SAS Soldier quits army in Disgust at American Tactics in Iraq

[Ome_Vince]

hold on a sec ..how do americans fit here? he's talking about the military personel not americans in general

O Really? This sentance clearly mentions "US" soldiers:

dozens of illegal acts" by US troops, claiming they viewed all Iraqis as "untermenschen" - the Nazi term for races regarded as sub-human.

US Troops claiming they viewed all Iraqi's as "untermenschen".....

EDIT
Yes saw that, American troops. It reflects Americans though, and im aiming more at forum members here than this SAS guy..

I dont see that at all ..not in this thread ..we have no control over what the soldier said, we're only repeating what he said ..no one is generalising anyone

Uhm, i'm refering to the response of people. Especially several forum members.
That generalization vs "The West" seems to be "ok" and "accepted" while generalisation vs other part of the world (on this forum especially vs the Middle East) is condemned....
We're all to eager to battle any generalization attacks or comments on Middle-East people, but when it comes to "The West" or "America" they all seem to "not count".
I dislike discrimination vs all colors and nations, INCLUDING America...

And yes, this topic isnt that bad compared to several other topics, yet i still see the same thing here, judgin people's response to this 1 SAS guy....

they probably do see them as less than human ...I still firmly believe that the soldiers intent was to say that some american soldiers saw iraqis as less than human ..some of the stories of US atrocities seems to confirm that belief

Sure thats what he meant, and some soldiers probably are racist, just as some Islamic people see people from the West as "Untermenschen". Just as there are racial people who feel superior in all parts of the world.
People forget racism is not an invention from the west its a common habbit alot of dumb people fall into...

Why dont you list the amount of atrocities in Iraq by coalition forces, and compare that with the amount of coalition troops that were in Iraq, you'll see that these things are an EXCEPTION not a STANDARD..

Your also forgetting why I responded to this, my intent is not to deny there are racists amongst American soldiers,... There are racists all over the world..

My response was aimed towards his "word of choice", the generalisation it causes towards Americans, the ofcourse unintentional link with Nazi Germany, and more importantly the attitude of some people on this forum towards "The West" or "America", when this stuff pops up.. Dont forget, its 1 SAS guy..

One day I'd love to see you or Solaris defend generalisation and discrimination against the United States, but im pretty sure that would never happen. :smoking:

 

[dys4iK]

Yeah, I started with "all of you" and changed it to "most of you" for a reason.

Some people here seem to be thinking clearly, but thinking clearly doesn't help you in a debate won by the loudest opinion.

*cough*oreilly*cough*

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Kerberos, you're missing the point.

Your right, but points have relative meanings. I guess what I want other forum members to do when they watch war crimes commited by either Coalition Forces or Insurgents, is to take the time to analyze what they're watching, and ask questions about it.

Also, if I did'nt do this clearly enough, I'd like to let you in on a little secret. (I'm suprised its a secret to some internet forums, especially after videos exist of this occuring all over places like Fallujah)

Anyway,
It's a well known Insurgent tactic to masquerade as noncombatants at the scene of an ambush you were responsible for. I've seen it myself in footage from Somalia, Afghanistan, and now Iraq.

These people could've been Insurgents retreating from an Ambush. Is'int it the general idea of the insurgents themselves to fire, kill, then dissappear? For those of you who've tried to hide from an F16, you can illegitimize my statement on the idea it hinders the convience of the Insurgents instantly going invisible after they fire upon Coalition Targets.

Anyhow, what I want others to think about is this: Anything is possible in that video. The motive: I hate protestors, or, Insurgents killed my buddies and now the basterds are running away victoriously. The people: Protester or Insurgent. The place: Fallujah, without a single car on the road, or sign of life.

I'm sure there is more footage meant to be seen with that video, but for the sakes of our sanity, the special interest group who got ahold of it took out the part where the F16 Pilot is taking off and is communicating his mission with his superiors. Because if thats the full video, how come we don't see him taking off? Or landing? I believe those two things might directly explain a reasoning behind what we are left to interept from that video.

Again, I post more questions to the video CptStern brought to our attention. Its amazing how none of you question what's brought to the table in arguements anymore.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You are correct: anything is possible. Which is exactly why they shouldn't have all been blown up.

It has been questioned, but think about it: the video starts with the pilot saying 'We have some individuals on the road.' Thus we can conclude that this is the first time he is reporting the fact that there are some individuals on the road and, indeed, at the start of the video they cannot be seen.
His superior officer says 'take them out'.

There is no 'we have some insurgents on the road' or even the commander saying 'hmm, are they armed'?

Just: Hey, look, some people! TAKE THEM OUT!

 

[CptStern]

yes but kerberos doesnt want to admit the possibility that a crime was committed. Like many americans they refuse to see what is plain for everyone else to see simply because they couldnt imagine crimes being commited in their name

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It has been questioned, but think about it: the video starts with the pilot saying 'We have some individuals on the road.'

He might be affirming what was previously stated to him. I'll concede, the video starts awkwardly, but this does'nt negate the point that between him and the missions observer, an affirmation of targets known or unknown existed.

There is no 'we have some insurgents on the road' or even the commander saying 'hmm, are they armed'?

It could also be they were hunting for Insurgents, but I ask you this: The civilians were running, long before the F16 even got above them. I find this action extremely queer. (Odd, don't need anyone being sarcastic now).

Just: Hey, look, some people! TAKE THEM OUT!

You can't just handwave away reasoning. There are things we still have'nt seen yet, and there are things I've not seen forum members question about this video yet also. This cannot be instantly decided with the momentum of US Warcrimes in Iraq.

 

[jimbo118]

This dude Griffin was on tv lastnight on BBC's Newsnight programme to discuss the atrocity Stern made a thread on yesterday, he was interesting to listen to and got pretty pissed off at the pro-iraq war guy in the USA, they also interviewed some members of the IVAW or Iraq Veterans Against the War, some of the stuff they said had me stunned, supposedly US troops in hummers were told to stock up on spades...

they then had would drive around in their hummer shooting indiscrimantly at anyone, they would then plant the spade on the dead victim to indictate that he/she was planting IEDS or roadside bombs, supposedly this type of thing went on alot particurly in response to IEDS that killed American soldiers, revenge killings...:|

 

[CptStern]

You can't just handwave away reasoning. There are things we still have'nt seen yet, and there are things I've not seen forum members question about this video yet also. This cannot be instantly decided with the momentum of US Warcrimes in Iraq.

if you did any more handwaving in a vain attempt at dispelling reasoning I'm convinced you'd take flight :E

all I hear is "if" "if" ..but the available evidence doesnt support your "if"'s ..as any person can plainly see they didnt bother to find out the nature of the people in the crowd ..they fired indiscriminately ..that's why I posted it



jimbo118: that's absolutely horrible

 

[K e r b e r o s]

all I hear is "if" "if"

Then you are listening to someone different, because as of recent, I've not posted an if's.

available evidence doesnt

The available evidence leaves a lot in question. Where's the other evidence? It just appears as some blatant no reason killing spree, but there is evidence elsewhere about these kinds of things (on Ogrish for example), and there is also evidence missing from the video itself.

This is like drawing to a conclusion, only without actually having to draw your points right to it.

they fired indiscriminately ..that's why I posted it

The video is cut perfectly to make it seem as if it was being indiscriminate. Your overlooking two key components; the Pilots take off and mission assignment, and his return to base for landing.

When something is cut like this, like the "Apache Kill/Iraqi Farm video", things seem a little setup. As was with the full version of that video, we got to see they were merely Insurgents dumping weapons, and picking others up.

 

[Sulkdodds]

He might be affirming what was previously stated to him. I'll concede, the video starts awkwardly, but this does'nt negate the point that between him and the missions observer, an affirmation of targets known or unknown existed.

Well, I just find it extremely unlikely that, spotting a big crowd of people that you'd already seen AND confirmed that they were armed insurgents, you'd say 'I see a group of individuals'. It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe they were running away because they were scared of being bombed, or maybe they were part of an Angry Mob.

I am waving no hands. The phrasing and content of his question strongly indicates that there was no previous sighting of this particular group of individuals. The fact that it was 'in a dangerous area' or anything like that cannot justify it. The surety with which his commander orders him to take them out indicates a certain coldness with regards to human life. Based on the evidence it is extremely likely that this video shows an indiscriminate bombing.

the Pilots take off and mission assignment

No confirmation of the people killed being armed and/or dangerous was requested. Thus, either the pilot is acting against orders, or it's part of the mission that it's okay to just blow up people without checking who or what they are. Either way, pretty reprehensible.

his return to base for landing.

By this point the deed's already done.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Well, I just find it extremely unlikely that, spotting a big crowd of people that you'd already seen AND confirmed that they were armed insurgents, you'd say 'I see a group of individuals'.

But the term individuals seems a little inspecific. Its not, "civilians or children", yet its also not "people". Individuals, is also not Insurgents either. Again the term used does not identifie the pilots perception of the targets below.

Therefore, for me, it might be that the targets were identified earlier and, may have had a specific tag slapped to them. Since the term 'individuals' is inspecific, it might be also he could'nt find his target, or found it, but had trouble identifying it.

Like I said, this video leaves a lot open for both sides of the arguement, and thats why I think its a little unfair to draw to either conclusion until we know more.

By this point the deed's already done.

The deeds done, but it might not be a dirty one. Further, what more could be said between the pilot and control tower, or mission observer? We don't know, therefore the take off and landing would be valuable pieces to me.

Plus, his inflight to the target before arriving over Fallujah.

 

[CptStern]

Then you are listening to someone different, because as of recent, I've not posted an if's.

learn to read between the lines kerberos ..at every opportunity you dismiss the available evidence based on what exactly? speculation and leaps of logic

The available evidence leaves a lot in question. Where's the other evidence? It just appears as some blatant no reason killing spree, but there is evidence elsewhere about these kinds of things (on Ogrish for example), and there is also evidence missing from the video itself.

This is like drawing to a conclusion, only without actually having to draw your points right to it.



The video is cut perfectly to make it seem as if it was being indiscriminate. Your overlooking two key components; the Pilots take off and mission assignment, and his return to base for landing.

yet you've drawn your conclusions based on what? ..the pilot taking off and landing? the mission debriefing? perhaps you were in the cockpit at the time taking shorthand notes? you're a hypocrite

 

[Sulkdodds]

Therefore, for me, it might be that the targets were identified earlier and, may have had a specific tag slapped to them. Since the term 'individuals' is inspecific, it might be also he could'nt find his target, or found it, but had trouble identifying it.

Yet if that were the case, he would refer to them by the specific tag he'd already slapped on them.

You have, in fact, proved my point: you're right in saying 'individuals' is very non-specific. Thus, he's not sure whether they are insurgents or (relatively) innocent civilians. If he was sure, he would not have used such an ambiguous term. He would have said 'enemies', perhaps.

The term he uses shows that he's unsure of the status of his opponents.

Further, what more could be said between the pilot and control tower, or mission observer?

Like what? Like 'HOLY SHIT DID YOU JUST KILL A CROWD WITHOUT CHECKING WHETHER THEY WERE COMBATANTS OR NOT?[/quote]

 

[K e r b e r o s]

yet you've drawn your conclusions based on what?

Exactly, I have'nt drawn to any conclusion yet. I'm still at point A, wondering how in the hell you guys got to point Z.

I think its a little wrong to be jumping to conclusions of, "OMFG AMERICA IS TEH BOMBING CIVILIANZ", when we don't have full persecuting evidence of that intention.

"Oh dude", is not, "****ING DIE YOU IRAQI CIVILIAN PIG ROTS!"

Yet if that were the case, he would refer to them by the specific tag he'd already slapped on them.

Exactly. But he says individuals. Individuals could be, "Individuals [Insurgent Class]", or, "Individuals [Civilian Class]".

Since none of this is clearly identified alls I'm saying, is that we can't clearly identify it either. We all need more then this.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That very ambiguity is what makes it wrong.
They could have been civilians.
In order to kill someone and claim you are justified in doing so, it must first be established whether the person has done anything to deserve their death.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

They could have been civilians.

Yet, they could also have been insurgents. Which is still why I say we need more then this.

 

[CptStern]

you just dont ****ing get it ..god you are dense

they didnt bother to find out either way ...so they fired INDISCRIMINATELY

in·dis·crim·i·nate:

1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.
3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You just totally ignored what I said Kerberos.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

they didnt bother to find out either way ...so they fired INDISCRIMINATELY

Its ment to appear that way CptStern. Where are the other halves of the video? That seems to be a little indiscriminate also.

We need more then this, because if we had the other halves of the videos, we might find out that it may have not been indiscriminate anyway.

You just totally ignored what I said Kerberos.

And you just totally ignored the fact that I replied to it. Sulkdodds, individuals could mean anything human in characteristic. Insurgent or Civilian.

Its what I said before, and you can scroll up, and read about it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Sulkdodds, individuals could mean anything human in characteristic.

But that's exactly the point! D:

It is wrong to bomb them without confirming what they are in a more specific way than 'anything human in characteristic'!
I am not protesting because they have bombed civilians! I am protesting because they might have, and because they made no effort to make sure they didn't!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

But that's exactly the point! D:

Duh, you nimrod! We need something more concrete then what we've been given, whats your protest to that?!

 

[Sulkdodds]

What?
The US fighters of the video did not know whether the people they attacked were insurgents or civilians.
You have admitted this yourself: "individuals could mean anything human in characteristic."
This is wrong because they didn't bother confirming that the people they are killing were enemies.
This is like seeing a chav and arresting them because they might be a vandal.

Unless you are arguing that the US might not not have known who they were attacking (which would be fair enough except for that you've already stated that the US did not know who they were attacking).
In which case we should rewind.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The US fighters of the video did not know whether the people they attacked were insurgents or civilians.

Unproven. He said individual, which means he could have been affirming with the control tower or observer he found something like the target. This does'nt mean it was'nt the target anyway.

You have admitted this yourself: "individuals could mean anything human in characteristic."

Which could also mean civilian to insurgent, which is the very thing that quagmires this debate.

This is wrong because they didn't bother confirming that the people they are killing were enemies.

Maybe they're like me. Confirming things using a different set of vocabularly. Individuals could mean anything, from the Pilot knew, to the Pilot did'nt know. Its up in the air, and thats why I say we cannot decide a concrete arguement for this.

This is like seeing a chav and arresting them because they might be a vandal.

No, quite a different context actually, and that was a poor analogy to be throwing around.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Fine. Think of a better one. That's a genuine invitation there with no snideness implied hopefully.
It's still doing something bad to a person based on a predisposition.

So we've got this whole thing down to a very fundamental level: does the word 'individuals' show that the pilot was unsure of what exactly he was facing?

I say yes. You say not necessarily. It's a true stalemate.
I'll tell you the reason for what I think though: you said it yourself that 'individuals' is an extremely vague word, and this is true. It's so vague that the usage of it in a situation (and indeed in an organisation) which requires military precision seems to indicate that he was using the word in its true meaning, and not as some crazy vocab system.

If you can find evidence of the US military of all people using 'individuals' or 'people' as a synonym for 'armed enemies' then maybe you have a point.

But I repeat: if he knew what they were, why would he be so vague? Why would he not say enemies or insurgents?

For that bombing to be justified, the word 'individuals' MUST SPECIFICALLY MEAN enemies, with no ambiguity at all. I can't imagine anyone using it like that. Especially not an army.

So in this hypothetical situation where 'individuals' means 'enemies', does 'enemies' mean 'individuals of unconfirmed alignment'?

 

[CptStern]

Unproven. He said individual, which means he could have been affirming with the control tower or observer he found something like the target. This does'nt mean it was'nt the target anyway.

pure speculation based on absolutely nothing ..you have nothing to support that contention ...I cant believe you're actually saying because the pilot said "individuals" that there's cause to believe they're in fact terrorists ..you've completely become unhinged kerberos ..I'm starting to believe that even you dont believe half the crap you say

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Fine. Think of a better one. That's a genuine invitation there with no snideness implied hopefully.
It's still doing something bad to a person based on a predisposition.

Right, and in order to determine what that word truely means, we need more of that video then what we've seen. And we definately need to know more about that Pilots mission on October 16th, 2004.

I say yes. You say not necessarily. It's a true stalemate.

This, is indeed a stalemate and wanted others to realize this early on. Now, I'm only the Devils Advocate in this case for this one sticking sore thumb reason: I've seen numerous propaganda videos of the Insurgents commiting attacks, fleeing the scenes of their ambushes then returning to them disarmed and undisguised. Some example videos:

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_insurgent_video.htm - Bombers and Insurgent Camera man return to scene after Coalition Vehicle is destroyed
http://www.globalterroralert.com/video/0205/iraqjihad0205.wmv - Ambush on Iraqi Police Station, they return to the site


These are just but two examples, and I'd encourage everyone to access what a huge library exists now on Insurgent Strategy. The best sites for these kinds of videos would be terrorwatch.com and ogrish.com

I've also seen in videos where the Insurgents run away from Ambushes that have gone horribly wrong for them. They strip off their facial coverings, their ammunition packs, throw down they're weapons, and make down the city streets as fast as they can trying to outrun Coalition reprisal forces. This is so if the Coalition forces actually caught up with them, they might think that they're civilians unaffiliated with the attacks that have occured, and leave them alone. [Saving fighters for the next battle]

If they're killed looking like this [assuming the Coalition Reprisal Force correctly identifies them] then it works as an 'against', much rather then a 'for' in the eyes of people watching the Coalitions Activity in Iraq. The 'against' in this case, makes it appear like those Insurgents who had undisguised themselves yet were later killed by Coalition Forces, were civilians. And the Insurgents go the extra length to make sure that arguement reigns supreme.

I've seen combat recordings in Fallujah, accessible on Ogrish and terrorwatch, where Insurgents scramble to fallen comrades to scrape up weapons, equipment, and take off ammution packs and facial coverings. They then make reports to Arab Television Networks that American Troops have killed their friends and family, referencing the dead insurgent left in the street or desert, killed during combat. This was one part of Al-Zarqwai's plan to win the war over American Television and Internet Broadcasts. He conjectured that if his forces, looking like civilians were killed, he could get the 'Ameriki' media to believe our forces were killing Iraqi Civilians for no other reason then they were Atheist and opposed Allah.

If it all works out in his favor, he gains two things: Recruitment. People, angry and misled to believe that the US is over in iraq doing nothing but killing their Iraqi friends and family, would join with the Mujahedeen to fight Coalition Forces. And second, Propaganda. To get the American public to believe no good is coming out of this war. I'm believing, or taking the stance albeit very lightly, that the people killed in this video may have possibly been insurgents running away from an Ambush. I've seen these retreats before, but have now lost the strategical option Ogrish once posed to show you some of their strategies. Now, no one is for certain because of my loss of sources, but this is still my position given what I've witnessed.

And with what happened in the video, may have worked to the Insurgents strategey anyway.

If you can find evidence of the US military of all people using 'individuals' or 'people' as a synonym for 'armed enemies' then maybe you have a point.

I can.

I will prove it in two contexts. A context that identifies certain traits an individual might have with another (similiar traits, or looking almost like someone or something else), or a context that uses the word in place of people, armed enemy, friends etc. to generalize identification.

Now, individual references anything with human characteristics.

The first context of this word has been used all of the time. Picture this:

Example: A Police Officer is called to the scene of an assualt. When he arrives on site, he spots in the distance two people. Both could be involved in assualt, both could witnesses, or one or other could perhaps be the antagonist and victim in the crime. In any which case, not knowing who to identify who as what, the Officer radios into headquarters: "I've got two individuals here on the site of the assault call. What did the suspects involved look like?"

Do you see how this could work? He could not directly identify the people he see's as suspects because they're description had not been given to him, nor confirmed. Therefore, he could not classify them as suspects nor as perpetraitors of the assault crime because that knowledge had not been confirmed in both his mind, and the callers. So, he inquires, and instead of classifying these people as suspects, criminals or bystanders, which would be wrong because he has no knowledge of either three and cannot correctly determine which is which. So, he leaves those three options open by calling these people, individuals. This avoids the officer making a wrong call, and also, avoids a potentially dangerous situation where the wrong person is nabbed.

"Individual" in a way, is just another word for suspects, criminals, armed targets, insurgents, people, bystanders or likewise, where they might become either one of those direct terms over time, or had been at one point. Since we don't know entirely how or when they'll become what, individual suites to describe a person of traits that are human in characteristic. Individual could mean anyone, and anyone thing about them. The word does not distinctly lay out a bias, except that the bias is infact a person. There exists no distinguishing traits between the two [Civilian Class],[Insurgent Class] in a word like individual, so someone would have to describe those individuals for confirmation of their existing differences.

I'am being redudant for a reason. Read on.

Police Officers Marlene Loos, Kit Gabrielsen and Alphonso Ray of the Suffolk County Police Department, subdued and arrested an individual after Officer Loos was attacked, disarmed and shot while handling an assault case. Despite her injuries, Officer Loos evacuated civilians from the line of fire and physically protected one citizen by covering her with her own body. Officers Gabrielsen and Ray came to Officers Loos' aid, were engaged in a gun battle with her attacker and eventually subdued and arrested the individual.

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/ops/poya/recipientspast.htm

Sometimes, when reguarding a group of people with similiar traits, or simply when referring to a group of people, instead of someone saying, "I've got a group of people wearing red t-shirts", they might state, "I've got a group of individuals wearing red t-shirts". The term people is'int condemning, but with a word like people, there's a problem: The number they each suggest. Individuals suggest a group of people, isolated. People could mean just about anyone, unisolated. There's also countless videos were people make the reference of individuals, even though these individuals are obviously commiting criminal acts in Police Dash cams.

While individual references one, individuals could reference two or three. People could reference as many as 50 to 100,000.

Second Context

Now, before I go on, I have to say this: Why would I use Police Officers for this example? Simple. Sulkdodds made the comment that in the military, were military precision is required, the use of "individual appears inappropriate." I made the extra attempt of working up steps to what I know. Given the environments Law Enforcement, SWAT, and Military Forces share and differeniate on, the terminology they use is almost similiar. The words one use, another could use, and its completely interchangeable.

Now, we do know the people down below the F16 in the video who are bombed, were individuals as referenced by the pilot. Individual could mean anyone, or anyone thing. But assume that this word was carelessly thrown around in this instance. An observation that may have demanded a word like Insurgent, but instead, came up as individual. Is'int extremely possible the Commander knew exactly what this person was talking about? I believe so.

For me, it feels like the two were picking up on a forgotten conversation. We don't yet know what was said before and after the bombing occured, therefore, as the word individual stands, it cannot be deciphered to mean either civilian or insurgent ... yet.

But I digress, I can't go on any further without bringing this to everyone elses attention. A keen example on military vocabularly whipped down to slang, non GI-Joed. (Guy instead of Insurgent, Individual instead of Insurgent etc.)
To start the introduction for this video off, I leave you with this question: How many other times has the term individual been used in military situations? Lots, this being a wonderful example.

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/apache_gun_footage.htm

A perfect example of the same sort of synomical use of individual and "guy", or "insurgent".

The thing this video has that the indiscriminate bombing video does not, is a full discussion and confirmation of the mission objectives between the Observer, Tower, and Pilot. These must be done in order for a mission to be operable, otherwise the tower will think your just a Lone Wolfer interfering with objectives, and you'll be called down or shot down.

So now we have "Guy", and "Individual", but what is evident in that Apache video is the Insurgents preparing a convoy ambush. In this, we are certain the association individuals has with insurgents is absolute. What they mean, is what we can see. They have RPG's, Machine Guns, etc. etc. etc. That kind of information is not available to us in the video CptStern gave to us. I cannot exclusively prove that the people in that video were not or were civilians. For that, and this is why I keep asking for it, I'd need the take off and landing halves of the video.

I also have videos of Abrams Tank Commanders and Challenger II Commander's making the same kind of calls. Individual is no stranger term to modern battlefields.

Anyway, having a beginning and ending section to the indiscriminate bombing video would all help us immensley.
These sections, I believe, would go to further confirm the Pilots mission, and his mission targets, and why they were being chosen. My arguement that they could be Insurgents rests on other terrible examples where ABC News has mutilated camera recordings like these, to barter in the eyes of the American Public, that were just over there killing civilians and doing nothing more.

I wish to share with you a belief of mine, that the indiscriminate bombing video was cut. An example? My video above showing that Apache killing those insurgents, was horrible mutilated and hosted by ABC News. The crew there accused US Forces of killing civilians. Compare there cut, to my full version.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread29986/pg1

Is CptStern's source pulling an ABC News? I rest my arguement on this:

Individual has been used before in combat situations, and in many of them, has obviously been reference to Insurgents or Terrorists.
Videos like the Indiscriminate Bombing video, have been cut and mutilated before, for Political Agenda's wether for or against the war in Iraq.

The truth in this video lies elsewhere besides what we're given. If you want to understand how Insurgents attack and quickly disarm, you may view their videos at terrorwatch.com, or ogrish.com for that matter.

There. I hope I sustained to some element where else this term has been in use during military operations, and police/law enforcement operations aswell. I apologize for taking so long, I'm tending to certain life matters. I will revise this arguement later on if it does not make sense.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You made some very good points. I agree that the people on that road might well have been insurgents (although I find it highly unlikely that they would ALL be armed and dangerous) However, you're ignoring one crucial thing.

All of the examples you posted were fundamentally different to the Indiscriminate Bombing video. In your 'police' example, the officer in question poses a qualifier - "what did the suspects look like?" He is attempting to confirm that he will be justified should he take the course of action to try and arrest these people. And arrest them he will - he won't drop a bomb on them, killing them without trial and possibly innocent bystanders.

In the apache gun footage, there is a very long section of it that is concerned purely with ascertaining what it is they're seeing. They check it. Even in the mangled ABC footage, it begins with them shooting, so you can quite justifiably claim that it looks like important bits were cut out. It does not include the bit where the Americans say 'ooh, what have we here - insurgents mainly? Oh shit look, they've got weapons!'

In both cases, the cop/soldier attempts to confirm the 'enemy' status of his targets.

No such confirmation is present in the Indiscriminate Bombing video.

Now, you could argue that the bit where that happens has been cut out, but I think you'd be wrong. First, the possible-insurgents can only just be seen at the very edge of the shot. The fact that he's not looking at them suggests that he hasn't noticed them. He then zooms out, presumably in order to get a better view - because then he sees the people on the road, and zooms in again to focus on them. This shows that he has only just noticed them. He then looks at them for a while before telling his superior: "we have numerous individuals on the road."

Now, we've already established that individuals is an ambiguous term. But in the examples you posited where it could be used, the potential shooters attempted to identify the nature of the threat or whether it was a threat at all. They did this in between pointing out the possible targets and blowing them into dust. Again: the confirmation comes BETWEEN identification and extermination.

The Indiscriminate Bombing video skips straight from identification to extermination, with no confirmation.

If he had already identified them, why did he not act as the soldiers in your very own apache video did, when they saw the insurgent they'd missed?

"Aha! There he is!"
"There they are again."
"I have confirmed enemies on the road. You want me to take them out?"
"Hey look, it's those guys we saw earlier blowing up a tank. Shall I take them out?"
None of this happens.

From the soldier's phrasing and the way events play out, it is almost certain that the Indiscriminate Bombing video represents every moment from identification to extermination, and that the 'confirmation' stage is absent not because it has been cut, but because it was never there to start with.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Scanning through your post, I get the just of it: Confirmation was missing on the targets.

This I agree with. I can only suggest for this, that confirmation was initiated before hand or that the Pilot may not have needed to confirm entirely once he was over the target.

It this missing information I wanted to bring to light. If someone could find the other halves of that video, we might be able to find out more. I'm having trouble googling October 16th, 2004 for operations in Iraq ... anyone have any luck?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Found some more information:

This incredible video, taken from an F-16 that is dropping a 500 lb.bomb on a safe-house in Fallujah, Iraq, shows how flexible and precise laser-guided munitions have become. As the house is targeted, and the bomb in en route, dozens of insurgents run outside, on their way to join a nearby battle against U.S. Marines. The pilot moves his laser-designator onto these new, moving targets -- with impressive results.

http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm

Same date, October 16th, 2004

http://www.combatvids.com/showvideo.php?id=650

US Soldiers pinned down, makes reference to Iraqi Insurgent reinforcements being hit.

If I could find out where the attack was taking place exactly, and at what date these were all being laid out, I might be able to paint a better picture.

Anyone have any links reguarding Fallujah in the months of September and October?

Some details about bombing operations in September:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/iraq/main642002.shtml