US gunship kills civilians/reuters journalists, then fires upon makeshift ambulance

[StarBob]

I'm not quoting everything because it takes too much time and page space.

You are correct in saying hypothetical situations are speculation, but it is wholly relevant considering it is a war and leaving armed soldiers armed in war is frankly just stupid. They were perceived as armed. There's no speculation in that statement, it's just common sense.

Since when is an IED not an ambush? An IED ambush is usually a handful of guys creating a trap from an old artillery shell and they'll take our half a dozen allied soldiers in an instant.

When you don't look like a civilian in a war, then are you going to be treated like a civilian? Hanging out with people who look like soldiers... who are carrying weapons... which is basically the only distinguishing factor in Iraq... and is what consitutes a soldier... will get your ass shot.

I choose to say "somewhat" justified because my ethcal standpoint doesn't allow me to fully justify killing by any means. War itself is considered justified killing, so there's no way for me to properly convey the societal view of wartime killing and still maintain my perspective that it is wrong without saying things along the lines of "somewhat". By the protocol of Rules of Engagement, the initial attack was justified - despite it not being so from my ethical standpoint. The second "van" attack - still not justified by my ethical standpoint - did not follow the protocol of the Rules of Engagement.


edit:

No Limit - Again, an IED is an ambush. I don't know what definition of "ambush" you're using, but when you lie in wait with the intention to atack then it's an ambush.

Tyguy - I do agree that they could have taken more time and that was poor judgement, but in war hasty judgements sometimes have to be made. The lack of immediate danger meant they could have taken more time, but from the perspective of the pilot and gunner, that many people in the open with weapons is a prime target. In a war of ambushes (LIKE IEDS) where you won't see but a handful of people and they'll quickly meld back into the civilian populous without even a chance to fire at them, this appeared to be a great opportunity to take out a dozen enemies. So it doesn't really invalidate is as much as make it a murky proposition. They could have taken more time, but hindsight won't change anything.

 

[No Limit]

You did not mean IED in this context, we are talking about a couple guys armed with AKs and RPGs (allegedly). These types of ambushes are very rare for the reasons mentioned above.

And it turned out there was no RPG and chances are there might not even have been an AK. Is it illegal in Iraq to carry AK-47s? No, it's not. In fact candidates in the last election were giving them out to Iraqis if they promised to vote for them. So you see a group of people from 2 miles away with what might be an AK and an RPG. The keyword here is might but lets pretend you know for sure one of them has an AK. These people pose absolutely no threat to any American soldiers because there are no soliders anywhere near by. You can not dispute this, there is no immediate threat. So what do they do? They open fire as soon as they possibly can, they don't even take a few extra minutes to asses the situation. You think that is justified? That there is a valid argument to be made as to why they should have opened fired? They should have sent in ground troops even if it meant more risk to those ground troops, putting innocent lives at risk like this is unforgivable.

I would be a little more understanding if this was a one time **** up and the military learned from it's mistakes. That is clearly not the case.

 

[Noodle]

The presence of a possible RPG makes it a bit trickier. It brings up an alternative scenario that might go something like this:

"Hold on, dude. Let's make sure those are weapons. Okay... Yep, those are- [BOOM]"

I know it's a stretchy "what-if", but if the "what-if" results in you being dead, I can see why you'd make a too quick a judgment.

 

[No Limit]

Again, there was absolutely no threat to any US soldiers even if an RPG was involved (it wasn't). Stop saying that there was, it's annoying me. So how in the world is what happened justified?

 

[StarBob]

Again, there was absolutely no threat to any US soldiers even if an RPG was involved (it wasn't). Stop saying that there was, it's annoying me. So how in the world is what happened justified?

What is justifiable by you is not the basis of Rules of Engagement. These are conflict specific and created to minimize allied casualities while still being as fair as possible. If it was up to me the entire war wouldn't be justified and all of those soldiers would be at their respective homes.

Also, it is irrelevant whether when I mentioned "ambushes" if it was in reference to IEDs or not, if they're carrying weapons they can be enemy soldiers and are capable of killing others however they please.

 

[No Limit]

I don't give a shit what those rules of engagement are. If those are really the rules of engagement those rules need to be changed. As I told you if this was a one time **** up and they changed their RoE after the fact I would be a bit more understanding, they didn't. These rules of engagement led to 15 innocent people dead in this one case, there are probably countless other cases where it led to more civillian deaths.

What context you meant ambush in is relevent because you implied that the biggest risk over there is from these kinds of ambushes to make the point that they had a reason to be on edge. That information is absolutely not true as these types of ambushes on american military are extremely rare.

 

[Eejit]

The presence of a possible RPG makes it a bit trickier. It brings up an alternative scenario that might go something like this:

"Hold on, dude. Let's make sure those are weapons. Okay... Yep, those are- [BOOM]"

I know it's a stretchy "what-if", but if the "what-if" results in you being dead, I can see why you'd make a too quick a judgment.

Even if an RPG was there the chopper was over 1km away. No threat.

 

[StarBob]

What context you meant ambush in is relevent because you implied that the biggest risk over there is from these kinds of ambushes to make the point that they had a reason to be on edge. That information is absolutely not true as these types of ambushes on american military are extremely rare.

Well, let's see, I didn't say "these kinds" or at any point did I even imply there was a "kind" of ambush. I merely said that they could potentially ambush and kill allied soldiers.

But, since you're dead set on the idea of me implying that they jumped out of the metaphoical trees guns blazing, wasn't it not even a week ago that there was a video of a convoy of trucks ambushed leading to the deaths of civilian truck drivers and soldiers? I'm not sure if it was in Iraq or Afghanistan, but given that their primary means of killing soldiers or people with soldiers is the ambush tactic, then I don't think it realy matters where it was.

 

[No Limit]

You would make a good point if I said that ambushes never happen, but that's not what I said. I said they are rare contrary to the point you tried to make.

With that said what context you meant ambush in isn't the most important part of my point. The point is if these are truly our rules of engagement these rules need to be changed. Yet they weren't changed, instead they tried to cover this incident up by outright lying then refusing to release evidance. Currently these rules of engagement say that minimizing risk to our military is worth more than the life of innocent Iraqis.

 

[CptStern]

I'm not quoting everything because it takes too much time and page space.

You are correct in saying hypothetical situations are speculation, but it is wholly relevant considering it is a war and leaving armed soldiers armed in war is frankly just stupid.

but they werent soldiers and they didnt let heavily armed soldiers stroll past. you make it sound as if your scenario was the correct one when it obviously was not

They were perceived as armed. There's no speculation in that statement, it's just common sense.

really? sounds to me that soldiers in afghanistan and iraq arent too concerned about the rules of engagement:

American and NATO troops firing from passing convoys and military checkpoints have killed 30 Afghans and wounded 80 others since last summer, but in no instance did the victims prove to be a danger to troops, according to military officials in Kabul.

And what is the paper's authority for this astounding admission of atrocity? Not the usual "unnamed sources" or "senior official in a position to have knowledge of the situation," but none other than Obama's hand-picked commander on the Af-Pak front, General Stanley "Black Ops" McChrystal his own self:

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat," said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who became the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan last year. His comments came during a recent videoconference to answer questions from troops in the field about civilian casualties.

Since when is an IED not an ambush? An IED ambush is usually a handful of guys creating a trap from an old artillery shell and they'll take our half a dozen allied soldiers in an instant.

you keep moving the goalpost. first it was 20 allied soldiers now it's a half dozen. and it only takes one person to plant IED. and they usually dont stick around to see it detonate. you made it sound like 12-15 heavily armed troops were on their way to "ambush" 20 or so allied soldiers. not plant an IED

When you don't look like a civilian in a war, then are you going to be treated like a civilian? Hanging out with people who look like soldiers... who are carrying weapons... which is basically the only distinguishing factor in Iraq... and is what consitutes a soldier... will get your ass shot.

damn. what the hell is wrong with you? you're pulling every trick in the book in an attempt to explain away soldiers killed civilians. "it's their fault they were bombed into oblivion, they shouldnt have been standing next to Saddam's WMD" ..it's old and tired as far as excuses go

I choose to say "somewhat" justified because my ethcal standpoint doesn't allow me to fully justify killing by any means.

War itself is considered justified killing, so there's no way for me to properly convey the societal view of wartime killing and still maintain my perspective that it is wrong without saying things along the lines of "somewhat". By the protocol of Rules of Engagement, the initial attack was justified - despite it not being so from my ethical standpoint. The second "van" attack - still not justified by my ethical standpoint - did not follow the protocol of the Rules of Engagement.

except this isnt a war. it's an occupation. the geneva conventions clearly states that it's the responsibility of the occupying force to minimise civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. it's clear here that mininmising casualties isnt a concern.

 

[Noodle]

Even if an RPG was there the chopper was over 1km away. No threat.

Oh, okay. Fair enough.

But if they had gotten closer to more accurately identify it... would they have then been in range by then? I mean, how close do you have to be to identify a weapon before it is being fired at you?

 

[No Limit]

Oh, okay. Fair enough.

But if they had gotten closer to more accurately identify it... would they have then been in range by then? I mean, how close do you have to be to identify a weapon before it is being fired at you?

It doesn't ****ing matter. You are a soldier, you are paid to take risks. If you can't be 100% sure that they are a threat you go in an find out before you unload hell from above on them. You don't kill a bunch of civillians because you think they might be a threat.

 

[Gunner]

Starbob, you keep pulling shit out of your ass. But you do it in such a way that it makes it seem like you actually know what you are talking about, props to you on that.

No, most soliders in Iraq don't die from ambushes. Most soldiers in Iraq die from IEDs or car bombs they never saw coming. An insurgent with ancient equipment and no military intelligence isn't going to confront the best equiped military in the world.

So again, these people posed absolutely no threat to any US soldiers. You guys can not dispute this fact. They couldn't have taken out the apache (they didnt even seem aware of it) nor were any US soldiers in the area. Yet you people seem to be ok with our military making these kinds of life and death decisions miles away using cameras with shitty resolution. Your absolute disregard for human life is absolutely sickening here.

It's because they're brainwashed from an early age to suck the military's dick in everyday life from movies to video games. Even the left in this country is afraid to criticize the military, everyone loves to love the military because it's unpatriotic to even question their actions. Bunch of 20 somethings with bloodlust kill children without remorse and you have people defending their actions.

 

[Tyguy]

It's because they're brainwashed from an early age to suck the military's dick in everyday life from movies to video games. Even the left in this country is afraid to criticize the military, everyone loves to love the military because it's unpatriotic to even question their actions. Bunch of 20 somethings with bloodlust kill children without remorse and you have people defending their actions.

In their defense, you need to be brainwashed in a sense. I agree that you can't criticize the military without being thought of as a commie.

Maybe sometime after the "KILL KILL KILL" part of the training they could have a "YOU'RE ACTUALLY ENDING LIVES" segment.

 

[15357]

In their defense, you need to be brainwashed in a sense. I agree that you can't criticize the military without being thought of as a commie.

Maybe sometime after the "KILL KILL KILL" part of the training they could have a "YOU'RE ACTUALLY ENDING LIVES" segment.

"Do we love our beloved Corps, ladies?

SEMPER FI, DO OR DIE! GUNG-HO! GUNG-HO! GUNG-HO!

What makes the grass grow?

BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD!

What do we do for a living?

KILL! KILL! KILL!"

I'd have agreed, until I watched Full Metal Jacket. (and read a paper on psychological analysis of military training)

 

[StarBob]

It's because they're brainwashed from an early age to suck the military's dick in everyday life from movies to video games. Even the left in this country is afraid to criticize the military, everyone loves to love the military because it's unpatriotic to even question their actions. Bunch of 20 somethings with bloodlust kill children without remorse and you have people defending their actions.

Wow really? You take my defense of people following rules of engagement to say all that? Being an ignorant prick doesn't make you sound cool at all. There's not a single post I've made that didn't criticize the military in some fashion, but the overriding principle is that I don't believe we should be in Iraq at all. I never have, not even when it started and I was in high school. I saw the straw man tactics being used. I don't appreciate the bullshit stereotyping and prejudice where you clump me in a group of conservative assholes who condone anything as long as it benefits the American people.

If you blame the a gunner for misinterpreting a black and white image from a mile away through a camera lense and a view finder a few inches wide strapped to his face, you're stupid as hell. The people to blame is the officer that OK'd engagement of a non military vehicle. If you want to take it further if you can blame the same officer for allowing engagement without 100% certainty. If the gunner fired without permission, you blame him, and he would be court martialed and probably dishonrably discharged.

Also - No Limit - I think a disregard for human life is the absolute last thing you could say about me. I am a utilitarian and I believe all life is important, but you have to be pretty stupid if you think I'd be willing to risk the lives of friends and family members to ensure that some people in the wrong place at the wrong time are fine.

Photographers are aware of the dangers of being in a war torn country. I'm not sure of the exact number but it was something like 160 photographers have been killed in Iraq since the war began. They should understand the risks associated with it.

Again, for the last time, I do not think that what happened here is ethically or morally justifiable from top to bottom, but the initial attack follows the rules of engagement. If you don't agree with it, start a giant movement to for the government to re-evaluate the rules of engagement for Iraq.

Again, for the last time, the second attack is a separate instance from the initial attack. It is against the Geneva convention to attack a medical vehicle under any circumstances outside of it directly attacking civilians or allied soldiers.

Now that I've said everything again, and I'm sure it will be picked apart, taken out of context, and misinterpreted (somehow), I'm going to leave this place because it's devolving into a lot of ridiculous personal attacks like every internet argument. But honestly, I'm willing to put aside a lot of heartache for accidents, mistakes, and hasty judgements if it means at the end of the day people that are my friends and family can come home safely. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THEY ARE RIGHT, ETHICAL, OR TRULY JUSTIFIABLE, but it does mean that I will accept certain things with what tolerance I can to ensure the safety of these soldiers. Stupid decisions got us in to this baseless war and I hope some smart ones get us out.

 

[Raziaar]

"Do we love our beloved Corps, ladies?

SEMPER FI, DO OR DIE! GUNG-HO! GUNG-HO! GUNG-HO!

What makes the grass grow?

BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD!

What do we do for a living?

KILL! KILL! KILL!"

I'd have agreed, until I watched Full Metal Jacket. (and read a paper on psychological analysis of military training)

Seven... six... two... millimeter... full... metal... jacket...

 

[No Limit]

Also - No Limit - I think a disregard for human life is the absolute last thing you could say about me. I am a utilitarian and I believe all life is important, but you have to be pretty stupid if you think I'd be willing to risk the lives of friends and family members to ensure that some people in the wrong place at the wrong time are fine.

Photographers are aware of the dangers of being in a war torn country. I'm not sure of the exact number but it was something like 160 photographers have been killed in Iraq since the war began. They should understand the risks associated with it.

Wrong place at the wrong time? What made it the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they know it was the wrong place at the wrong time? And you are sitting here telling me the lives of your friends and family are worth a lot more than theirs. That means it is ok to shoot innocent people as long as you have even a very slight suspecion that it might put you or your friends at risk.

That position makes me sick. They didn't ask us to invade their country, we did that on our own accord. And now we are telling them that it's ok to kill them if we feel threatened in any small way because their lives have no value to us. Again, it's ****ing disgusting.

 

[StarBob]

Wrong place at the wrong time? What made it the wrong place at the wrong time? Did they know it was the wrong place at the wrong time? And you are sitting here telling me the lives of your friends and family are worth a lot more than theirs. That means it is ok to shoot innocent people as long as you have even a very slight suspecion that it might put you or your friends at risk.

That position makes me sick. They didn't ask us to invade their country, we did that on our own accord.

Be sick then. If it comes down to person A or person B dying, and person A is my friend from high school and person B is a guy in Iraq I've never met... I would much rather have person A live. But obviously, as I've stated, I'd rather have neither die at all.

I've stated my position on the invasion of Iraq several times now, if you can't figure it out then I don't know what you've been reading.

 

[No Limit]

Be sick then. If it comes down to person A or person B dying, and person A is my friend from high school and person B is a guy in Iraq I've never met... I would much rather have person A live. But obviously, as I've stated, I'd rather have neither die at all.

I've stated my position on the invasion of Iraq several times now, if you can't figure it out then I don't know what you've been reading.

Except that person A is never in any real danger but they kill person B (and person C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M) just in case. Yes, this makes me sick because you think that just because someone lives in a different less fortuante part of the world they don't really matter.

Your position on the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with this. The fact is we went in there despite what you and I think. Yet no one asked us to be there. It is our responsibility to protect civilians no matter what, but instead we simply don't give a shit.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Everybody in Iraq is in the wrong place at the wrong time, including the infidel defilers. ;(

 

[StarBob]

Yes, this makes me sick because you think that just because someone lives in a different less fortuante part of the world they don't really matter.

This is the bullshit I'm talking about. I didn't say anything close to that and you're putting words in my mouth like you have been the entire time.

Just because I prefer my FRIENDS and FAMILY to live over someone I do not know does not mean I am some sick bastard. If you asked a 100 people the same thing, I'd wager 95% of them (At LEAST) would prefer their friends and family to live over someone they don't know.

That in no way means I don't care about other people. That in no way means I think less of less fortunate people or people who live in other countries or people who have different religions are people who don't share my skin color or people who don't share my political views. That means I would rather have people I know, love, and care about alive more so than someone I've never met.

Don't quote me then add/subtract from what I say to make me sound like a horrible person. It doesn't help your point or disprove mine, it just makes you look like you're really bad at comprehending things.

 

[No Limit]

What you are talking about has to be taken in context. We were talking about why is it ok to kill 15 innocent people because you had a slight suspecion instead of doing some actual investigation. You said if it comes down to it you would rather see those people die than your friends and family. First that implies that if those 15 people weren't killed one of our soldiers would have been killed, total bullshit.

The other thing it implies is its ok to kill innocent people on an assumption as long as you feel in some indirect way it protects your friends and family. Again, absolutely sickening.

 

[CptStern]

but the overriding principle is that I don't believe we should be in Iraq at all. I never have, not even when it started and I was in high school.

I dont know you however I have to call BS on this one. I hear this all the time from Americans despite the fact that at the time of the invasion of iraq public polls put support of the invasion at 78% of all americans; someone's ****ing lying. a dissenting voice was rare. just look through some of the earlier political debates in the politics section from 2003-2004 of our site. there's maybe a handful of people who were critical whereas the overwelming majority were all for blowing up dem terr'ists. also your political pov leads me to believe you were all for the war. you can protest otherwise but you alone know the truth. in my experience very very few people change their political stripes even gradually. your side of the fence (military supporter/right wing) was too busy calling anyone who dared question the validity of an invasion "traitor" to form their own pov

 

[Solaris]

I dont know you however I have to call BS on this one. I hear this all the time from Americans despite the fact that at the time of the invasion of iraq public polls put support of the invasion at 78% of all americans; someone's ****ing lying. a dissenting voice was rare. just look through some of the earlier political debates in the politics section from 2003-2004 of our site. there's maybe a handful of people who were critical whereas the overwelming majority were all for blowing up dem terr'ists. also your political pov leads me to believe you were all for the war. you can protest otherwise but you alone know the truth. in my experience very very few people change their political stripes even gradually. your side of the fence (military supporter/right wing) was too busy calling anyone who dared question the validity of an invasion "traitor" to form their own pov

Hey, I did. No reason he couldn't have too. But I do agree with you, he's acting bizarrly pro-USA, if he's anti-war like.

 

[CptStern]

sure but you flip flopped a few times and I dont think you're done yet. give it a few more years and you'll find your true voice

 

[StarBob]

This has long left the point of the post. These things obviously don't correlate directly and shouldn't be compared. They are of the same subject matter, but they are not of the same event.

The issue here is the debate whether the other 13 people involved were "innocent" or they were soldiers. They appeared to be carrying weapons so they were considered soldiers. Only after the fact were they found to not be. When the gunner squeezed the trigger he was shooting 15 soldiers by his observation. If we're going to apply my statement then, killing 15 soldiers who could potentially kill X number of allied soldiers is better than not killing 15 soldiers who could kill X number of allied soldiers, any number of whom could be part of my friends or family. Take that how you will, of course I'm sure you'll think it's deplorable to want my friends and family to live.

But again, they weren't civilians until after this had happened. Then they all became civilians and it became terrible. I don't know if they had guns. It looked to me (and others) that some of them did. Regardless, when those bullets were flying through the air and up until the ground forces got there, those people were seen as Iraqi insurgents carrying weapons and the enemy of allied forces.

I still can't say why a medical vehicle was destroyed and I'm still taking that as a separate situation for which there is no excuse and no reasonable justification for attack.

I can't believe I've hd to say the same thing this many times yet I'm still being bashed for it. I guess it's much more entertaining or enlightening to try and stand up for something that has no clear resolution. This seems to me to be the equivalent of a friendly fire situation. Mistaken identity leads to unnecessary and unwanted deaths. It's sad what happened... but it happened and no one can fix it. The US Military should take the blame and do what it takes to remedy it, but it's not like there's some magical force that will make everything all better by bashing an Apache gunner or damning some people in a forum for not having the same views. Maybe someday soon we'll be out of Iraq and that's one less shitty war theater for events of this nature to occur.

 

[No Limit]

They were always civillians, that's the ****ing point. Just because some guy in a helicopter 2 miles away didn't consider them civillians is irrelevent. The point is you don't pull the ****ing trigger until you are absolutely sure. And if you can't be sure from the air you go in on the ground even if there is more risk involved in that. The lives of your friends and family are no more important than the lives of their friends and family, they might be to you but in the great scheme of things they are the same ****ing thing.

 

[Laivasse]

Horrible video to watch. I can only imagine how terrified those people were when the chaingun rounds started raining down - those that weren't instantly ripped apart, at least. Then for the van to pull up and Saeed to think that maybe he had a chance of surviving, only for it to start all over again... Horrible. I've gone back over parts of it to reexamine the build-up to the massacre, but I can't watch the actual shooting more than once because my hands start to tingle from the shock.

This kind of thing serves to highlight how ****ed up war itself is and why we should not be there. It shows, to all those people who like to blow hot air about using military strength to improve the world, the business end of all the political scheming which happens in our home countries, for the purposes of oil or staying friendly with transatlantic neighbours. It can be used to make a strong argument for tightening up the rules of engagement to require better identification of targets. The reaction of the US military to the incident affirms how disgustingly dishonest, disrespectful, secretive and unaccountable it is as an institution. The comms chatter is disturbingly callous.

Having said all that... I can see how this would be justified under the rules of engagement as they stand. I just don't see it as the mindless, murderous rambo scene that some others see it as.

It sounds like the heli was called to investigate gunfire from a rooftop in the area. They've flown there and seen men walking around with equipment which looks like weaponry. You can argue that they could have gone a lot further in confirming whether those cameramen truly had weapons or not, but in doing so I think you're probably demanding more rigorous standards than the US military are currently operating at - which is fine, there is a strong moral case for that, but it is not the fault of this heli crew that they are operating at the established standards of the rest of the armed forces.

Gunner: That's a weapon.
Pilot: Yeah.

^^^There is an unspoken question there, even if it's loaded. One is saying 'I think that's an RPG. Do you?' and the other guy is essentially saying 'sure'. Do you honestly think that positive ID on gunmen out there usually consists of any more than this? I wouldn't be surprised if it's usually much less rigorous. If you're disgusted by this then I hope you also feel like vomiting at the thought of all the stuff you're not seeing, or indeed by recorded stuff that has been far worse.

So on this basis they seek permission to shoot. They have already spotted an RPG - so they think - by this point, yet beyond asking permission to engage they don't sound in any major rush to shoot. However, the copilot's(?) voice clearly ratchets up a notch in urgency when he sees Saeed(?) crouching at the corner with what, to me, could easily be mistaken for an RPG; "I wanna engage." I don't think we have enough information to know why the gunner appears to feel that Saeed's behaviour is suddenly threatening. It's possible that he fears they've been spotted and even though the heli is (in all probability) out of effective range, the crew just don't want to let them fire off the charge, however hopeless it would be. It could be that he doesn't want the not-RPG carrier to vanish and then appear on a close by rooftop 10 minutes later. It doesn't really matter how justified or not he is in being worried about it, the point is that they already are cleared to open fire at this point and IMO the sudden urgency in the gunner's voice should at least suggest they are not about to shoot just because of a wanton disregard for life.

We later see them holding fire on the wounded man on the ground while one of them dares him: 'All you gotta do is pick up a weapon'. The will to kill may be disturbing, but the words show that he is at least adhering to rules of engagement; the wounded man was a legitimate target when he was part of the 'armed group', but now that he is bleeding on the floor they are holding off until he presents himself as a threat again. I'll add that this bit is particularly horrible to watch, imagining how hurt and terrified (and doomed) that guy was.

I'm less clear on how the rules of engagement apply to the van. How does the Geneva Convention apply to ambulatory services if they are unmarked vehicles? What is the threshold for being allowed to engage what you suspect to be an enemy vehicle? A van can't hold a gun, so since there are no outward signs that it contains hostiles then its legitimacy as a target has to be judged by other factors. From my point of view, there is no going back after the gunship crew have identified the cameramen as armed targets. If an unmarked vehicle quickly rolls up and starts trying to assist that group (or what's left of it) then I can see how it would quickly become likewise identified as a target itself, unless the occupants were to go out of their way to signal their unarmed, uninvolved status.

Most of the subsequent chatter is negligible IMO. There's some gallow's humour and 'look at those dead bastards'... etc. Yeah, it's atrocious to hear considering that we know they're civilians, but they are acting pretty much like I'd expect any soldier to act - simply taking satisfaction in having shown up and done a good job of what they are paid to do (so they think). The problem is they are being paid to do something atrocious, according to slightly floppy rules of engagement, in a place they shouldn't be. That's not really their fault, or at least they are no more at fault than anyone else in the armed forces.

The satisfaction drops once they found out they have shot kids. Listen once more to the stuff about 'their fault for bringing their kids', because I think it's easy to misinterpret. The chatter decreases at this point because, most probably, they are probably feeling slightly sick, in my estimation at least. 'Their fault!' is an attempt to diminish the inescapable guilt they are feeling. Which is perfectly understandable considering they're still flying a very expensive machine around in an area where their lives are on the line, so they need to concentrate. Remember they are still under the impression that they've shot up a group of bazooka wielding baddies, just that now they think one of them brought kids along. Certainly there would be more compassionate things to say in that situation, but self-interested emotional rationalisation is something that even most civilians indulge in in everyday life, and I don't expect paid killers to display more compassion than Joe Normal.

I'm not sure how the final part of the longer vid (the hellfire strike on the building) fits in. There's nothing in the news reports about any of the killed cameraman being inside a building, so maybe it's an unrelated inclusion...? It does look like a civilian gets caught in the first hellfire shot, but I only have so much capacity for shock and despair... move on...

A year or so back I remember a similar vid of a US bomber pilot mistakenly striking on an allied vehicle convoy. I forget if they were allied armed forces or a press group, but as in this situation the result was numerous friendly casualties. The cause in that case to was poor intel and bad communication (which seems to have played a part in this chopper shooting also). The big difference in that footage, however, was that the pilot was informed of the error soon afterwards and his grief and guilt was plain to hear. There was a consensus in that case that the pilot couldn't really be faulted, since he'd gone out and bombed stuff based on orders just as he was told to. I can't help but feel that if the same thing had happened here and that the chopper pilots in this footage had been given cause to cry 'GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE?!', then people would be coming away feeling more sympathetic towards them too. However, it should make no difference. They're in a place they shouldn't be, working with an averagely human level of incompetence, according to loosely interpretable orders, for a high command which is unaccountable and doesn't value life like it should. I don't think this gunship crew should be singled out, because this is the reality of armed conflict and I doubt it's the worst of it. The problem's the war, and the people who call for war without realising it leads to events like this (and worse) happening in the thousands.

Just chucking in my contribution... I'm unlikely to contribute much more to this thread since I don't want to have to revisit the footage.

 

[CptStern]

I still can't say why a medical vehicle was destroyed and I'm still taking that as a separate situation for which there is no excuse and no reasonable justification for attack.

this is why you are biased; you cant for the life of you link the two things together. I mean if he unloaded onto a van that appeared to be there to aid the wounded without any discernible reason (unlawful) then it stands to reason he might not have had a reason to open fire on the civilians in the first place. but somehow in your mind for not apparent reason he does the right thing followed immediately by the wrong thing. it just doesnt make sense as you see it

 

[StarBob]

I dont know you however I have to call BS on this one. I hear this all the time from Americans despite the fact that at the time of the invasion of iraq public polls put support of the invasion at 78% of all americans; someone's ****ing lying. a dissenting voice was rare. just look through some of the earlier political debates in the politics section from 2003-2004 of our site. there's maybe a handful of people who were critical whereas the overwelming majority were all for blowing up dem terr'ists. also your political pov leads me to believe you were all for the war. you can protest otherwise but you alone know the truth. in my experience very very few people change their political stripes even gradually. your side of the fence (military supporter/right wing) was too busy calling anyone who dared question the validity of an invasion "traitor" to form their own pov

Say what you want. I remember it vividly because it was a hot topic in my high school social sciences class. I remember watching "Operation Shock and Awe" live on TV and saying "This is ridiculous." I've been a liberal since those days. I felt that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified, but I saw Iraq for what it was. I remember sitting at home during the the Kuwait dealings in Iraq wondering if my dad was going to be shipped over there. I saw what was happening. I remember looking at the photos of "WMDs" and saying "Those could literally be any sort of industrial equipment."

So hey call bullshit all you want, but even though I was only about 17, I knew it was a terrible idea brewed up by Bush and his constituents to go after Saddam and get SOMEONE since al Qaeda was as vaporous as any other terroist organization.

 

[CptStern]

I remember sitting at home during the the Kuwait dealings in Iraq wondering if my dad was going to be shipped over there. I saw what was happening. I remember looking at the photos of "WMDs" and saying "Those could literally be any sort of industrial equipment."

funny you must have stood out above the crowd because pretty much everyone was for the invasion. were you ostracised for your pov? I mean most of the people here were high school students at the time and you would have not been the norm

also, kuwait dealings in iraq? what?

 

[StarBob]

this is why you are biased; you cant for the life of you link the two things together. I mean if he unloaded onto a van that appeared to be there to aid the wounded without any discernible reason (unlawful) then it stands to reason he might not have had a reason to open fire on the civilians in the first place. but somehow in your mind for not apparent reason he does the right thing followed immediately by the wrong thing. it just doesnt make sense as you see it

Again, I will repeat this... I feel like I need to grab all my posts and put them in a mega post then never post again... but here we go.

I do not justify any of the actions of the gunner or officers green lighting the gunner in any ethical way. I do not believe the war in Iraq should even exist. HOWEVER, the first attack follow the rules of engagement for Iraq any most rules of engagement in conflicts. The second one does not and is illegal according to the international mandate of the Geneva Convention. That is why he did the right thing (by military standards, not my own) followed immediately by the wrong thing (by military standards, and my own).

That is not bias. I'm not taking his side or the military's side in terms of whether any of it was rigt or wrong, but he followed the rules he had to follow. The commander should have known that firing on a medical vehicle is not legal by international law.

 

[StarBob]

funny you must have stood out above the crowd because pretty much everyone was for the invasion. were you ostracised for your pov? I mean most of the people here were high school students at the time and you would have not been the norm

also, kuwait dealings in iraq? what?

Not many 17 year olds living in a conservative family voice their opinions on a broad venue, but yeah some people gave me shit about it. I probably wasn't the norm but I wasn't stupid enough to just blindly believe everything that was going on. Be as skeptical as you want, I frankly just don't care if you believe me... it's not like it matters anyways.

Remember Desert Storm? That was Iraq invading Kuwait.

 

[Eejit]

I'm not sure how the final part of the longer vid (the hellfire strike on the building) fits in. There's nothing in the news reports about any of the killed cameraman being inside a building, so maybe it's an unrelated inclusion...? It does look like a civilian gets caught in the first hellfire shot, but I only have so much capacity for shock and despair... move on...

That in fact is probably the single clear example of the gunner breaking the rules of engagement. From posts I've read on other forums from military types he definitely shouldn't have taken that shot while an obvious civilian was walking past the target building.

Apparently the building contained more suspected insurgents.


I was also rather disturbed by the pilots reporting to command that they saw "5 to 6 AK-47s" when only two, three people at the most were carrying anything, at all.

 

[Tyguy]

I was also rather disturbed by the pilots reporting to command that they saw "5 to 6 AK-47s" when only two, three people at the most were carrying anything, at all.

That's the thing, some people are quick to defend their actions but the truth is they lied SEVERAL times when reporting to their superior. Any kind of force is legit when the gunner reports the creature from Cloverfield is eating young children and shitting on the bible.

 

[Eejit]

I'm also somewhat suspicious of his failure to read body-language. A whole bunch of guys walking around, completely at ease and relaxed, the picture of nonchalance and because two or three out of about a dozen are carrying indistinct objects which could possibly be weapons they assume it's an ambush waiting to happen.

 

[StarBob]

You know, I've been trying to research how effective one would be able to identify things in the gunner position of the Apache. I was looking at http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter.htm/printable and, as far as I Can tell, even current models have the HUD in an eye piece positioned right over the eye. I feel like this tiny display wouldn't lend itself to the best view of any small target and it appears that it the camera is zoomed to its maximum. I'm fairly sure what we're seeing is the raw feed from the camera and not equivalent to the view a gunner would have. I'm not sure about this though as this informaiton may be old and I know in 2000 there were some upgrades the Apache to "modernize" it. There may have been more since too. Still with the inevitable adrenaline and possible anger coupled with a tiny screen all up in your eye... I wouldn't be surprised if he saw more than he did. I can't say I know though.

 

[Shakermaker]

I'm also somewhat suspicious of his failure to read body-language. A whole bunch of guys walking around, completely at ease and relaxed, the picture of nonchalance and because two or three out of about a dozen are carrying indistinct objects which could possibly be weapons they assume it's an ambush waiting to happen.

Yeah, I had the same impression. They weren't displaying a threatening posture at all, except maybe for the moment when the photographer was looking around the corner. Plus the direction the civvies were facing was away from where the American ground forces would eventually come from.

 

[Tyguy]

this whole thing reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5zzMIRznDk

basically the same principle