Wikileaks leaked 2007 Iraq War footage

[YoYoClock]

I see both rabids and ribs point of view. Realistically, it would be foolish to expect better in todays war it seems (doesn't seem like many were particularly surprised by this video). Idealistically, and I prefer this way of thinking, we should not merely accept the state of war as it is now. We should always, in anything, aim for the ideal way to do it. Nobody ever moves forward by being a 'realist' and basically accepting the shit that we has as 'just the way it is' or something similar.

The fact is that in an ideal war (if war can ever be ideal at all, let's be clear i'm opposed to it entirely), we can do better than this, it is the right thing to do. and so we should do better than this, because that is ideal


EDIT: there seems to be a slight lack in human compassion in this thread.

I know it's a dated argument but imagine if just one person in your family were killed during war. That horrific fact could ruin you're entire life, make you feel pain like you've never imagined. We cannot just write off even one death because it is during war, that death not only ended the life of the person in question but will have amazing emotional ramifications or anyone that knew them.

I know it's terribly idealistic of me, but if a civilian has no right to kill another man, neither should any government.
but I digress, that's just my hatred of war

[GearBoxClock]

The only thing war is good for is video games

[Blue]

I blame obama, he's president right now right?

yep. His fault.

[OpalClock]

The only thing war is good for is video games

I'd agree
 
Also
 
Just to bring this wild discussion back to focus a bit...
 

''There is no question that coalition forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,'' said Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a spokesman for the multinational forces in Baghdad.

This is not saying it wasn't suspicious but,
 
In the video, as soon as the first cameraman lifts his camera to take pictures, the helicopter pilots go nuts trying to engage and annihilate everything in the area and anything that entered the area. Even from the semi-clear apache footage, you can see that no shots were being fired let alone RPG fire was coming from the group with the cameramen.
 
There may have been insurgents with the reuters guys, but they weren't acting any more hostile than the unarmed civilians in the group.
 

''They had arrived, got out of the car and started taking pictures, and people gathered,'' Mr. Sahib said. ''It looked like the American helicopters were firing against any gathering in the area, because when I got out of my car and started taking pictures, people gathered and an American helicopter fired a few rounds, but they hit the houses nearby and we ran for cover.''

Whenever cameramen start taking pictures apparently people gather to see, whenever people gather the U.S. opens fire. It looks like a few of the people who gathered were actually armed, but they weren't acting hostile or suspicious. If the U.S. unit was really under fire as they said, wouldn't the ground forces report the position of the attackers and the chopper take that location as priority?
 
I think the main point of this article/reveal/every journalist/blogger's raging boner is not only to show trigger happy U.S. military hitting civilians (you have to admit media loves lapping that kind of story up) and laughing about it, but just to have the proof that the military vehemently lied about it. Woop dee doo for those who hate the U.S. military.

[GearBoxClock]

Well, you can't say killing civilians is a good thing or no big deal

[OpalClock]

Well, you can't say killing civilians is a good thing or no big deal

Yeah that just adds to the flame

[RabidClock]

You guys really have no idea how operations work, its like listening to a bunch of elementary students arguing over the collapse of the economy. You have about 1 part of 10 of the over all picture and you're attempting to draw conclusions. Apache pilots do not have 1280x800 monitors, they have tiny lcd screens. And unlike video games, you cannot see rounds being fired unless they're really really big.

[F U Clock]

You guys really have no idea how operations work, its like listening to a bunch of elementary students arguing over the collapse of the economy. You have about 1 part of 10 of the over all picture and you're attempting to draw conclusions. Apache pilots do not have 1280x800 monitors, they have tiny lcd screens. And unlike video games, you cannot see rounds being fired unless they're really really big.

I fully admit I have no idea what I'm talking about.

But isn't the fact that they can't see very well all the more reason to not open fire on a huge crowd?

And I'd be more open to the explanation that war is Hell and this is collateral damage if the troops acted remorseful for shooting children. If they said, "Oh Jesus we shot kids," I wouldn't think nearly so bad of it.

[RabidClock]

I fully admit I have no idea what I'm talking about.

But isn't the fact that they can't see very well all the more reason to not open fire on a huge crowd?

And I'd be more open to the explanation that war is Hell and this is collateral damage if the troops acted remorseful for shooting children. If they said, "Oh Jesus we shot kids," I wouldn't think nearly so bad of it.

No, in a prior post I said they should have called in a QRF with the close proximity of civilians. And chances are those guys were just posturing, I'm certain they cry like little girls every time they drink too much because of what they've done. You have to act callous over there when stuff like that happens or it eats you up and you end up shooting yourself. There's a reason why we have a high suicide rate over there.

I'm smart though right

Golden, you're a brilliant, beautiful little girl.

[OpalClock]

You guys really have no idea how operations work, its like listening to a bunch of elementary students arguing over the collapse of the economy. You have about 1 part of 10 of the over all picture and you're attempting to draw conclusions. Apache pilots do not have 1280x800 monitors, they have tiny lcd screens. And unlike video games, you cannot see rounds being fired unless they're really really big.

If they can't see that well then why did they say that the "insurgents" were firing. It was the apache pilots that drew the conclusion that it was an rpg, and said that the insurgents were firing. The ground forces didn't report fire, but they still gave the permission to engage.
 
Actually, if they can't see, then why are they calling the shots, or firing at all? In this CNN video analysis , a retired U.S. military brigadier general comments that the zooming lense is very high powered and their equipment is designed for high precision viewing. Doesn't the best military in the world have the best equipment?
 
They drew conclusions, and happened to be wrong is all anyone is saying. The fact that they were dicks about it didn't help, and neither did the military lying.
 
I completely understand your point about the stresses of duty, and how different things are in real combat.
 
Also,
 
"I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about"
 
Haven't you played call of duty? Of course you know what you're talking about average citizen!

[RabidClock]

If they can't see that well then why did they say that the "insurgents" were firing. It was the apache pilots that drew the conclusion that it was an rpg, and said that the insurgents were firing. The ground forces didn't report fire, but they still gave the permission to engage.
 
Actually, if they can't see, then why are they calling the shots, or firing at all? In this CNN video analysis , a retired U.S. military brigadier general comments that the zooming lense is very high powered and their equipment is designed for high precision viewing. Doesn't the best military in the world have the best equipment?
 
They drew conclusions, and happened to be wrong is all anyone is saying. The fact that they were dicks about it didn't help, and neither did the military lying.
 
I completely understand your point about the stresses of duty, and how different things are in real combat.
 
Also,
 
"I admit I have no idea what I'm talking about"
 
Haven't you played call of duty? Of course you know what you're talking about average citizen!

OK, well they saw a group of guys with RPGs and AK47s, and saw a guy peek around a corner at an oncoming patrol with a large object pointed at them. Your one of two people keeping an Apache helicopter in the air, and if you wait too long 8 of your people could easily die. What do you do? I personally would have called in a QRF to check it out because thats what you do these days. I don't know if they even had a QRF in that area since it was a COP and not a FOB.

I should also say that the evolution of use of deadly force has dramatically changed since 2007 specifically for reasons such as this.

[buttplug]

You guys really have no idea how operations work, its like listening to a bunch of elementary students arguing over the collapse of the economy. You have about 1 part of 10 of the over all picture and you're attempting to draw conclusions. Apache pilots do not have 1280x800 monitors, they have tiny lcd screens. And unlike video games, you cannot see rounds being fired unless they're really really big.

Would you rather have us sit here passively instead of have a discussion about it? If even MORE people started to just ignore what they don't understand, I  wouldn't even want to live in this world.

[RabidClock]

Firing into a crowd of people who might or might not have weapons because you might or might not be in danger seems like a way to take a possibility of people dying and turn it into a sure thing.

They did have weapons, there is no might about it.

[Roman Collar Clock]

I should also say that the evolution of use of deadly force has dramatically changed since 2007 specifically for reasons such as this.

The big thing they're stressing right now is "positive identification" for every shot.  They have to either demonstrate hostile intent or commit a hostile act against you.  So pretty much you have to wait until they point a weapon before you shoot em.  Your whole squad also has to write up a sworn statement every time you get attacked, so everybody's scared of getting charged for shooting back.  Technically, you're supposed to write up a statement every time you fire off a pin flare, so they're pretty anal about any kind of EOF.  

So yeah they pretty much have us by the balls.  Most of the time if a convoy gets hit, they just push through and maybe shoot back if they have the opportunity.  Then they let QRF (or whoever shows up) handle it if they ever get there on time.  

The desert cowboy era is over, to put it bluntly.

[Roman Collar Clock]

In other words, they gambled with other peoples' lives in order to keep from risking their own. And that should not be our policy.

I haven't heard of a modern war without high civilian casualties.  Unfortunately, there's only so much you can do to minimize it.  Yes, I agree that it was a shitty thing that a bunch of civilians got killed, and that they should have just called in QRF to handle it, but non combatants are going to get caught up in the fighting no matter what.  Right now we can get away with being slow to react because the insurgency is running out of firepower and we've got better armor, but if we were like that around 2003-05, we'd have more casualties on our side.

Right now we're just nit picking at details.  Overall, our policy should be not getting involved in unnecessary wars.

[RabidClock]

If we had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

What thread are you posting in? The 8 guys that got shot up by the helicopters did have weapons and they were positively identified. It just so happened that two of the people were reporters in the group. Reporters cover both sides of the war, if they're interviewing insurgents then obviously they know they're at high risk.

[Roman Collar Clock]

The point is that there's more we can do, and more we should do.

That's a shitty defeatist attitude and I think that basing a policy off of it is what allows us to be apathetic about rampant slaughter.

Just for the record, I'm writing this just to give people a clear picture of what's going on, not because I support the war.

That video was shot in 2007.  It's now 2010, and I can guarantee you that shit doesn't fly anymore.  Personally, our squad has been attacked a couple of times while on mission, and we've yet to return fire because we couldn't identify the bad guys, and randomly spraying machine gun fire might kill innocents.  Like I said before, you have to meticulously document every action you take.  If you shoot a flare or shine a laser pen at a vehicle because it won't stop, you have to write up a report about it.  Hell, if you shine a laser pen at somebody without just cause, you can get demoted for it!  Most soldiers today are scared shitless of doing almost anything because of how hard they crack down on us, so the thought of our guys mowing down innocent civilians is almost laughable.  

 

Soldiers who signed up to fight a war are a more acceptable casualty than bystanders who did not. There is no two ways about it.

Yes our soldiers should be given the best tools, intel, supplies, care, and training available. But that should be because their job is very hard and involves a huge amount of risk.

If a hundred thousand uninvolved American civilians (more than thirty times what happened at 9/11, mind you) had died in this war, we would be outraged, the outcry would be tremendous, there would be massive change in policy reflecting it, people at the top level of our government might lose elections over it; shit would get done. But with Iraqi civilians, you just get a shitload of third-page news reports and "well there's only so much you can do" and it's utter crap.

You'd rather see me die than an Iraqi?  That's pretty harsh.  I'd rather none of us die by not having a war in the first place.

Remember, I don't support the war anymore than you do.  I'm saying it's impossible to prevent all civilian casualties in a war.  Yes you can rightfully reduce it (as I explained above), but you're not going to have a war where 100% of the deaths are combatants from both sides.  Still, what difference does it make to you in the big picture?  If all the deaths in this war were only American troops and insurgents, would you still support our presence here?

You apparently didn't watch the video, because they quite clearly had their sights on the guy holding the camera and incorrectly identified him as holding a weapon, and used that as their basis for the final judgment call before opening fire on the whole crowd. That weapons were found near the other people later is utterly irrelevant and has nothing to do with the fact that they decided to fire on a crowd because they saw a guy holding a camera.

I just wanna throw something else out there.  One of the insurgents' oldest tactics is filming attacks and selling them to Al-Jazeera, which gives them cash and propaganda.  It seems mighty coincidental that somebody decided to film some helicopters when there happened to be weapons nearby that could shoot down said helicopters.

The more you know.

[ToyotaClock]

I love how people can identify a troll almost immediately and still feed him for multiple pages

[OpalClock]

I love how people can identify a troll almost immediately and still feed him for multiple pages

Yeah only kiddie diddler PEDOPHILES use italicizes for emphasis. Real men use .

[Topcatyo]

If only they did this...