounter, I'm not seeing what other response really was viable...



It does remain a fact that firing upon the van that showed up is a far more dubious decision. It probably was even the wrong decision to make. But I'd like to point out that dealing with a situation like that in real time is far more ambivalent then when sitting down in a stress free circumstances in hindsight. Allot of people have been talking about how easy it would have been for them to find themselves in the same circumstance and it being assured that they couldn't have been effected by the circumstances into making a bad call.

Sitting in our rooms as civilians and already knowing for certain that something goes wrong in the video, it's easy for us to come to the conclusion that the van's occupants are clearly just some good samaritans trying to help some injured people. But to the Apache crew that just thwarted an "Insurgent RPG attack", this looks allot like the hostiles extraction vehicle showing up to extract them. Due to not knowing about the people in the van, even us with hindsight we can't really ascertain whether or not they were just some random folks or working with the Insurgency. It would have been better for them to have stayed their fingers in that circumstance for not being reasonably sure about the circumstance, but before someone decides how hard they criticize, is contemplate how much better they would do if put under the same situation with the same pressures.

[Nosauz]

It is really scary as hell to think of all these people out there supporting the slaughter of innocent civilians, just muster what little empathy you have and think about how you would react in such a situation. Also the military never found weapons on the dead Iraqi's all the reports say that they did are CONTRADICTIONS of the U.S.'s own internal investigation. This is so frustrating how little we value human life, as if life after birth is worth less than the lives of the living. Killing civilians will only embolden terrorists to assault us in ways we can't even imagine.

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

Seriously I truly don't understand the lack of compassion for the living, the dead and the dying. If this occurred on American soil you bet your ass people would be screaming war crimes, but since we are so detached from it, people just brush it off as "it's only iraqi's" or "it's just collateral damage" Honestly if I was one tenth as hawkish as some of these posters I'd have asked for the U.S. to invade the undeveloped world because clearly life is not only a commodity.

@RogerRambo

It's sick that you justify this bloodshed. The chatter in the helicopter was nothing like that of people who were afraid for their lives. They were having fun shooting fish in a barrel, they enjoyed killing people for the sake of killing people. There was zero dread or even trepidation in the voices of these soldiers, no hesitation, just joking words given to the dead. That in itself is the damning evidence, these people were of clear judgement, not afraid for their lives, not worried about anything except for getting a thrill by dehumanizing others.

[OceanBlue]

Edit: This has to do with the collateral damage topic. I was trying to get this after Nosauz's post but was too slow.

Just to gauge everyone's feelings about this: is it excusable beause it's understandable? Looking at it from one way, you could say that it's understandable that they would have fired, because it was a very high-pressure situation. Looking at it from another way, in the end people who weren't hostile still lost their lives. You can't just look at it from the perspective of the soldier or the dead.

Also, to mention something to Nosauz's response to RogerRambo, the few war novels I've read make me think that morbid jokes like that are a coping mechanism to avoid personalizing war, because doing that would make them unable to function. The Things They Carried comes to mind. Since I haven't seen the video, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it's something to consider. They might not be cruel, because the jokes may be necessary to not go insane.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Seriously I truly don't understand the lack of compassion for the living, the dead and the dying. If this occurred on American soil you bet your ass people would be screaming war crimes, but since we are so detached from it, people just brush it off as "it's only iraqi's" or "it's just collateral damage" Honestly if I was one tenth as hawkish as some of these posters I'd have asked for the U.S. to invade the undeveloped world because clearly life is not only a commodity..

Changing the nationalities and the location involved and I probably wouldn't change my mind. Even if this was my country, that still does nothing to change the context of the engagement. I can't exactly expect someone occupying my country to not shoot at me if he thinks I'm a threat. Even the Patriot John Adams argued for the Red Coats at the Boston Massacre.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Also the military never found weapons on the dead Iraqi's all the reports say that they did are CONTRADICTIONS of the U.S.'s own internal investigation. This is so frustrating how little we value human life, as if life after birth is worth less than the lives of the living. Killing civilians will only embolden terrorists to assault us in ways we can't even imagine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

The Camera was misidentified as an RPG, but according to the official army investigation other individuals in the group were found to have been in the possession of automatic rifles and rocket launchers. It's all in the army investigation report you can find here. What official documentation did you read that conclusively stated that nobody in the first group were armed?

Originally Posted by Nosauz

@RogerRambo

It's sick that you justify this bloodshed. The chatter in the helicopter was nothing like that of people who were afraid for their lives. They were having fun shooting fish in a barrel, they enjoyed killing people for the sake of killing people. There was zero dread or even trepidation in the voices of these soldiers, no hesitation, just joking words given to the dead. That in itself is the damning evidence, these people were of clear judgement, not afraid for their lives, not worried about anything except for getting a thrill by dehumanizing others.

This may be surprising, but a soldier is not legally required to be in fear of his life in order to kill. Soldiers are only required to identify someone as being hostile before they can kill them.

There's a good NYT article on this.

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Also, to mention something to Nosauz's response to RogerRambo, the few war novels I've read make me think that morbid jokes like that are a coping mechanism to avoid personalizing war, because doing that would make them unable to function. The Things They Carried comes to mind. Since I haven't seen the video, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it's something to consider. They might not be cruel, because the jokes may be necessary to not go insane.

Having watched the Generation kill series (which is a VERY accurate retelling of the events) I can promise that the language used by the Apache crew is by no means surprising after you watched the ways the Recon Marines responded to dead people. Nothing said in that vehicle shocked me.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by OceanBlue

Edit: This has to do with the collateral damage topic. I was trying to get this after Nosauz's post but was too slow.

Just to gauge everyone's feelings about this: is it excusable beause it's understandable? Looking at it from one way, you could say that it's understandable that they would have fired, because it was a very high-pressure situation. Looking at it from another way, in the end people who weren't hostile still lost their lives. You can't just look at it from the perspective of the soldier or the dead.

Also, to mention something to Nosauz's response to RogerRambo, the few war novels I've read make me think that morbid jokes like that are a coping mechanism to avoid personalizing war, because doing that would make them unable to function. The Things They Carried comes to mind. Since I haven't seen the video, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but it's something to consider. They might not be cruel, because the jokes may be necessary to not go insane.

Spin it however you like, but the lack of compassion and value of human life shed in the name of the home of the brave, just doesn't make any sense. How can we claim to be civilized, when we treat these people worse than the animals we slaughter for food?

If you choose to rationalize their actions, that's your right, but as a human don't you feel soiled to utter those words? Don't you feel unhuman to treat other humans worse than chattel?

@RogerRambo

I cited a source, AP stated the military confirmed there was no RPG. Anyway, treating humans as less than such dehumanizes the killer too. I choose to maintain my compassion, and to see the morally impermissible. As humans we should feel sorrow, pain, disgust for the results of this action.

Also if the military found no wrong doing, why hide this, why paint this as insurgents? Why did it take a new organization and a leaker with clearance within the military to shed real light on the "truth" that we have seen. It's frustrating on how little some people value human life, if this kind of collateral damage is allowed, then I'd find it hard to blame the Nazi's killing jews, because they just like the Americans were under the assumption that the jews were a threat/imminent threat to their sovereignty and safety.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Spin it however you like, but the lack of compassion and value of human life shed in the name of the home of the brave, just doesn't make any sense. How can we claim to be civilized, when we treat these people worse than the animals we slaughter for food?

If you choose to rationalize their actions, that's your right, but as a human don't you feel soiled to utter those words? Don't you feel unhuman to treat other humans worse than chattel?

Because war it's core is not civilized behavior. It's an utterly barbaric and inhuman activity when you get down to it. Going to war with someone is bassically deciding that the lives of your enemies are not worth what ever motivations you have. The act of war is bassically taking the notion of human dignity and beaning it in the face with a brick. Only soft headed neocon dumbasses think it's something that can genuinely be softened. The very best anyone can hope for, is to put forth your best efforts to reign it in and focus it's effects against certain individuals. The enemy combatants.

This will never work perfectly however, as this video demonstrates, and horrible, atrocious things like this will happen. as long as you do battle with men trained to wage war, especially with all the ambivalence of an asymmetric campaign, things like this will happen. And as horrible and callous as this may seem, all you can do is hope to learn from the experiance to try to keep it from happening in the future.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

@RogerRambo

I cited a source,

A source that said nothing like what you said.

According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, U.S. troops acted appropriately. Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.

The implication I'm getting here is that it was hard to distinguish between the video equipment of the two reporters, and the weapons of the rest of the group.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

AP stated the military confirmed there was no RPG.

If AP said that, you could provide a link to the article that said that with direction quotation something of the effect of "There were absolutely no weapons present within the first group".

CNN links to the Pentagon investigation report.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

*Godwin's law*

Well, that didn't take to long.

[Nosauz]

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

This is what I quoted directly from the article, they didn't link to the Armies report but w/e.

Also even if you claim Godwin's law, it is actually applicable in this situation because basically the government defines it's interests are greater than the lives of other humans, this is the exact same sitaution. Also to not even give these people of the dignity of the truth about how they died is ridiculous to claim we are somehow more morally superior to the terrorists that blow themselves up because we have the backing of our government when we kill civilians.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by killer3000ad

It's quite clear at least some of the men in the group were carrying items that looked to be weapons.


A little closer and slower.

Looks like there is indeed more to the story
Apparently there was an ongoing battle with men fitting these guys description.

Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons."

Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out.

"Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said

also note this was at the height of Iraq Troop Surge of 2007 when this incident happened.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

This is what I quoted directly from the article, they didn't link to the Armies report but w/e.

This indeed was the conclusion of the army investigator in the report, that the photographic equipment had indeed been mistaken for weapons. However the investigator also concluded that the other men killed in the initial group were not incredibly likely to have been civilians, due to having such things as automatic rifles and Rocket launchers on their persons. Nowhere does the army report assert that there were no actual weapons in the group.

And it's not really a what ever. The source you provided(Yahoo/AP) only partially supported your statement. The other source you called upon(Army report) flat out contradicts what you said.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Also even if you claim Godwin's law, it is actually applicable in this situation because basically the government defines it's interests are greater than the lives of other humans, this is the exact same sitaution.

This is a fantastically simplistic analysis, since you bassically just described the motivation for every single conflict in human history.

The Greeks killed at Thermopylae and Artemisium because they figured their interests ranked higher than that of thousands of Persians. The Mongols and Vikings ran rampant because they thought personnel wealth and power ranked higher than other peoples lives. The Crusaders shed blood because they thought their religious beliefs ranked higher than the others lives. Lincoln fought a war that killed hundreds of thousands because he thought the Union was more important. The allies killed millions for the exact same basic reasons the Axis did. They thought their interests/beliefs.

You can't simplify an armed conflict as being like the Holocaust if your only basis for making the judgment is that "They decided their interests/motivations ranked higher than other peoples lives". Since that's the basis of all human conflict.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Also to not even give these people of the dignity of the truth about how they died is ridiculous

And what was the truth about these deaths? The first case has allot of information that suggests it may have been the right call. The van looks like a tragic mistake when some guys stumble upon a deadly situation.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

to claim we are somehow more morally superior to the terrorists that blow themselves up because we have the backing of our government when we kill civilians.

The United States doesn't have nearly as much moral superiority as neoconservative's like to think we have...but the United States has at least made it the policy to try to avoid killing noncombatants as much as possible. Even in this video, the gunners only responded when they believed they had a genuine target in their sights.

It might not be much, but it's still above the people who intentionally drive car bombs into a market with the clear intention of killing as many non combatants as they possibly can.

[Nosauz]

Considering we had no reason to be in Iraq I don't see how you spin yourself out the idea that any civilian deaths is less than egregious. The entire premise of why we are there is based on a lie. War is brutal, but to hide it from the public so that we can pallet continuously funding this war that has only really helped haliburton and Black water, just makes our occupation even more heinous. These people deserve better, and actually I bet life under Saddam Husein was better than the hellhole they currently live in. This war serves no purpose other than fueling the hate towards America felt by middle easterners, we are creating the terrorists every time we kill their families. This war has done nothing to make America safer, and based on that fact alone, we should pull out.

Also the way the American public views the civilian casualties is quite indicative of why we treat the poor as lazy bums and dead civilians as insurgents, it's because we don't value life as a nation.

[NightWish]

This story has taken over the News Stories thread for enough pages, so I'm splitting it out. Please avoid retreading old ground; threads with cyclic topics will be closed.

[Marcus H.]

If a person knows that yielding to his own ideals about life means death, he/she must be willing to be the thing he is fighting against. This is NOT only about America. It's also about the other side and every other side of every other war in the world right now.

If you still think soldiers can think morally while thinking that every second of their life might be their last, I don't know how logical you are thinking.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Military are the LAST people who want the draft. Oddly, the only ones pushing it are northeastern liberals, most of whom don't know one end of a gun from the other...

Where did you hear this? I live in New England, lived in CT when the Iraq war started and now live in NH, and I have never; not once, heard someone in either state say they think drafting would be a good idea or that they want it to happen. Not once.

[Evil Rick]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

This indeed was the conclusion of the army investigator in the report, that the photographic equipment had indeed been mistaken for weapons. However the investigator also concluded that the other men killed in the initial group were not incredibly likely to have been civilians, due to having such things as automatic rifles and Rocket launchers on their persons. Nowhere does the army report assert that there were no actual weapons in the group.

So, your saying that if there's an unarmed woman with a baby and ebihind her it's a guy with a rifle, it's okay to shoot the woman and the baby in order to get the guy of the gun too? We have an important issue here, civilians died under an indiscriminated attack, soldiers were not sure if the guys had weapons and yet, they opened fire to kill. You can hear how they say "C'mon, let me shoot them", they shoot a van without any reason, they hurt kids and they said "That's what they get for bringing kids to the warzone".

Now that can be justified by saying "Some of the corpses actually had weapons". And haven't you tough that the army could place those automatic rifles and rocket launchers there to justify the attack?

You can't simplify an armed conflict as being like the Holocaust if your only basis for making the judgment is that "They decided their interests/motivations ranked higher than other peoples lives". Since that's the basis of all human conflict.
And what was the truth about these deaths? The first case has allot of information that suggests it may have been the right call. The van looks like a tragic mistake when some guys stumble upon a deadly situation.
The United States doesn't have nearly as much moral superiority as neoconservative's like to think we have...but the United States has at least made it the policy to try to avoid killing noncombatants as much as possible. Even in this video, the gunners only responded when they believed they had a genuine target in their sights.

Ah, but I'm afraid that they're actually doing that, they put their interests before human live. If not, then what's the reason behind this war? Don't come and tell me it's "The war against terrorism" becase the so calimed nuclear weapons in Iraq were never found, because Bush promiced the end of this after the death of Hussein and it didn't ended. Don't come and tell me "It's to bring peace to these lands" because after almost 10 years of war, peace is everytime more far. I'll tell you the reason behind this war, power, Like every damn war, all behind it it's power. Oil, gold, territory, money. That's what lies behind every damn war and while inocent people die, while young mans and womans are turned into killers like the soldiers in this vid, people like Bush sit in their expensive furniture in a $1,000,000,000.00 valued house, telling to the cameras how "We're doing the best for our nation and the world"

It might not be much, but it's still above the people who intentionally drive car bombs into a market with the clear intention of killing as many non combatants as they possibly can.

And how many bombs had fallen over houses, schools and hospitals in the Iraq territory? How many musulman kids had lost their parents? A limb? Thei houses? Tell me, what's the diference?

[Nappy Hared Azn]

You know, after reading some of the posts in this thread, and I can't help but agree with the Founding Fathers: people really are too stupid for democracy to work.

Anyway, to stay on topic... while it is regrettable that innocent people were killed, shit happens in war, and mistakes are made. The boys from the 1st Cav. thought they were shooting legitimate targets (they were), and ended up killing civilians. And no, I don't consider the journalists to be "innocent." They willingly tagged along with people engaging (or intending to engage) the enemy. WTF did they think was going to happen? The only sympathy I have go to the people in the van who stopped to help the wounded and the other people who were shot at.

Oh, and really wish people would learn how to properly argue before giving it a go. I've seen all types of fallacies in this thread: people posting irrelevant "evidence," people making arguments with faulty evidence, people avoiding the issue altogether (going from "did the helicopter pilots make the right call" to "I hate the war because Michael Moore told me to"), etc.

EDIT: I decided to get rid of the giant rant that followed... because using a giant fallacy in an argument about fallacies and pointless debate just seemed pretty fail. Refer to the post at the bottom of the page if you still want to read it for shits and giggles. Proper argumentation is no longer possible due to the massive fallacy involved, but it's still something I've wanted to get off of my chest.

[mg1942]

more to the story (2)

[Marcus H.]

Terrorists: Just as planned. Now, let's continue bombing other places and wait until they appear and make things worse.

What happens if America doesn't act?

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Evil Rick

Ah, but I'm afraid that they're actually doing that, they put their interests before human live. If not, then what's the reason behind this war? Don't come and tell me it's "The war against terrorism" becase the so calimed nuclear weapons in Iraq were never found, because Bush promiced the end of this after the death of Hussein and it didn't ended. Don't come and tell me "It's to bring peace to these lands" because after almost 10 years of war, peace is everytime more far. I'll tell you the reason behind this war, power, Like every damn war, all behind it it's power. Oil, gold, territory, money. That's what lies behind every damn war and while inocent people die, while young mans and womans are turned into killers like the soldiers in this vid, people like Bush sit in their expensive furniture in a $1,000,000,000.00 valued house, telling to the cameras how "We're doing the best for our nation and the world"



And how many bombs had fallen over houses, schools and hospitals in the Iraq territory? How many musulman kids had lost their parents? A limb? Thei houses? Tell me, what's the diference?

Yeah, I don't even really feel like getting into it, but Evil Rick I know where you are coming from. It pisses me off. I heard we have killed tens of thousands of innocents in just Iraq alone with this war (which we declared and we invaded them), and injured many more (many of them horribly; like you mentioned, missing limbs from bombings). And I heard this figure of tens of thousands of fatalities years ago...who knows how big the number is now. It is probably tens of thousands more, for just fatalities alone. The amount injured is probably well over 100,000. I don't disagree with the "war on terror". Breaking up terrorists networks is good. The war in Afghanistan is justified, I think. But the war in Iraq...damn it, I knew it was a bad idea from the start. I had a pretty bad feeling about it right before we invaded.

Note: I edited my post. I started getting off topic.

[Evil Rick]

Originally Posted by Nappy Hared Azn

You know, after reading some of the posts in this thread, and I can't help but agree with the Founding Fathers: people really are too stupid for democracy to work.

Anyway, to stay on topic... while it is regrettable that innocent people were killed, shit happens in war, and mistakes are made. The boys from the 1st Cav. thought they were shooting legitimate targets (they were), and ended up killing civilians. And no, I don't consider the journalists to be "innocent." They willingly tagged along with people engaging (or intending to engage) the enemy. WTF did they think was going to happen? The only sympathy I have go to the people in the van who stopped to help the wounded and the other people who were shot at.

Oh, and really wish people would learn how to properly argue before giving it a go. I've seen all types of fallacies in this thread: people posting irrelevant "evidence," people making arguments with faulty evidence, people avoiding the issue altogether (going from "did the helicopter pilots make the right call" to "I hate the war because Michael Moore told me to"), etc.

EDIT: I just want to say something to everyone here that's opposed to the war.

While I don't agree with you, I do acknowledge your points. Hell, I might even agree with you if i didn't have a fundamentally different view on life, the universe, and everything. However, what I simply will not tolerate (without laying down some strong words, anyway), are "armchair activists." With the creation of 24 hour news stations, we saw the rise of armchair generals. And now with the advent of the internet and the anonymity it provides, we see armchair activists. Now, I've got a question for you. There's really no need to answer, since I wouldn't care anyway... it's really more of a rhetorical question than anything else.

How many of you have actually done something? Hmm? And no, getting into heated political "debates" on internet forums or with that overly-conservative dude at your school/workplace does not count. I want to you think about whether you really believe in what you're saying. If you don't, then please shut the fuck up. If you do, then go out and do something instead of wasting time here.*

You hate the war? Then go organize a rally on your college campus. Go join Code Pink. Write strongly worded letters to your Congressional representatives (though this is pretty fucking useless). But please, stop spamming up message boards with all this political bullshit. Much like a Twilight novel, they give me a massive amount of rage and AIDS, but it's impossible to stop reading (or ignore, for that matter).

Anyway, I'll get off my high horse and let you gents get back to this shit storm.

* - This is directed to both opponents and supporters of the war.

That's the most sad thing of all, we can't do anything, why? Because we don't have the power, the influences or the militar authority like Bush to do it. But then, what we must do? We must remain silent, watching the tv and believing everything the government says, pretending to be lambs or something? Pretending nothing bad hapens out there?

Yes, the truth is that, we can't do anything. But oh, waith? What's this thing inside my head? This thing inside my brain? Oh yes, it's my comon scense, it's my right to belive what I think it's right and what I think it's wrong. The ability to know the diference between a medic who travels to the warzone to cure harmed inocent people asking nothing in return and a man with a hig political rank, wearing an expensive swit, pointing with his finger and giving the order to launch a bomb in direction to a city filled with civilians, and you want me to shut up because I can't do anything to change it. The problem here is that the voice has power, that the internet gives an oportunity to tell waht I think, what a civilian without a military rank or a political charge thinks of the world he lives on. Even if it's on message boards, it is my right to tell what I think and you're NONE to tell me to "shut the fuck up".