Wow, Just Wow...
-
Carbon12 wrote:
The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
The had weapons, could have had an RPG. It seemed they hid around the corner from a patrol, then pointed the (could be camera, could be RPG) around the corner. They were not friendlies, based on troop locations. If they are armed and not friendly, what are they? Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first? Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was, base it on the situation on the ground/air. Again, there was not excuse for the cover-up.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
The had weapons,
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out? The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first?
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
RichardM1 wrote:
Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was
Of course I will. Killing innocent civilians is completely counter productive to our goal of defeating the insurgency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Should we also obliged be watching the videos of US soldiers getting ripped apart by IEDs? Should we have to watch Perlman's head getting cut off? Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school? Aren't those also the consequences of our actions? Or should we just watch the bad consequences?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing.
How was this indiscriminate? An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies? How is shooting them indiscriminate killing?
Carbon12 wrote:
Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
You believe this based on what?
Carbon12 wrote:
And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
RichardM1 wrote:
You believe this based on what?
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” Read about the recent murder of 5 Afghans including 2 pregnant women.
RichardM1 wrote:
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war? Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
-
Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on [^] Everyone needs to see this. I'm speechless. The killing starts after 2m50s.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
I'm given to discount your posts as more conspiracy theorist junk, but this one was interesting. Whilst I'm no soldier, I can well imagine that somebody mounting a shouldered device might seem threatening to those who have been warned about RPGs, and for those threatened to respond in kind. What I have no empathy with is firing on a Van collecting bodies, which posed no threat as far as I could see. It may not have had a red cross sticker on the side, but there was no reason to attack it. That assumes, of course, that the video is true. If it is, then there's clear evidence of the US military performing illegal, inexcusable, acts. But that all happened in 2007 under Bush, perhaps Obama can throw this into the light?
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The had weapons,
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out? The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first?
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
RichardM1 wrote:
Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was
Of course I will. Killing innocent civilians is completely counter productive to our goal of defeating the insurgency.
Carbon12 wrote:
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out?
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
Carbon12 wrote:
The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there? The aircraft have high-zoom stabilized cameras, and you have no idea how far away it was. Watch other chopper footage, the people on the ground don't ever seem to know they are being observed. The appearance is that you have a bias, and this will support your bias, facts be damned.
Carbon12 wrote:
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
They knew armed people were there. If they knew civilians were there, they should have gone ahead and driven through it, right? You've never spend much thought on how to survive in a kill-zone, or even a war-zone, have you? Rhetorical question. Never mind.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Should we also obliged be watching the videos of US soldiers getting ripped apart by IEDs? Should we have to watch Perlman's head getting cut off? Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school? Aren't those also the consequences of our actions? Or should we just watch the bad consequences?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE&feature=player_embedded[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well? Or if it is good, is it just propaganda? In your mind, can there ever be a 'good' outcome to a war that is happening now?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Hogwash. You may choose to stick your head in the sand, I choose not to.
Bob Emmett wrote:
you still do not have any responsibility for this action
Of course we do. We are all collectively responsible.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
Carbon12 wrote:
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
Yes. That is why the Geneva Convention require that to be a protected combatant, you must: Have a clear chain of command Follow the Laws of Warfare Be openly under arms Wear a uniform This is specifically why the GC requires uniforms. So that the poor guy with the gun has some idea if he is going to kill the enemy, or a civilian. But none of that is the insurgents fault, is it? :rolleyes: Since those insurgents decided not to follow the GC or the laws of war, they are not protected by the GC. This goes for the Taliban, AQ, and the terrorists in Iraq. Read the GC, they should go to a PW camp forever, 'court of law' does not apply. They can have tribunal to determine if they were following the GC. If they were, they go home after the end of the war. If they were not, they rot in PW camps for the rest of their lives.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well? Or if it is good, is it just propaganda? In your mind, can there ever be a 'good' outcome to a war that is happening now?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well?
Why not? It's not like the Pentagon routinely covers up stuff like that. No, it's the bad stuff that gets covered up all the time and the American people are the losers.
RichardM1 wrote:
n your mind, can there ever be a 'good' outcome to a war that is happening now?
In fantasy or reality? What is your definition of a good outcome? And at what cost - in American and US Iraqi casualties and money? Do you think killing civilians and covering up will help bring about a good outcome?
modified on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 9:08 PM
-
RichardM1 wrote:
An armed group in a war zone where there are no friendlies?
It was in a Baghdad neighborhood. No friendlies? You must be kidding!
RichardM1 wrote:
You believe this based on what?
General McChrystal: “We’ve shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force.” Read about the recent murder of 5 Afghans including 2 pregnant women.
RichardM1 wrote:
The damage gets even bigger when the cover up is revealed. [edit] My point is that cover-ups make things worse, wikileak did the right thing. [/edit]
I'm not sure what you mean. Worse because it will reduce American support for the war? Well, I think that creating more insurgents is much worse than that.
RichardM1 just wants them to be murdered. He doesn't understand that they are protecting their country from these young brainwashed punks that are under the command of tyrants.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
So, do you agree we should publicize all the good stuff that happens, as well? Or if it is good, is it just propaganda? In your mind, can there ever be a 'good' outcome to a war that is happening now?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
If you'd like, Richard, I'll sponsor you to go out to Afghanistan and Iraq so you can tell us, first hand, how good it all is. Mind you, I'd be doing this in the cheapest way possible - so no bodyguards or protection, the rudest accommodation possible and about as far away from western military forces as it's possible to be in those regions. You'd be on your own, alone, in a hostile country with only your sense of how good it all is to keep you company. Let me know - I can make it happen.
-
I'm given to discount your posts as more conspiracy theorist junk, but this one was interesting. Whilst I'm no soldier, I can well imagine that somebody mounting a shouldered device might seem threatening to those who have been warned about RPGs, and for those threatened to respond in kind. What I have no empathy with is firing on a Van collecting bodies, which posed no threat as far as I could see. It may not have had a red cross sticker on the side, but there was no reason to attack it. That assumes, of course, that the video is true. If it is, then there's clear evidence of the US military performing illegal, inexcusable, acts. But that all happened in 2007 under Bush, perhaps Obama can throw this into the light?
You really need to get over the stereotype of "conspiracy theorist", just look into things and stop thinking I wear a tinfoil hat and think aliens are out to get me. :rolleyes:
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Carbon12 wrote:
A lot of Iraqis do. So, kill them all? How well do you think that would work out?
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
Carbon12 wrote:
The civilians knew the gunship was there and they made no attempt to hide from it. Not the behavior of insurgents preparing to attack a patrol.
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there? The aircraft have high-zoom stabilized cameras, and you have no idea how far away it was. Watch other chopper footage, the people on the ground don't ever seem to know they are being observed. The appearance is that you have a bias, and this will support your bias, facts be damned.
Carbon12 wrote:
No, but the patrol didn't have to drive into an ambush, they new the civilians were there.
They knew armed people were there. If they knew civilians were there, they should have gone ahead and driven through it, right? You've never spend much thought on how to survive in a kill-zone, or even a war-zone, have you? Rhetorical question. Never mind.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
"A lot of Iraqis" don't point what could be an RPG towards a friendly patrol.
And these Iraqis didn't.
RichardM1 wrote:
Did the guys on the ground even look at the chopper? How do you know they knew it was there?
Yes, they did. It's in the video.
RichardM1 wrote:
facts be damned.
Which facts would those be? The ones you invent to support your biases?
RichardM1 wrote:
If they knew civilians were there, they should have gone ahead and driven through it, right?
No, seems pretty silly that you think killing all civiians or driving into potential ambushes are the only options you can come up with.
RichardM1 wrote:
You've never spend much thought on how to survive in a kill-zone, or even a war-zone, have you?
Don't have to to know that indescriminate murder of civilian is counter productive to a counter-insurgency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
Yes. That is why the Geneva Convention require that to be a protected combatant, you must: Have a clear chain of command Follow the Laws of Warfare Be openly under arms Wear a uniform This is specifically why the GC requires uniforms. So that the poor guy with the gun has some idea if he is going to kill the enemy, or a civilian. But none of that is the insurgents fault, is it? :rolleyes: Since those insurgents decided not to follow the GC or the laws of war, they are not protected by the GC. This goes for the Taliban, AQ, and the terrorists in Iraq. Read the GC, they should go to a PW camp forever, 'court of law' does not apply. They can have tribunal to determine if they were following the GC. If they were, they go home after the end of the war. If they were not, they rot in PW camps for the rest of their lives.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Carbon12 wrote:
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
RichardM1 wrote:
Yes.
And you think this will help win a counter insurgency?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is why the Geneva Convention require that to be a protected combatant, you must:...
And how does any of that excuse killing innocent civilians? I'll answer that for you - it doesn't.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Should we have watch videos of Iraqi and Afghan girls being allowed to go to school?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6HS6jyxoFE&feature=player_embedded[^]
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
-
I feel so much better knowing it is all democracies that are beating & killing innocent people, not just us.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
democracies
More like evil fascistic oligarchies.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Wow. That is almost as f***ed up as you. Sigh
We haven't even seen the torture videos yet.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]