0
rhys

Well done america, what a great role model you are...

Recommended Posts

I'll start off by saying that I haven't seen the video, just some of the screencaps plus the summaries in the reports. From that alone, it seems like the justification for the pilots initially opening fire, while questionable, fell within the ROE of the time. I'd also point out that this was in 2007, not 2010. Iraq then and Iraq now are two completely different countries. That said, I'd say it's extremely sketchy to open up on the van that pulled up to help the wounded. True, it's not marked as an ambulance, but it wasn't demonstrating any hostile intent either.
All of that being said, I'd like to point out that we're learning and improving our ROE to try to reduce the number of civilian casualties we're inflicting, as seen in the article below. I'd also point out that, at least in Afghanistan, the enemy are killing a lot more civillians than we are. And they aren't doing it accidentally from an aircraft at 20,000 feet. They are straight up murdering people to keep them afraid.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68907

Quote

ABOARD THE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER — At the nightly "hot wash" debriefing on the Dwight D. Eisenhower, a pilot from the Pukin' Dogs squadron was explaining how he dropped a 500-pound bomb on a Taliban target in Afghanistan — and why.

The pilot, a Naval Academy graduate with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, would face two such cross-examinations before he could get some sleep after his 12-hour mission.

"It's very professional but very gloves-off," said the 34-year-old lieutenant commander, who prefers that he be identified only by his call-sign, Thurman.

Pilots have always undergone intense debriefings after combat missions, but the questions focus now on whether they were certain that no civilians were endangered before they dropped a bomb or launched a missile. One Super Hornet pilot aboard this carrier off the coast of Pakistan says the grilling is a bit like defending a master's thesis, with professors trying to poke holes in your explanations.

"They ask very pointed questions and you best have the answers," Thurman said.

It's hard to a mud-mover — slang for a pilot who aggressively supports ground troops — when the bosses won't let you push the button.

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says mission No. 1 is to avoid civilian casualties, even if it means letting Taliban fighters escape. Those casualties, McChrystal said, are undermining Afghan support for the U.S.-led coalition. In its last deployment, the Eisenhower's warplanes dropped 66,000 pounds of bombs on Afghanistan. In this deployment, it is doubtful that the Eisenhower squadrons will drop a fraction of that amount.

Targets are more limited, said Capt. Roy Kelley, an F/A-18 pilot and commander of Carrier Air Wing Seven aboard the Eisenhower. And the number of bombs per engagement has gone down.

"Where once we would use five bombs, now we will use one," Kelley said.

The McChrystal rules appear to be helping reduce the number of civilian deaths caused by NATO and allied Afghan forces. A report by the human rights division of the United Nations found that in 2009, 596 civilian deaths were caused by those forces, compared with 828 in 2008 — in both years, airstrikes caused most of those deaths.

In 2009, the percentage of overall civilian deaths attributed to NATO and allied Afghan forces, as opposed to the Taliban, decreased from 39 percent to 24 percent.

The impact of the more restrictive use of airstrikes and the use of ground weapons on the war is debatable. Although officers believe it is helping win the confidence of the Afghan people, some ground troops believe the restrictions put them at greater risk.

"The bad guys know our hands are tied: They hide behind women and children, or where we think women and children might be, and they know we can't shoot back or call an airstrike," said Staff Sgt. Joseph Brooks. "It means we have to sit there and get shot at and not return fire. It's very frustrating."

It can be difficult for a pilot to exercise restraint when soldiers or Marines are in a firefight and calling for air support, said F/A-18C pilot Lt. Nicole Johnson, a member of the Rampagers squadron.

"It's an adrenaline blood-rush when you can hear, in the background, that our guys are getting shot at and they're calling for air support," said Johnson, 30, whose call-sign is Bad Dog. "But you've got to be careful."

In preparation for the Norfolk, Va.-based carrier's return in January, pilots were briefed extensively on the new rules under McChrystal, who took over in June 2009, just as the Eisenhower was ending a deployment.

"We had a heart-to-heart discussion with our people," Kelley said. "They needed to know what are objectives are — that we're here to protect (the Afghan) people and that means limiting civilian deaths."

Kelley is notified immediately by military air traffic controllers in Qatar when one of his pilots has launched a weapon. Word sweeps through the air squadrons: "We dropped." The Eisenhower pilots conduct 25 percent to 30 percent of the air missions over Afghanistan; the rest are done by land-based U.S. and coalition warplanes.

Each day the warplanes circle over Afghanistan, waiting for a call from troops requesting an airstrike. On the ground, infantry commanders, sometimes with lawyers at their elbow, go through a checklist to make sure their request fits the rules of engagement.

The final decision, though, rests with the pilot. The difference between McChrystal and his predecessor had an immediate impact on pilots.

"This year we are a lot more careful," Johnson said. "There are a lot more rules and regulations on what we can and can't do, and we need to make sure there are check marks in all the boxes."

At the hot wash, Thurman, who flies an F/A-18E Super Hornet, explained that he had gotten a call from British soldiers under attack by Taliban fighters in the Kajaki area in Helmand province. In his excitement, the forward air controller's British accent became hard to understand.

"I had to tell him, 'Slow down, slow down, so I can understand you better,' " said Thurman, noting that he had to dial in a 10-number grid to launch a bomb and couldn't afford to misunderstand a number.

Hurried exchanges took place, and Thurman was assured that approval had been given — the Taliban fighters were in an isolated building away from homes and farms. A GPS-guided bomb was launched; three fighters were listed as killed, one possibly a commander.

At the second debriefing, attended by Kelley, Rear Adm. Philip Davidson, commander of the Eisenhower strike group, and other senior officers, a classified video of the bomb's flight was shown. It indicated what Thurman could see. Such a video is used to check against the pilot's recitation of what happened.

"Often, in this war, it's the bombs that you don't drop that are the most important," Davidson said. "Every fight has its nuance and you have to align the tactics with the strategy."

Thurman's decision was backed by Kelley and the others. He was cleared to fly again the next day.

In an interview the next morning, Thurman said the new rules of engagement make sense, saying, "The Afghans believe the planes are omnipotent and that when we have civilian casualties that we did it on purpose."

There's another reason that he backs the rules even if it can be difficult to hold back when colleagues on the ground are under attack.

"I've never been told that I've caused civilian casualties," he said. "I don't want that on my conscience."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, to those using the video to critique the pilots, how many times did you have to watch it to clearly identify the camera as a camera and not an RPG? Did you have those handy note things pointing everything out for you? Were you doing all of this while there was a chance that people would start shooting at you? Because the pilots only get to view it once, in real time, without notes, and in an area where people would like to kill them. I may not agree with the decision they made, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I know I'd do much better if I was in their seats. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think that they did not have enough time to see what they were shooting for the first firing (which is far stretched) there can be no argument that they plenty of time to see the van that they were shooting the second time.
The pilot just wanted to "smoke" someone, fast.
dudeist skydiver #42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you given up on your 911 conspiracy rants in favor of a NEW subject in your attempt to shit all over the USA?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of what anyone says about quarterbacking, actually being there, actually having served, or Rhys's agenda this is a case in which soldiers were incapable of correctly identifying a target. The result was a lot of innocent people dying.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the helicopter opens fire on the man by the van he doesn't run into it but draws the fire away from the children by running away from the van and to his death, hardly the actions of someone who doesn't care about the children. I have little doubt that his actions are what helped to save the lives of the children.
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

hostile intent



Dude, during my time in Ramadi, hostile intent included, among other things, seeing people on a cell phone, digging or observing using optics. We even had light-colored suburbans on the hot-list once. We don't know the ROE of that AO, and hostile intent meant what was directed by command, not what we see or didn't see on a video.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Regardless of the original reason for being there, the fact is we're there.
>The Iraqi's still need our help . . .

I think they could use a little less of this sort of "help."



You can take any isolated incident and use it to one's viewpoints advantage. It's not until you look at the big picture that one can see the true positive or negative impact.

Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago?



normaly I'm a polite person: But could you possibly get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself rather than repeating your countrys propaganda????
The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle

dudeist skydiver # 666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta wounder if it pays to comment really quickly on stories like this

More usually comes out later
Fun stuff huh:S

From Foxnews

Quote

Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video




WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WikiLeaks, the self-proclaimed "whistle-blowing" investigative Web site, released a classified military video Monday that it says shows the "indiscriminate slaying" of innocent Iraqis. Two days later, questions linger about just how much of the story WikiLeaks decided to tell.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., WikiLeaks accused U.S. soldiers of killing 25 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, during a July 12, 2007, attack in New Baghdad. The Web site titled the video "Collateral Murder," and said the killings represented "another day at the office" for the U.S. Army.

The military has always maintained the attacks near Baghdad were justified, saying investigations conducted after the incident showed 11 people were killed during a "continuation of hostile activity." The military also admits two misidentified Reuters cameramen were among the dead.

WikiLeaks said on Monday the video taken from an Army helicopter shows the men were walking through a courtyard and did nothing to provoke the attack. Their representatives said when the military mistook cameras for weapons, U.S. personnel killed everyone in sight and have attempted to cover up the murders ever since.

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.

However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.

WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

"It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events."

Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs.

"Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.

Military officials have also pointed out that the men in the video are the only people visible on those streets. That indicated something was going on and that these individuals still felt they could walk freely, one official told Fox News.

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. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area."

The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not.

Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements.

"It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.

Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded. It was later learned that the wounded man was one of the photographers. WikiLeaks argues that attack violated the Army's rules of engagement. However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

According to Assange the assault on the van was the most damning piece of video evidence. "I'm very skeptical that was done under the rules of engagement; and if it was legal, the rules of engagement must be changed," Assange said.

So far the rules of engagement in Iraq have not changed.

Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media.

WikiLeaks has another classified military video in their possession they plan to release in about a month. This time, Assange said, the public will see what happened during the controversial May 2009 NATO airstrike in Farah province, where Afghan officials say at least 150 civilians were killed.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The initial engagement is understandable in a war zone. If you people claim you can clearly see the camera versus seeing some long tubular object peering around the building corner then the power to you for your super human eye sight because from a distance I sure as hell can not tell the difference. But firing upon the van while they were helping the wounded man is highly questionable. The van was not posing a threat to anyone and it seemed like excessive force. Of course if the van had a visible "medics" cross on it like conventional military forces use for their medics then maybe it would not have been fired on. But since certain people in Iraq have decided to shed their military uniforms and dawn civies while they fight in this war zone, it's hard to distinguish hostile forces from actual civilians. Don't bring your children to a fire fight if you do not want to risk having your children being injured or killed.

Blame the US government all you want for the war. The US did invade Iraq and history is showing us that is was not a good war to get in to. But there is no "you must fight fair" in a war zone. You succeed in battle by over powering your foes with superior fire power and superior tactics. These soldiers were only doing the jobs the politicians and upper military brass told them to do.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From watcing this video we can see quite clearly that these people were not posing a threat, they were taking photos and acting normally. the murderer lied to his superiors in order get permission to shoot people for his own pleasure.



The superiors saw the footage later, hell, they may have seen it live. How could the soldier lie?
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>Regardless of the original reason for being there, the fact is we're there.
>The Iraqi's still need our help . . .

I think they could use a little less of this sort of "help."



You can take any isolated incident and use it to one's viewpoints advantage. It's not until you look at the big picture that one can see the true positive or negative impact.

Do you not agree the Iraqi people as a whole are much better off now than they were 10 years ago?


normaly I'm a polite person: But could you possibly get your head out of your ass and start thinking for yourself rather than repeating your countrys propaganda????


Was/are there civilian casualties and large ammounts of damage in Iraq? Yes.

But they have a more stable non maniacal government and are getting assistance/aid rebuilding infrastructure.

Regardless of how one feels about the legitimacy of the initial invasion, these two things were accomplished:

* We gave/are giving a country back to its people.
* Other countries/terrorists have taken note of our show of power. :)
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Other countries/terrorists have taken note of our show of power.



LOL ... the USA is 2nd to none when it comes to invading countries. You guys just really suck at occupying them. But if you ever wanted to end your occupation "bad luck" streak you could invade and occupy Canada and bleed us dry of all our natural resources. The people in Canada who tend to hate the USA disarmed themselves a long time ago and while there may be the odd armed person who might take exception to an occupying force, the majority of the people who are armed in Canada tend to not be the anti-American types.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've watched that video twice, and I'm not sure it's at all clear cut. I don't think it was unreasonable for the pilot/gunners to decide that the group was hostile, and if the rules of engagement dictate that they can therefore open fire, then there you have it. Then, if you've decided that the group you've fired on is hostile, firing on the van seeking to recover wounded hostiles is logical too. I don't think you could expect the aircrew to identify (or even see) the children in the front seat. The violence of it is still shocking though, even if you can see the crews' justification.

It does seem a tad dishonest, however, for the US Army's spokesman to claim that they did everything they could to help the children, or that they didn't know how they were injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Who, exactly, touched the US before invading Iraq?

AA11 , UA175, AA77, UA93


We are not talking about terrorist attacks. *Acts of war* (or however it's been called :S) are subject of discussion.


Ever consider not posting in SC...
*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ever consider not posting in SC...

should anyone ask your permission prior to posting here ? [:/]

To get back to the original post...
I am not defending anyone here, but the title is WRONG and Misleading. I am not pro- or anti-american, on the contrary. But it is not acceptable to judge a COUNTRY by the acts of a handful of its representatives.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But it is not acceptable to judge a COUNTRY by the acts of a handful of its representatives.



That depends on whether or not that 'country' supports or condemns the actions of these few.

One would not have to look far around here to find people that support such behavior, but knowing well the creatures the slither here in the speakers corner, this is not indictive of the general publics' opinion.

Most don't even know or couldn't give a shit, other wankers support this behavior and many will be outraged by seeing this. It is a war against humanity not a war against terror. The war is the terror.

America is the terror, and america supports the terror.

Stop killing children for fucks sake!

>:(
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ever consider not posting in SC...

should anyone ask your permission prior to posting here ? [:/]

To get back to the original post...
I am not defending anyone here, but the title is WRONG and Misleading. I am not pro- or anti-american, on the contrary. But it is not acceptable to judge a COUNTRY by the acts of a handful of its representatives.


Are you talking about the elected representatives who kangaroo congressed this war into being?

This is what happens in war and America needs to take note that this is what we unleash. This is especially a war in which we absolutely cannot just barrel through with guns blazing. We as a voting country decided that Iraq would be better off with our military intervention. If we're going to make that type of call then we need to be the one taking the risk that a given group is actually carrying cameras, wood, or tent poles and NOT open fire. This is a unique situation. It's not WWII.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0