Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
I liked Mr. Greenwald's comments about regardless of the solider's actions being right or wrong, in accordance with the rules of engagement, it's quite obvious that it was counterproductive to the "hearts and minds" campaign to win over the Iraqi people. It's like giving a startving person an apple, then kicking them in the face while pissing on them (that's gotta be tough to do.)
this is how some win hearts and minds of the Iraqi ppl..
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
this is how some win hearts and minds of the Iraqi ppl..
I'm not sure why, but I thought that was hilarious. They were acting like assholes, but I still laughed.
Although to be honest I'd probably get sick of Iraq rather quickly myself.
Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm not sure why, but I thought that was hilarious. They were acting like assholes, but I still laughed.Although to be honest I'd probably get sick of Iraq rather quickly myself.
That´s probably what most of them think that and "WTF am I doing here?". The Soldier reminded me of that smiley dude in "Full Metal Jacket" private pile.
I've re-watched the video at least a dozen times. When he first cites that the guy is wielding an "RPG" (4:15-17) I want you all to take a nice hard look at that RPG, rather short isn't it?
They had a guy shooting? I saw none of that. Shooting photography maybe.
They didn't even assess them at all, they just opened fire on them and butchered them.
"All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" These "soldiers" aren't looking for anything than a blood bath.
They aren't even thinking, the insurgents aren't idiots if they were just blown apart by a helicoptor they wouldn't have sent a ****ing van to pick them up. Trigger happy morons like this, shoot first ask questions later eh?
There was never any sign of threat to the helicoptor pilots themselves, I'm not even sure the camera crew knew they were there, and if they were didn't really seem to care. Funny, I thought insurgents would take cover and shoot at such targets, not walk about in the open and laugh.
This wasn't some innocent mistake, there was no sign of threat, there was what, three or four AK-47s? That automatically qualifies someone as an insurgent? This is utterly disgusting, a fine example of the true colours of war. There is no honour, no glory, nothing to gain but the blood and tears of innocents.
Liberator: Not that I dsagree that more could have been done to prevent the shooting of the news reporter, and especially of the unarmed man in the van, there are some realities of this situation that I think you aren't appreciating.
One of the main reasons I posted the Al Jazeera video is for some of the context their guests give. For instance, what you can't see in the Apache video are the American troops who are less than 2 blocks away, currently engaged in a firefight with individuals who were in fact targeting them with RPG fire.
The streets were empty, as a battle was onging, save for US forces, insurgent forces, and a small group of reporters with none of the typical "press" gear that is worn on the battleground. For instance, reporters in Palestine are never without bright blue helmets and vests that clearly say PRESS on them.
There is a good reason for this too, as insurgents will dress up like the press to stage attacks. From this point of view, anybody on the battlefield is unfortunatly a potential target. This isn't just an unfortunate coincidence, insurget groups, dating back to the Zealots of Rome, want such military reactions as are depicted in this video in order to garner support for their cause.
Like, watch the video. The pilot never identifies targets themself, they are told where the targets are by people currently engaged in a firefight. Sure, that doesn't justify the action, but if you think it is "trigger happy" to light up a target you are being told has an RPG and might use it to kill your fellow troops, you are mistaken. The context makes it almost negligent not to open fire, but I don't accept that either really.
This clearly isn't a case of black and white morality. Sure it is tragic, but think of all the lives that have been lost already because insurgent fighters will make themselves appear to be civilians or the press. Issues like these are symptomatic of the ridiculous context of this war, not from soldiers being crazy.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago, and is still applicable today.
honestly In my opinion, it seems mostly applicable among business/corporate types who "fight" their battles with posturing and semantics.
Sounds to me like with you are 'the ends justify the means' sorta guy. Not judging you..just sounds like it.
Also, If anyone cares, check out The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi. The originally translated one is the the most accurate, unless you read Japanese. Its not as "douchie" as the above, and just as powerful.
""All you gotta do is pick up a weapon" These "soldiers" aren't looking for anything than a blood bath."
See, your logic is self-contradictory there. If he was just looking for a blood bath, he would have opened fire regardless of the guy carrying a weapon or not. The very fact he was waiting for the acceptable circumstance and would not fire before that basically counters your blood bath argument.
Maybe they made a mistake, yes. Maybe soldiers being that enthusiastic to fire is always uncomfortable, yes. But this was not a death squad firing at anything they wanted without limits. He was working to the rules.
I also think it is very important indeed that we bear in mind that the group WAS carrying weapons, including an RPG. Some of you are implying there were no weapons at all.
My query is about what rule made the van a legitimate target. The original shooting is actually looking more justifiable under analysis, and critics are now moving onto the other two incidents- the shooting of the van, and the missile strike on the building, which certainly seems possibly to be reckless overkill.
As for the kids- what the hell WERE they doing in the van? Even if we start with the assumption that the Americans were in the wrong here- disputable- they had no idea kids were in the van. The people in the van knew the area was under fire. Why did they bring the kids with them?!
Originally posted by inimalist
Liberator: Not that I dsagree that more could have been done to prevent the shooting of the news reporter, and especially of the unarmed man in the van, there are some realities of this situation that I think you aren't appreciating.One of the main reasons I posted the Al Jazeera video is for some of the context their guests give. For instance, what you can't see in the Apache video are the American troops who are less than 2 blocks away, currently engaged in a firefight with individuals who were in fact targeting them with RPG fire.
The streets were empty, as a battle was onging, save for US forces, insurgent forces, and a small group of reporters with none of the typical "press" gear that is worn on the battleground. For instance, reporters in Palestine are never without bright blue helmets and vests that clearly say PRESS on them.
There is a good reason for this too, as insurgents will dress up like the press to stage attacks. From this point of view, anybody on the battlefield is unfortunatly a potential target. This isn't just an unfortunate coincidence, insurget groups, dating back to the Zealots of Rome, want such military reactions as are depicted in this video in order to garner support for their cause.
Like, watch the video. The pilot never identifies targets themself, they are told where the targets are by people currently engaged in a firefight. Sure, that doesn't justify the action, but if you think it is "trigger happy" to light up a target you are being told has an RPG and might use it to kill your fellow troops, you are mistaken. The context makes it almost negligent not to open fire, but I don't accept that either really.
This clearly isn't a case of black and white morality. Sure it is tragic, but think of all the lives that have been lost already because insurgent fighters will make themselves appear to be civilians or the press. Issues like these are symptomatic of the ridiculous context of this war, not from soldiers being crazy.
no inimalist, you dont understand. these soldiers are capitalist demons. they wanted to kill them all.
i think you need to wake up and accept the fact that the western based NWO is taking over.
also, liberator. you never answered my question
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why did they bring the kids with them?!
Two most likely reasons:
1) So if they were killed, there would be the "America kills children on purpose" rants you see on this very thread. It's a clever (though disgusting) tactic, Hezbullah does it to Israel, hiding weapon caches in schools and whatnot.
2) They were being trained to be future combatants.
Edit: Could also just be REALLY bad parenting.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, read around a bit. Most analysis is accepting they had weapons. Even the head of wikileaks who posted the footage says they had weapons. The question isn't about them being armed (as the wikileaks founder says, just about everyone in Iraq is armed), the question is whether they were a threat.
I'm sure everyone in Iraq is armed (explaining their low crime rate!) but who had the RPG?
See, this is part of the thing that makes me rather contemptuous of some claims in this thread that you can definitely tell that there was no such weaponry- when even the people posting the footage think an RPG was there (and, as it turns out, early drafts of their video even had this captioned).
Keep looking until you find it, I guess. Some people say it might be a camera tripod. But as I say, general feeling is coming to the point where it is felt the group was definitely armed.