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

[JerryThomas 0]

All: I viewed the video 3 times. It was hard to Identify weapons.Even harder to identify the children. Being a combat vet and retired military man my self. I can say that there actions were justified although somewhat excesive. The comment about chidren carrying weapons in combat zones is true they do and have in all combat zones throughout time. Tragedy of war . Comments and laughter on the video was in bad taste but not uncommon. I remember making tasteless comments in my early years. Now being on the front side of 60 I do regret it as I'm sure in time these soilders will too.They also will pay deeply in the future for all there actions in combat. There will not be one day or night go by that they will not think about there actions and they will punish themselves on a regular basis.So how about Prayers for all and forgiveness. War is hell this happens and it will continue to happen till the end of time . It doesn't make it right how ever all involved will continue a life of sorrow . Believe me I Know and Have been there. Jerry

[Darius11 12]

Quote

So how about Prayers for all and forgiveness. War is hell this happens and it will continue to happen till the end of time . It doesn't make it right how ever all involved will continue a life of sorrow . Believe me I Know and Have been there. Jerry

Just had to say best post yet.

I agree with you trying to excuse any of it is insane, trying to cast judgement on the people there is impossible unless you were there.
It doesn't make it suck any less and it is what it is.

War sucks.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Also let me get this straight, We invade and start a war making the country a war zone so then its ok to kill anything that moves?


And if you compare this war to WWII well guess what were the Japanese. Hope we don’t get nuked to save the other side from losing to many men.

I take it that wasn't actually directed to me?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[lawrocket 3]

Just an additional explanation, I just read something that summarizes my point quite succinctly:

"If those killings were lawful under the rules of engagement then the rules of engagement are wrong." - Julian Assange, Editor, WikiLeaks.

This is my point in a nutshell.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Darius11 12]

No bro.

I thought you would know that but to be sure no it was not diracted at you.

I just cant stand it when people try to make excuses to justify such events whit bad excuses. Like the kids have guns so kill them.

Because I know if we were invaded and the enemy gunship shot a bunch of people in Alabama who had guns there would be shit storm.

Its insane to try to justify such actions, just as it is insane to think the pilots are looking for kids too shoot.

War sucks it is what it is, and we need to not get in to stupid ones.


Edit to add: This video does remind me of the best movie line for this war. “If he wasn’t an insurgent he is now”

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Just an additional explanation, I just read something that summarizes my point quite succinctly:

"If those killings were lawful under the rules of engagement then the rules of engagement are wrong." - Julian Assange, Editor, WikiLeaks.

This is my point in a nutshell.

I happen to disagree with that statement. The rules of engagemnet are already restrictive enough to put our soldiers at risk. The only thing we could do to make them any lore restrictive would be to forbid any engagement until fired upon.
We tried that once. It didn't work out too well.

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.

[billvon 2,400]

> The rules of engagemnet are already restrictive enough to put our soldiers
>at risk. The only thing we could do to make them any more restrictive would
>be to forbid any engagement until fired upon avoid unneeded wars.

Fixed that. You don't need to kill Iraqi kids or journalists if you're not there to begin with.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Then let me ask you the question directly. Should people who carry guns in their neighborhoods be killed as terrorists?

Direct answer-Depends on the neighborhood. My neighborhood, no. I don't live in an area noted for terrorist activity. If I did, I'd probably try really hard to not look like a terrorist. You would practically have to be sitting in my lap to tell I was armed.

Quote

How do you alter your actions? What do you do if you are threatened?

Not really apples to apples since I'm more concerned with urban thugs but I do my best to project confidence but not confrontation. Not appearing to be prey seems to head off most issues. I haven't really felt threatened in a long time. Humor diffuses a lot of situations. If I felt really at risk I would set my response at the level I felt appropriate. Like I said, though-not apples to apples no matter how much you wish to make it so.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Fixed that. You don't need to kill Iraqi kids or journalists if you're not there to begin with.

and if wishes were fishes and skies were always blue.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[CanuckInUSA 0]

If you want to criticize the government of the United States for invading Iraq, then by all means have at it. History is on the side of "the Iraq invasion was a huge mistake". But it is foolish to criticize the actual troops who are only doing their jobs as soldiers. Fair fights have no place in a war zone if you have any hope of succeeding (whatever success is measured by).

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

[rhaig 0]

Quote

> The rules of engagemnet are already restrictive enough to put our soldiers
>at risk. The only thing we could do to make them any more restrictive would
>be to forbid any engagement until fired upon avoid unneeded wars.

Fixed that. You don't need to kill Iraqi kids or journalists if you're not there to begin with.

the comment you replied to was about fixing the rules of engagement. nice tangent.

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

>Depends on the neighborhood. My neighborhood, no.

Hmm. So if your neighborhood got more dangerous, you would never carry a gun, then? You'd only carry a gun in areas that were very safe? Seems counter to what you've posted before about weapons.

>If I felt really at risk I would set my response at the level I felt appropriate.

That's what got these people killed.

>not apples to apples no matter how much you wish to make it so.

That's the basis of the issue. They are THEM, and many people here can't see them as people like us. It's their own fault. They should have done X - even if I never, ever would have done X.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

No, the comments of the actors in that video are the most inhuman text I heard since a long time.

Yes. I haven't heard it but I reckon that it's all business, some mentioning of targets, the sound of a gun, adrenaline talkng, as they communicate about more targets, etc.

It's war. War is, by definition, immoral. I don't like it. It is what it is. However, I would suggest that such is not more or less inhuman that other things you might hear. Perhaps watching a beheading could be inhuman. Perhaps seeing footage of a suicide bomber is also inhuman. Talk about killing Japs and Krauts, yeah. Probably inhuman, too.

Part of what I suspect may make it so chilling to you is the sense that you expect better from Americans. Whether it's right or wrong for you to do that is an unanswerable question.


[Reply]Stop talking like a wrong priest, Mr. lawrocket.

I'm not defending it. Yes, you are correct that they intended to shoot those people. They erred in who they were.

I am not defending it. I am also not calling them the antichrists for it. They followed their training and Rules of Engagement. The training and ROE should likely be modified.

You may look at these guys for this problem. I look at higher ups for the problem.


[Reply]Those guys exactly knew what they did. They wanted to shoot. They did not err.

Yep. They meant to shoot. But knowing exactly what they did? Doubtful. Hindsight probably gave them some info that they didn't have prior to and during the engagement.

Do you think they knew they were shooting a journalist? Do you think they said, "the guy's a Reuters photojournalist. Nope, not Fox News. Shoot him!" I highly doubt that was the thought process.

They Knew "exactly" what they were doing? Bullshit. They knew they were shooting. They thought they were shooting threats. They only learned later "exactly" what they did.

Defending them? Nope.
Crucifying them? Nope.

Quote

Part of what I suspect may make it so chilling to you is the sense that you expect better from Americans. Whether it's right or wrong for you to do that is an unanswerable question.

What? Why that? What *better* should I expect from Americans?? I don't mind the language of killers. Those guys wanted to kill.

And for the rest of your reply, let me repeat: You still sound like a wrong priest. That's not exactly the voice of a lawyer, even if you try to appear like one; it's just meaningless wishy-washy.

Regarding discussions, I really would expect better from *Americans*

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Regardless of the fact one agrees or disagrees for us being in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. we're there. The question is how best to end it quickly with minimal loss of US soldiers and civilians.

Sounds like the US vs. Japan in WWII. So just nuke'em. Brilliant.

Guess you missed the part when he said "civilians."

Minimal loss of Iraqi civilians? Carpetbombing or nuking a country is hardly a way to minimize civilian lives. As far as American civilians go, I think you'd agree that 99.999% of them are already out of harm's way.

Quote

As far as those of you passing judgement from behind your glowing computer monitors on your Ikea swivel chairs...

I'm not passing judgement on any soldier, and I chose not to watch the video. But it irks me to see someone implying bombing the shit out of a country when that has clearly failed in the past for us...nor would it reflect well on the US as a country. And "nukin' 'dem terrrists" won't "win hearts and minds" in Iraq.

Quote

If you want to bash the politicians for sending us to war in the first place, fine.

That's more like where I'm coming from. I think it's time we gtf out of Iraq.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Regardless of the fact one agrees or disagrees for us being in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. we're there. The question is how best to end it quickly with minimal loss of US soldiers and civilians.

Sounds like the US vs. Japan in WWII. So just nuke'em. Brilliant.

Guess you missed the part when he said "civilians."

Minimal loss of Iraqi civilians? Carpetbombing or nuking a country is hardly a way to minimize civilian lives. As far as American civilians go, I think you'd agree that 99.999% of them are already out of harm's way.

Quote

As far as those of you passing judgement from behind your glowing computer monitors on your Ikea swivel chairs...

I'm not passing judgement on any soldier, and I chose not to watch the video. But it irks me to see someone implying bombing the shit out of a country when that has clearly failed in the past for us...nor would it reflect well on the US as a country. And "nukin' 'dem terrrists" won't "win hearts and minds" in Iraq.

Quote

If you want to bash the politicians for sending us to war in the first place, fine.

That's more like where I'm coming from. I think it's time we gtf out of Iraq.

You misunderstood me. I'm talking simple numbers battle strategy. If by endangering x lives of soldiers and civillians you project to save 5x in the future...

Regardless of the original reason for being there, the fact is we're there. The Iraqi's still need our help, but are getting more and more self sufficient. This of course, you never read about in the press, because of the age old "If it bleeds, it leads."

It's not just about "nukin' 'dem terrrists" to "win hearts and minds," It's about helping people to not have to live in fear and in extreme cases, giving their countries control back to those people.

Once you start such a process, failure to finish leaves them in much worse shape than had we never been there.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,400]

>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."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Part of what I suspect may make it so chilling to you is the sense that you expect better from Americans. Whether it's right or wrong for you to do that is an unanswerable question.

What? Why that? What *better* should I expect from Americans?? I don't mind the language of killers. Those guys wanted to kill.

I suspect it because I've heard and seen plenty of stuff that is no less chilling that this. How about the beheading of a journalist?

Perhaps you never heard the threats to massacre children in American and European countries, as occurred un Beslan, Russia in 2004 (in excess of 300 people killed, over 170 of them children).

Yes, this talk may be the most chilling you've ever heard. I think it is no more chilling that other things, but it's just me.

[Reply]And for the rest of your reply, let me repeat: You still sound like a wrong priest. That's not exactly the voice of a lawyer, even if you try to appear like one; it's just meaningless wishy-washy.

That's your opinion. I'm cool with that. I don't like the "wrong priest" comments, but I take it that it is your feeling.

[Reply]Regarding discussions, I really would expect better from *Americans*

Perhaps you did not see my other post, where my belief was put quite eloquently by the person who publicized the video. You take these people, train them to do what they did, put them in that situation where they do it, and then chastise them.

It's why my criticism runs to the top and not the bottom. It may seem like the "wrong priest" to you. My personal experience is that this is a command climate issue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[AndyBoyd 0]

"It's war. War is, by definition, immoral."

I apologize if it seems like I'm nit-picking your post, which I found generally thoughtful and perceptive. But if an action is immoral, doesn't that mean we shouldn't do it? If war is by definition immoral, doesn't that mean that people should not wage war? I would argue that some wars are morally good and some are not. America's involvement in WWII is usually cited as the classic example of a morally good war.

So as not to create too much thread drift, I'll toss out my two cents on the issue at hand. I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the military. It is clear that innocent civilians will get injured and killed in war, and that the frequency and severity of these occurrences might be an important part of our calculation as to whether the war in Iraq is a good one or not. I wish our soldiers had been more careful in this situation. These guys seemed awful eager to start shooting, and they obviously were not fully aware of what they were shooting at. And innocent people are dead as a result, which is always a tragedy. It is the second round of shooting that bothers me the most. I am not sure I see the need to light up the van again when there had apparently been no outgoing fire from it. Some posters have indicated that this was the equivalent of combat or battle. I admit I have never been in the military, but doesn't that usually mean the other side is shooting back?

[Ion01 1]

Just something to consider when looking at the big picture here:
Under Reagan 2 f-14 were fired upon by lybian migs. Reagan promptly bombed the lybian palace and left it at that. No talks....no 7 year long war. Went straight to the source and made a simple statement with his actions. Nobody even considered touching the US after that. It didn't cost billions of dollars of thousands of US lives either.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Just something to consider when looking at the big picture here:
Under Reagan 2 f-14 were fired upon by lybian migs. Reagan promptly bombed the lybian palace and left it at that. No talks....no 7 year long war. Went straight to the source and made a simple statement with his actions. Nobody even considered touching the US after that. It didn't cost billions of dollars of thousands of US lives either.

What a daffy comment is that

Who, exactly, touched the US before invading Iraq?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Bolas 5]

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?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

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

Yep. Just tell them from which day on they will be capable to walk their own suburbs w/o beeing killed.

That 2007 video is no isolated case.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rhys 0]

Quote

These servicemen are neither heroes nor villains. They were doing what they were told and with the information available. It's the tough part - they weren't out searching for an atrocity to commit.

Put it this way, if you had a weapon and planned on using it, and there is an apache helecopter cirlcing above, would you walk in clear view and just stand there knowing an apache is circling around and watching you? or would you hide so you can avoid being seen?

If you were a pilot of an apache and you thought there was at least 1 person with an RPG would you just continue circling above them in a heleopter?

If you fired upon a dozen people, none of which even pointed a gun or fired one, and afterwards you see then loading the wounded into a van while 2 childeren overlook, would you beg for your superiors to open fire?

At 2 childern and thier adult guardians?


It was obvious that one of the guys had a camera with a large lens, and it was obvious that they were not hostile.

If they had weapons and an RPG they would have hidden and that heleocopter would have been shot down.

Not only is the gun in that helecopter way out of whack (aim is way out) the retartds shooting it were not only exited abut killing innocent people, they brag about it.

"oh yeah right through the windscreen" (where the childern were sitting).

The 'assholes' that defend this type of behavior, are the reason your country continues this madness, and the reason your country will die a sad death.

This was in a suburb of a city that you are supposed to be defending.

You are not at war with Iraq and you are not at war with Afghnaistan, you are trying to defend them and to rid the place from terrorists.

With actions like these you are setting yourself up for a dismal loss and an escalation of violent activity towards your country, you are putting yourself and your civilians in danger.

This type of behavior is perfect for it industrial military complex though isn't it! You need more enimies.

What do the american people think about making more enimies, or are you not told that is the imminent outcome of destroying innocent peoples lives?

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

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Group of men, some of them carrying rifles = legitimate targets. End of story.

I'll remember that the next time someone whines about gun rights.

Really, have rules of engagement been issued stateside? My ROE while in Iraq were far more broad than what these guys are dealing with now.

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!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

"It's war. War is, by definition, immoral."

I apologize if it seems like I'm nit-picking your post,

Not nitpicking at all.

Quote

But if an action is immoral, doesn't that mean we shouldn't do it? If war is by definition immoral, doesn't that mean that people should not wage war?

I fully agree with you. It is a matter of weighing the moral options. "Is the result of not goign to war a greater moral hazard than not going to war?" Because this is always a subjective determination there will always be room to argue.

But yes, I agree. For example, I do not think we had a reasonably justifiable reason to be there.

Quote

I would argue that some wars are morally good and some are not. America's involvement in WWII is usually cited as the classic example of a morally good war.

I agree. The war was morally good. The carpet bombing of Dresden, the firestorming of Tokyo, etc., were examples of atrocities and immoralities committed in furtherance of the "moral good." It's why war is immoral, because though a moral end is achieved, it is generally considered immoral what is done to achieve that end.

Quote

It is clear that innocent civilians will get injured and killed in war, and that the frequency and severity of these occurrences might be an important part of our calculation as to whether the war in Iraq is a good one or not.

I agree. And fighting forces also get injured and killed. There are plenty of innocents involved in that as well (consider Vietnam, etc., where people were drafted and went to war where they were put in a position to kill or be killed).

Quote

I wish our soldiers had been more careful in this situation.

I think it's a point nearly all can agree upon.

Quote

These guys seemed awful eager to start shooting,

It's their job, and I can tell you that the whole situation changes people. It's at times saddening the conditioning and the group think. But it's also coping. It's the only way the job can get done. As mentioned earlier, it's how it happens and they get stuck with a lifetime of regret over it.

Quote

and they obviously were not fully aware of what they were shooting at. And innocent people are dead as a result, which is always a tragedy.

I agree. Some suggest that they knew exactly what they were doing, which I disagree with.

Quote

It is the second round of shooting that bothers me the most. I am not sure I see the need to light up the van again when there had apparently been no outgoing fire from it.

Understandably so!

Quote

Some posters have indicated that this was the equivalent of combat or battle. I admit I have never been in the military, but doesn't that usually mean the other side is shooting back?

Not necessarily. Ambush means killing the enemy before they can shoot back. War is all about "do unto others before they do unto you." It is group think and it is just what happens when command and control is not there to restrain it.

I do not condone it. But I simply do not know how to fix it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.