• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

That video is disgusting, and I find it appalling that a number of folks on this thread are either okay with the murder of the innocent civilians or outright condoning it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of folks are okay with actions like this, be they liberal or conservative.
 
That is exactly what I saw. It is also fairly clear to me that it was a camera. How could they have mistaken that for a gun??? I'm not sure why the American military felt the need to engage, at least from the footage that I have seen. Perhaps there is more to the story, I don't know. But that footage was chilling to the bone.

It was probably the result of adrenaline and instinct (training). I could see why they might mistake the cameras for some kind of weapon but certainly not an RPG.
 
That video is disgusting, and I find it appalling that a number of folks on this thread are either okay with the murder of the innocent civilians or outright condoning it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of folks are okay with actions like this, be they liberal or conservative.

It's not that people are OK with it, it is that things like that are inevitable. Our military does tend to do all it absolutely can to minimize mistakes, but they will happen. From my watching, it looks like mistakes where clearly made, with tragic results. It's sad, but in war, these things do happen. It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under, and knowing that mistakes the wrong way can result in their friends dying, well, you can understand why they tend to err towards tending to be overaggressive.
 
Redress said:
It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under

Yes, I'm sure it was stress that was causing him to chuckle as he shot an innocent reporter to death. :roll:

but in war

This isn't a war; this is an occupation.
 
It's not that people are OK with it, it is that things like that are inevitable. Our military does tend to do all it absolutely can to minimize mistakes, but they will happen. From my watching, it looks like mistakes where clearly made, with tragic results. It's sad, but in war, these things do happen. It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under, and knowing that mistakes the wrong way can result in their friends dying, well, you can understand why they tend to err towards tending to be overaggressive.

You make some very good points. War is hell, and it's easy to judge from my armchair. However, the way in which this incident was reported was almost as disgusting as the mistake. It was apparently clear in the video that these men did not act in a hostile way. Yet the official report reads:

“There is no question that Coalition Forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col Scott Bleichwehl, spokesperson and public affairs officer for MND-B.


Firefight in New Baghdad; US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13 | United States Forces - Iraq
 
Wow... You are all grotesque. Those men attacked noone. The van with kids was obviously random good citizen trying to help someone with no weapons that is hurt. They purposely allowed unarmed non-combatents to be murdered via shoddy rules of engagement.

So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?
 
You make some very good points. War is hell, and it's easy to judge from my armchair. However, the way in which this incident was reported was almost as disgusting as the mistake. It was apparently clear in the video that these men did not act in a hostile way. Yet the official report reads:




Firefight in New Baghdad; US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13 | United States Forces - Iraq

I was not addressing that aspect of it MG. Simply how people a guy was condemning those who where somewhat less than shocked at the video.
 
So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?

Planet Idealism: a world that will never exist.

400_dabombprev.jpg

3210667348_73d5ba36d0_o.jpg
 
So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?

No, but there should be a demonstration of hostile intent before engaging. Simply walking out in the open with an AK-47 (which is commonplace in Iraq) is not a sufficient demonstration of hostility.
 
No, but there should be a demonstration of hostile intent before engaging. Simply walking out in the open with an AK-47 (which is commonplace in Iraq) is not a sufficient demonstration of hostility.

Thank God you don't get to make up the rules of engagement.
 
They are under great stress. I'm not sure how you can deny that.



Either way, it's warfare.

Warring forces against those with no army. Occupation is different than open warfare.
 
Thank God you don't get to make up the rules of engagement.

AK's are very commonplace in Iraq. Are you suggesting that simply carrying one is a sufficient justification for engaging?
 
Warring forces against those with no army. Occupation is different than open warfare.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point was that whether you call it a war or an occupation, warfare is the end result.
 
Last edited:
This video showed extremely poor conduct. Is it condoned policy to kill people on sight simply for carrying weapons? There was no hostile actions by any of the people, and they could have easily instructed them to thrown down their weapons and surrender before opening fire. The Apache was in very little danger, so they could have easily taken their time in figuring out what was going on. Shooting the van collecting the wounded is simply unacceptable.

What bothers me most is that the soldiers received permission to fire upon the van. They didn't just freak out and fire, they calmly asked for permission to fire, and were given clearance to do so. There was no indication of anything hostile from the van, and yet some commander still authorized its destruction. Furthermore, this incident was not reported to the press. No evidence that the soldiers were disciplined for the event has come out either.
 
texmaster said:
So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?

This is an occupation, not a war. In order to attack the distinction must be made between civilian and enemy combatant. Holding an AK-47 is not sufficient distinction.
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point was that whether you call it a war or an occupation, warfare is the end result.

This is 100 % correct. It might not be a declared war, but the nature of the conflict is that of war.
 
AK's are very commonplace in Iraq. Are you suggesting that simply carrying one is a sufficient justification for engaging?

Absolutely. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion with the Marine Corps. Those were our orders. It's my life or theirs.
 
A tragic outcome of war in a populated environment. I can understand why the troops engaged.

What I find interesting is in the last week the number of bombings in Pakastan and Bagdad killing inocent people, yet no topic topic on breaking news.
 
Absolutely. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion with the Marine Corps. Those were our orders. It's my life or theirs.

ROE's are not static in an evolving conflict, devil dog. What was appropriate in 2003 is not necessarily appropriate in 2007.
 
Absolutely. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion with the Marine Corps. Those were our orders. It's my life or theirs.

I suspect that the rules of engagement have changed since the invasion. I am sure that there will be further investigations into this, and details like that will come out.
 
ROE's are not static in an evolving conflict, devil dog. What was appropriate in 2003 is not necessarily appropriate in 2007.

This is true. The rules of engagement probably changed once the strategy moved from invasion to occupation, which is why occupying is typically the Army's job. But the insurgents created an environment where Marines were still necessary. Marines are best at locating, closing with, and destroying the enemy.
 
Salon actually has a very good piece on this, that takes a very even look at the video: A guide to watching WikiLeaks' video of shooting in Iraq - War Room - Salon.com

The video comes with several caveats. First, the warning soldiers always give about viewing things like this: Videos simply don't capture the complexity, pressures and confusion of modern warfare, they say. Things may look one way, now, on video, but in the heat of battle, it's likely that they seemed a lot different to those involved.

Second, the video may not show Americans doing anything wrong -- or at least not illegal under the Law of Armed Conflict. The shorthand version of that law is that you can kill the enemy, period. The gray area in asymmetrical warfare, however, is determining just who the enemy is. Given those ambiguities, in a military courtroom a jury would have to determine if the shooter "honestly and reasonably" believed he was shooting the enemy, according to Gary Solis, an expert on military law at Georgetown University. "That will always be a defense," he told Salon.
 
Back
Top Bottom