Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 447

Thread: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

  1. #291
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    None of that is really relevant to the broader argument though. Had they decided it was best, the military could just bomb the entire area after seeing weapons (and having been engaged in firefights all morning, in nearby areas).
    One thing that IS clear is that the pilot LIED about seeing some of the weapons so that he'd be cleared to shoot again. It's one thing to shoot and kill some people and some civilians get hit in the crossfire... which is a statement about the ROE these soldiers were working with.

    We could just nuke all of Iraq.
    What are you basing this on? Do you HONESTLY believe that we should be going around nuking cities that contain even 1 insurgent??

    I'm glad you're not the one giving the orders, or we'd have a millitary policy of 'scorched earth'.

    We destroyed entire cities to end WWII, why not end the war on terror* by turning Iraq into radioactive glass?
    A) WW2 would have eventually been won without nuclear weapons...
    B) How many cities would you have to nuke before 'terrorism' waves the white flag?

    We're so far from the extreme nowadays, as despicable as war is, it impresses me from a high-level.
    Yes, but if you are to maintain the perception of a 'just war' (according to Just war theory, NOT Bush's 'the war is just cause I said so'), there are certain rules of civility even in the heat of battle. It's a level of professionalism that allows US to maintain the moral high ground.

    The restraint, the checks on whether or not they can engage, the caution with regards to friendlies, the average age/experience of our soliders, the video taping of it, sending in troops right after to investigate and document, etc. Compare and contrast this to say, guerilla war conduct in Africa.

    There is a significant margin of error in their operations, and they will move their target response such that the margin of error will still favor the U.S. military. So they know they will have errors. Not only errors, but militarily acceptable errors, because they already know there is a margin of error, and they know where they put their target in terms of response (such that errors will occur in favor of the U.S.).
    I might have read this wrong, but are you actually suggesting that we abandon the policy of engaging in conflicts WITHOUT any ROE's??

    What do you propse to be done when soldiers KNOWINGLY violate the rules of engagement because they are still on adrenaline high and wanting to keep shooting?

    We can help keep them in check, sure, that's a good thing. But acting as though some very specific ROE or questionable "threat" call, in a combat zone, in an area where they have been under fire and RPG threat all morning, should result in some signfiicant military response to this as if it's some big failing or localized failing that should be "corrected", misses the point.
    Then what IS the point??

    Here's the thing about people that start violating rules and getting away with it : they will start 'testing' to see how far beyond the rules they can go...

    So, yes, it's important to keep an eye on the actions of the individual soldiers, to make sure that they are engaging in the conflict honourably. Else, the american millitary will be looked on from the world perspective as little better then the nazi armies of the ww2 era

    Those lives of civilians lost from it? Their entire universe lost, crushingly sad, tragic, and arguably entirely preventable (don't be in Iraq). But as a matter of engaging in a guerilla war? Unfortunately, a calculated loss.
    Naturally in an urban setting of a battle zone is going to see some civlian casualties... it's a tragedy, but they are not all violations of rules, or should be seeing reprimand of any form. However, exaggerating a threat so that you can shoot down a group of civilians is unacceptable... we're there to kill terrorism, not massacre whole cities.

    You'd have a much stronger argument IMO by discussing if the military should have gone there to begin with, or should still be there, etc. If they aren't there, your dissatisfaction with their margin of error is addressed.
    Oh of course we need to be there... we need to be in afghanistan to make sure the Taliban doesn't try and burn down the opium crops, and we need to be in Iraq to make sure that those 'no-bid contracts' that were signed before the war (hidden in the back pages of the newspapers) are fulfilled.

    All I'm saying is that there needs to be a level of professionalism, even in the heat of combat so that we can at least maintain the illusion of this being a just war... and shooting at people with phantom weapons is not an example of professionalism.

    Once they had calmed down somewhat, when the tanks rolled into that area in question... the gunner had returned to a level of professionalism as the dropped a hellfire missile into that building where there were actual combatants.

    Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the millitary is trained to act on behalf of the group rather then the individual... So, in what way are soldiers knowingly violating their own rules of engagement HELPING the group?

  2. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo View Post
    Try and keep up, we are talking about the engagement of the van of rescuers.
    lmfao, so when a Humvee or an APV pulls up to pull out wounded Coalition troops they're off limits? This was not an International Red Cross Vehicle or a Red Crescent vehicle and was not marked as such; furthermore, it was their fault for bringing children into a gunfight to use as human shields, that is a violation of both the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions as was staging attacks within civilian sectors and not dressing in uniform or distinctive clothing. Try and keep up we're talking about the actual laws of war not the fake laws which you people make up in your own head in attempts to defame those who actually obey the laws and customs of war and in attempts to defend actual war criminals.

  3. #293
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    The weapons they are carrying are irrellevent in this situation... because the problems are due to shotting people that have been downed.
    Yes killing an armed enemy which hasn't surrendered, was not surrendering, and was attempting to escape with the aid of the people in the van is now a violation of the laws and customs of war. Show me where that little gem is located in the Geneva Conventions.

    Irrellevant, there was no 'excessive' civilian casualties... even the kids in the van apparently had survived the attack. The problem is 'excessive shooting'.
    "Excessive Shooting"??? Are you serious? Tell me just what is the Geneva Conventions prescribed number of bullets allotted for use in any given firefight?

    Also irrellevant to the argument... noone is saying that they shouldn't have attacked because there were civilians present. The problem is shooting civilians that are clearly unthreataning, seemingly unarmed, offering assistance to a downed fighter.
    Clearly unthreatening? These were not Red Crescent or Red Cross affiliated individuals, they were not civilians either, once they went in to aid the enemy who had engaged Coalition forces so that they could live to fight another day they became combatants. In your delusional world a U.S. soldier could drop his weapon, put on civilian clothes, and go to the aid of U.S. soldiers under fire using an unmarked Humvee so as to get them back in the fight and these soldiers would then be off limits. What a joke.

    Also irrellevant... noone was 'using' those civilians... they acted of their own accord to come onto the scene.
    Then they were not civilians they were directly aiding armed combatants, a non-combatant is defined as those taking no active part in hostilities, they were in fact taking an active part by attempting to aid in the escape of armed unlawful combatants and since they used children in attempt to cover themselves they were in fact guilty of a war crime.

  4. #294
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    lmfao, so when a Humvee or an APV pulls up to pull out wounded Coalition troops they're off limits? This was not an International Red Cross Vehicle or a Red Crescent vehicle and was not marked as such; furthermore, it was their fault for bringing children into a gunfight to use as human shields, that is a violation of both the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions as was staging attacks within civilian sectors and not dressing in uniform or distinctive clothing. Try and keep up we're talking about the actual laws of war not the fake laws which you people make up in your own head in attempts to defame those who actually obey the laws and customs of war and in attempts to defend actual war criminals.
    I would completely agree with you except for a couple small details :
    - This was not any sort of millitary vehicle, it was a van.
    - Can it be determined if those civilians were even in the audible range of the helicopter? If yes, then it's possible that they used the children to attempt to prevent being fired on... if not, then it becomes more likely that it was simply a passer-by trying to help a wounded man to a hospital.
    - how is lying to command about seeing weapons in hand where there was none justifiable?

    The point is : This isn't a video game where you have to shoot everything that moves, I understand there's a margin of error in determining the actual targets, and that there are going to be civilian casualties in urban warfare...

    If those guys even had signs of a gun, or being any sort of 'threat' in any sense, I'd agree with you... but I mean really the gunner is sitting there like
    'come on, pick up a gun all you gotta do is pick up a gun' and then just announces that he sees a gun to get permission to shoot... Is that type of bloodlust really necessary?

  5. #295
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,498

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    One thing that IS clear is that the pilot LIED about seeing some of the weapons so that he'd be cleared to shoot again.
    I didn't realize you were a human, infallible, lie detector.

    What are you basing this on? Do you HONESTLY believe that we should be going around nuking cities that contain even 1 insurgent??
    Of course not. It's to point out to you that militaries do that, and your dispute of ROE becomes entirely irrelevant in such scenarios. ROE is the military's tool to design, and use, as they see fit, and enforce as they see fit (along with whatever other leadership they are responsible to).

    It's a level of professionalism that allows US to maintain the moral high ground.
    They appear to exhibit it in general.

    What do you propse to be done when soldiers KNOWINGLY violate the rules of engagement because they are still on adrenaline high and wanting to keep shooting?
    I have no business proposing how the military conducts its internal affairs.
    I also didn't realize you could read minds.

    Then what IS the point??
    That the actual points is far removed from your ability to armchair offer criticism.

    Here's the thing about people that start violating rules and getting away with it : they will start 'testing' to see how far beyond the rules they can go...
    Who said these soliders were not called out on this internally? Or being watched more carefully? I don't think they discuss such things with you.

    Naturally in an urban setting of a battle zone is going to see some civlian casualties... it's a tragedy, but they are not all violations of rules, or should be seeing reprimand of any form. However, exaggerating a threat so that you can shoot down a group of civilians is unacceptable... we're there to kill terrorism, not massacre whole cities.
    In language that you understand, they are there to perform a job. All work policy violations are not cause for termination. They are not even all cause for discipline. They are not even always cause for raising the issue. It's up to those responsible to decide.

    All I'm saying is that there needs to be a level of professionalism, even in the heat of combat so that we can at least maintain the illusion of this being a just war... and shooting at people with phantom weapons is not an example of professionalism.
    I think on the whole, there is.
    Last edited by Mach; 04-20-10 at 05:46 PM.

  6. #296
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Yes killing an armed enemy which hasn't surrendered, was not surrendering, and was attempting to escape with the aid of the people in the van is now a violation of the laws and customs of war. Show me where that little gem is located in the Geneva Conventions.
    I wasn't talking about the Geneva convention... rather the specific rules of engagement at the time of this video. Which, unless I can be corrected was to the effect that once the enemy is 'downed' to cease fire so that they might be captured.

    He fired at the first group until they were all downed, he shot a second time and there was only the one guy left crawling.

    Then the van showed up and the two guys opened the door and picked up the downed reporter (it turned out), when the gunner says he say a gun and is given permission to fire again.

    "Excessive Shooting"??? Are you serious? Tell me just what is the Geneva Conventions prescribed number of bullets allotted for use in any given firefight?
    That's totally misconstrued my issues with this situation... when I say 'excessive shooting' I mean, because he continued firing while everyone was downed he had violated, what I'm led to believe was the rules of engagement these soldiers were operating under at the time this video was taken.

    Clearly unthreatening? These were not Red Crescent or Red Cross affiliated individuals, they were not civilians either, once they went in to aid the enemy who had engaged Coalition forces so that they could live to fight another day they became combatants. In your delusional world a U.S. soldier could drop his weapon, put on civilian clothes, and go to the aid of U.S. soldiers under fire using an unmarked Humvee so as to get them back in the fight and these soldiers would then be off limits. What a joke.
    The armies that would attack people offering assistance to the wounded were at one point considered 'barbaric'.

    Now, I don't know much about millitary equipment, but a HUMVEE is NOT a VAN, not sure why you try to say it's a millitary issue vehicle.

    Are you sure you were watching the same video, because I mean, talking about weapons that weren't there, and the wrong type of vehicle... I'm just saying, maybe you should rewatch the video of the OP so we're not making verifiably false assertions to misconstrue what's being said.

    Then they were not civilians they were directly aiding armed combatants, a non-combatant is defined as those taking no active part in hostilities, they were in fact taking an active part by attempting to aid in the escape of armed unlawful combatants and since they used children in attempt to cover themselves they were in fact guilty of a war crime.
    Actually, strictly speaking, once they were downed, they become 'non-combatants', which are allowed to receive aid... they were effectively executed non-combatants. If you're going to try and play it from that angle...

    Though, even the specific rules of engagement clearly showed that they were only to fire on ARMED combatants... or else he wouldn't have lied about seeing weapons on those from the van in order to get permission to fire.

    Someone in the millitary would be better to answer the question as to what consequences might be had about not following those rules of engagement, understandably there's a certain 'margin of error'... but if a person outright violates the rules... what typically happens?

  7. #297
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,498

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    - This was not any sort of millitary vehicle, it was a van.
    What? So, what military vehicles are you claiming the insurgents in this guerilla war actually use? Isnt' that how you fight a guerilla war? Blend in? WTF. That Road Cone isn't a weapon, its' a road cone. Don't mind the IED underneath it! When they ride around in pickups shooting RPGS out the back we say "Hey' that's not a military vehicle"??

    The point is : This isn't a video game
    And it's also not really something you can second guess from your PC, espcially in the broader context of how the military handles this sort of thing.
    Last edited by Mach; 04-20-10 at 05:51 PM.

  8. #298
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    I didn't realize you were a human, infallible, lie detector.
    'I see a gun'... when the only 'gun' he could have seen was the one that was left on the ground. He lied to get permission to fire... if someone tells you the sky is red, you know they are lying... or color blind... it's not a matter of being 'infallible' its a matter of common sense.

    Of course not. It's to point out to you that militaries do that, and your dispute of ROE becomes entirely irrelevant in such scenarios. ROE is the military's tool to design, and use, as they see fit, and enforce as they see fit (along with whatever other leadership they are responsible to).
    Of course, there are certain 'conditions' that go on before the millitary will even consider nukes.

    They appear to exhibit it in general.
    In general I will agree... MOST soldiers aren't the ones tossing puppies over a cliff, or shooting up schools, or whatever issue comes out... In general, the soldiers are professional and honourable... in this case, the guy let that adrenaline get to him and he crossed the line... he returned to that professional demeanor before the end of the video.

    I have no business proposing how the military conducts its internal affairs.
    I also didn't realize you could read minds.
    Come on... you can hear the people's words, their tone of voice, you can see the video that was essentially what the gunner saw. It's not about reading minds, it's about understanding communication.

    That the actual points is far removed from your ability to armchair offer criticism.
    They are acting in the name of the country they are fighting for... so, if the army is going around raping babies, that's a reflection on our society as a whole.... So, yes... I do believe I am allowed to voice my concerns over certain activity.

    And I keep having to repeat that I don't feel that this is a statement about the millitary in general, because most soldiers act honourably in the service of the nation, but the world won't focus on the soldiers acting honourably as they will for the 'justified' crimes against humanity that go on. Even in the video, the 90% is reasonable actions taken from a man that's been in a firefight for a number of hours, and I don't have issue with most of it... that's why my criticism is limited to maybe 15-30 seconds of the whole video.

    Who said these soliders were not called out on this internally? Or being watched more carefully? I don't think they discuss such things with you.
    Did this actually happen? If it did, then I am correct about the whole situation anyway... that the gunner let his emotions get the best of him in the heat of battle and was 'disciplined' in some form.

    If it didn't happen, then I'm not necessarily wrong, it may have essentially without being too deeply scrutinized.

    In language that you understand, they are there to perform a job. All work policy violations are not cause for termination. They are not even all cause for discipline. They are not even always cause for raising the issue. It's up to those responsible to decide.
    Yes, so if that is deemed to be a crime by those with that capacity and it's gone on unpunished, then the crime is on the head of those giving the orders. That's why those in the millitary are supposed to follow orders, so that when something goes wrong, or someone doesn't follow orders... after the dust has settled, then these issues can be dealt with if it's still relevant.

    I think on the whole, there is.
    I agree with that much.

  9. #299
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    What? So, what military vehicles are you claiming the insurgents in this guerilla war actually use? Isnt' that how you fight a guerilla war? Blend in? WTF. That Road Cone isn't a weapon, its' a road cone. Don't mind the IED underneath it! When they ride around in pickups shooting RPGS out the back we say "Hey' that's not a military vehicle"??
    If they actually had shown signs that they even had a weapon I would agree with you.

    And it's also not really something you can second guess from your PC, espcially in the broader context of how the military handles this sort of thing.
    I don't know what consequences if any this soldier faced, but the video is clear enough that he should have recieved at least a chewing out... or to point out where he saw a gun in the video so he can justify his own actions from his perspective.

    Now, if he did NOT actually get chewed out in any form and was allowed to carry on, then its actually a silent agreement with his actions, and becomes the issue of his superiors for not addressing the issue.

    All I would place this situation as is a guy that let the adrenaline get to him and made sure to get the extra couple kills... because he's waiting for a few minutes while the tanks show up has a chance to calm down for a moment and for the rest of the video is actually acting with the professionalism I'm talking about.

  10. #300
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    I watched the video. The crews on the Apaches didn't do anything wrong.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

Page 30 of 45 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •