Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

Collateral Murder

Recommended Posts

They fired from very far away, it's not exactly easy to tell where the helicopters are.

 

There's also tons of footage of similar incidents, really. Honestly, I don't even care about when civilians or military die in this pointless war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The video shows it all. The hostiles were firing on the choppers and one of them was aiming an RPG at a chopper. What do you want them to do?

 

It's not collateral murder, it's 2 stupid news people chomping at the bit to get too close to the enemy. How can you discern someone holding a camera in a group of 8 people with 5 or 6 AK-47s and an RPG?

 

It's a shame that they died, but they weren't exactly playing it safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that it's not a rare occurance for children to be used as martyrs in a situation like this.

 

Oh look at America they kill children! Of course it's not the kids fault, but you're an idiot if you think they weren't in that van to further someone's agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were armed with RPG and AK47's, as you can clearly see in the video provided. I do not see anything wrong with what they did. Those people should know better than to walk around in open streets armed to the teeth. And what the hell was that crew doing there with those terrorists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how's that? afaik they didn't say much of anything about it until the video leaked and showed what happened.

 

Whoever made the video claimed that those people with cameras were the two reporters in question. Reuters officially stated that they could not say if it was or wasn't them, just that they happened to die on the same day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the controversy, since a couple of you are apparently incapable of seeing it, is that they fired on the wounded, unarmed man and his would-be helpers with children in the seat.

 

i'd like to congratulate you for your mental agility. your ability to watch what I just watched and justify it as perfectly reasonable and falls in the "meh, shit happens!" category is impressive.

 

+1 to you all.

 

Whoever made the video claimed that those people with cameras were the two reporters in question. Reuters officially stated that they could not say if it was or wasn't them, just that they happened to die on the same day.

 

They look like reporters to me. And even if they're not, the unarmed wounded man was clearly not armed. Hell, they were asking him to pick up a weapon on coms so they could finish him off.

 

Oh look at America they kill children! Of course it's not the kids fault, but you're an idiot if you think they weren't in that van to further someone's agenda.

 

Yeah, I'm sure unarmed people trying to drag a wounded person into their van (with children in it) put their kids there for political purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the controversy, since a couple of you are apparently incapable of seeing it, is that they fired on the wounded, unarmed man and his would-be helpers with children in the seat.

 

i'd like to congratulate you for your mental agility. your ability to watch what I just watched and justify it as perfectly reasonable and falls in the "meh, shit happens!" category is impressive.

 

+1 to you all.

 

The initial engagement seems warranted. I will agree that the second round of firing is questionable at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second round of shooting only occurred after one of the pilots? stated that the guys packing the wounded into the van were also collecting the guns from the scene (though, I couldn't see them picking up guns b/c they were on the opposite side of the van at the time). It was extremely difficult to see the children in the front seat from the camera.

 

Also, remember that someone needs to go in and make sure that the wounded are no longer a threat. If that guy crawling had a concealed weapon on him and the soldier who went to check him ended up getting his head blown off, we'd be having a totally different conversation right now. If the troops see him grab a gun, then there would be no doubt that the guy is no-longer a threat as he would be gunned down. I don't blame the guy wanting him to grab a gun, he's protecting the ground troops from a potential threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the controversy, since a couple of you are apparently incapable of seeing it, is that they fired on the wounded, unarmed man and his would-be helpers with children in the seat.

 

 

I see them firing on a group of non-friendly armed men during a war, after checking friendly troop positions and requesting permission to engage.

I see them stop firing once the threat has been eliminated. I see them not shoot a wounded combatant because they have troops coming in who can secure the area and capture the wounded man.

I see them notice reinforcements arrive to pick up the enemy combatants and equipment. I see them request permission to engage. I see them recieve permission. I see them engage the men trying to retrieve equipment and enemy combatants from the field of combat. I see them stop shooting once they have been eliminated.

I see the soldiers rushing to evacuate the wounded children the moment that their presence became apparent.

 

 

I don't see them shoot a reporter.

I don't see them shoot children.

 

I'm a bleeding heart liberal fucktard. I hate the fucking war in iraq. I hate GWB for being a cunt about it,I hate that Hans Blix was ignored when he told everyone that Saddams weapons programs had been dismantled (and people should have listened, it was his fucking job to know), but...

I can also tell the difference between a retrospective analysis of a situation and making a decision with the best information at hand.

 

There is a questionable decision to engage the van. But it's questionable. It's not murder. Was the van there retrieving weapons and equipment along with the wounded?

Watch the video again. As the soldiers saw it. Withough a fucking HUD with giant arrows pointing at two blobs 4 pixels across saying they are children.

 

 

I don't think this is the My Lai that people are trying to make it out to be.

...and I love to bring My Lai up whenever people try to paint the military as angels of justice and mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but it's just fucking stupid to drive your van with kids in it into an area that just got lit up by armed forces. They should know that US ground troops are en route because it's been a warzone for how long now? Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's no indication at all that the people in the van were reinforcements, armed in any way, or were picking up weapons. That was shit made up by the person on coms, just as they looked at the guy with a camera and said YEP THEY HAVE RPG's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm thinking that guy was a camera man too, BUT wtf! was he doing crouching down at the corner of the building like that. Seriously. If I was a gunner, I'd have had to consider that as an aggressive move. You just don't fucking do that in a combat zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point 2:

 

I have no idea why the hell anyone would tote kids around in that kind of a situation, but those people from the van KNEW they were entering in an extremely hostile situation, and knew they would be possibly fired on. They weren't stupid. (or were, depending on your opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the two conclusions for the guy and the kids in the van are:

 

1. He's so ignorant/dumb/etc that he fails to see the danger of picking up suspected militants that were just fired upon from a helicopter and on top of that thinks it'd be a great family experience.

 

2. He went in there full well knowing the risks and knowing put those kids in harms way.

 

3. Others ?

 

In a situation like that you can't just let some random van drive in and start evacuating survivors/weapons. There was no way to know from that pilots perspective those were photographers or that there were children in the van.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the two conclusions for the guy and the kids in the van are:

 

1. He's so ignorant/dumb/etc that he fails to see the danger of picking up suspected militants that were just fired upon from a helicopter and on top of that thinks it'd be a great family experience.

 

2. He went in there full well knowing the risks and knowing put those kids in harms way.

 

3. Others ?

 

In a situation like that you can't just let some random van drive in and start evacuating survivors/weapons. There was no way to know from that pilots perspective those were photographers or that there were children in the van.

3. Was driving in the middle of a city in broad daylight and saw a bunch of dead guys with one wounded guy and stopped to help. Ignored the imaginary sign that said "THESE PEOPLE WERE KILLED BY AMERICAN TROOPS AND THEY WILL KILL YOU TOO IF YOU HELP THIS GUY TO A HOSPITAL" because he deserved to die.

 

Do you people just check your common sense at the door? Here's a thought exercise - work back from the idea that the guy who stopped did not want his kids to die, and try to figure out plausible scenarios for how this could have occurred. Try to remember that this is taking place in the middle of a large, urban city and not some remote battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see them firing on a group of non-friendly armed men during a war, after checking friendly troop positions and requesting permission to engage.

I see them stop firing once the threat has been eliminated. I see them not shoot a wounded combatant because they have troops coming in who can secure the area and capture the wounded man.

I see them notice reinforcements arrive to pick up the enemy combatants and equipment. I see them request permission to engage. I see them recieve permission. I see them engage the men trying to retrieve equipment and enemy combatants from the field of combat. I see them stop shooting once they have been eliminated.

I see the soldiers rushing to evacuate the wounded children the moment that their presence became apparent.

 

 

I don't see them shoot a reporter.

I don't see them shoot children.

 

I can also tell the difference between a retrospective analysis of a situation and making a decision with the best information at hand.

 

There is a questionable decision to engage the van. But it's questionable. It's not murder. Was the van there retrieving weapons and equipment along with the wounded?

Watch the video again. As the soldiers saw it. Withough a fucking HUD with giant arrows pointing at two blobs 4 pixels across saying they are children.

 

 

I don't think this is the My Lai that people are trying to make it out to be.

...and I love to bring My Lai up whenever people try to paint the military as angels of justice and mercy.

 

 

I agree 100% with this. Its a difficult situation when you have to make snap decisions that cost lives. Either these lives or potential American lives. Its easy to armchair quarterback, but watching the video I very well could see myself following the same train of thought the gunner did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a thought exercise - work back from the idea that the guy who stopped did not want his kids to die, and try to figure out plausible scenarios for how this could have occurred. Try to remember that this is taking place in the middle of a large, urban city and not some remote battlefield.

 

I agree that this is a plausible (and most likely) scenario. I don't think that it makes the soldiers murderers though. I think it makes this a case of "fuck".

It also further illustrates why people need to be more careful about invading other countries. You can't just run around the globe with an army and expect to be greeted as heroes everywhere you go.

If the chief weapons inspector says "The weapons programs have been dismantled" then maybe next time people need to take that into fucking consideration. Fuck the war in Iraq and fuck the cockmouths who supported it.

 

But the soldiers never shot indiscriminantly. They were never out of control. At every point they followed the rule book.

Not guilty.

 

Bush, on the other hand, can go fuck a stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the current way to review such videos:

 

 

  1. Is the video showing US Servicemen doing something?
  2. If so, then they're evil.
  3. If not, then they're part of the evil government conspiracy to hide what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×