Esuric:They are murderers who wanted to kill something, and they did.
Like a large part of the military.
Time refers to the time in the video.
At about 3:17, the crosshairs go over "Saeed w/ Camera" and you can hear one of the soldiers say "I don't if that's a..." I'd venture a guess and say that he meant "I don't know if that's a weapon." Of course, that part is not subtitled.
At about 3:19, the crosshairs go over "Namir w/ Camera" and one of the soldiers says "that's a weapon." From the angle of the camera, it's not clear what Namir is carrying, all that is clear is that he has something slung over his shoulder.
At 3:39 the crosshairs pan over to another man who is identifiably carrying some sort of rifle-looking object and conversing with two men a few feet behind Saeed and Namir. I shall name him "Man 1" for the purpose of this discussion.
At 3:43, it appears that the man to the right of the man carrying the rifle-looking object is also carrying some kind of rifle.
At 3:45, it appears that Man 1 is actually carrying an RPG.
At 4:11, someone peers out along the wall with something poking out. In retrospect, I'm sure we all agree that it looks like a camera. But if you were a soldier expecting insurgents, and after you saw several of them carry actual weapons, would you have guessed that the man in your crosshairs was actually a photojournalist? Probably not.
At 4:47, at least one of the men is clearly carrying some sort of rifle-looking object and all of the men are crowded behind a corner.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: If you watch the video, you'll notice that you can't really see what is slung over the men's shoulders because of the camera angle, so really all that you can tell is that something is slung over their shoulders. And three of them have something slung over their shoulders.
If you watch the video, you'll notice that you can't really see what is slung over the men's shoulders because of the camera angle, so really all that you can tell is that something is slung over their shoulders. And three of them have something slung over their shoulders.
Have you ever held a rifle, or seen someone hold a rifle? Even at a distance, those are obviously not rifles. However, one of them did have an AK-47 according to the Huffington Post, but it was not the man holding the camera. In any case, what about the rest of what you quoted? Whether or not they had an AK-47 is the least of it.
Yes, I'm sure 20 year olds who maybe have had some experience in poorly-trained conscript armies are very tactically efficient. And I'm also positive that everyone expects those same 20 year olds to walk around in tactically-efficient formation when they do not believe they're being watched.
I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure what age has to do with anything, or even that all of them are the same age, in any case. These are the same Iraqi insurgents who are able to snipe U.S. soldiers on convoys from long ranges, and consistently hit unarmed areas, such as where the vest is buckled on the flank of your torso, or under the armpit. The same Iraqi insurgents who are able ambush convoys and blow up entire trucks of IP without the convoy knowing what hit them.
These are not senseless child soldiers. They may not be professional soldiers, but they are not stupid either.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that every other military in the world sucks. I'm sure the Republican Guard was a force to reckon with despite poor equipment and that many other countries we might soon be at war with (e.g. DPRK and Iran) have superior professional armies. That said, nobody can expect the conscript portions of their militaries to be tactically proficient, much less a bunch of young insurgents with little or no formal or even informal military training.
Then I'm not sure you can really pass judgment on what an untrained or trained soldier is, and how they differ. It just doesn't seem that you really know what you're talking about.
Also, assuming that I have not researched this subject now or before is not only wrong, but also extremely presumptuous on your part.
But it's showing that it's true.
A good way to ignore what I was saying which was that it was difficult if not outright impossible to determine that they were carrying cameras.
Sorry, I misread what you wrote. Like I said before, while I can give the benefit of the doubt for the opening scenes, there was no excuse for accusing a wounded man crawling to the side of the street of having an RPG in the hand he was using to pull himself.
I watched the whole 19 minutes twice, actually.
Well, it seems you should re-watch it.
I never claimed that anyone did open fire on the helicopter. It looks like you misread what I said. Try again.
You said:
Someone tries to kill you, you injure them,
Nobody tried to kill the people in the helicopter, so your analogy doesn't apply.
What he saw was men with things slung over their shoulders.
That's what he told control he saw. Given the little experience I have with the armed forces, and from what I know from research that I've done throughout these past years, I am not really willing to believe him. Those targets are easily distinguishable, and you are still ignoring the fact that all personnel who are trained gunners have to be able to distinguish between civilians, IPs and insurgents.
Otherwise, there would be no use for the military to consistently train soldiers in distinguishing between targets, because no pilot would be able to to do besides their training.
I don't know if you have some kind of 4D vision or something that you can see what people are carrying behind their backs, but clearly the gunner and I are just human beings.
What? "Behind their back?" What are you talking about?
When the gunner said he saw people with weapons, the camera was pointed at people with things slung over their shoulders walking towards the camera POV. It really is impossible to tell.
No, there is a noticeable difference between an assault rifle and a camera. The only time the gunner was justified is when he mistook the zoom lense for an RPG, but then the helicopter rotated around the building so the gunner lost justification.
The website is down now so I can't double check, but from what I recall, the gunner was almost daring the "insurgent" to grab a weapon, since he wanted to end the ordeal and shoot him.
The gunner told control the man had an RPG.
But he ultimately did not shoot because he could not make out the insurgent going for any weapon. That's why he ultimately asked for permission to "disable the vehicle" when the "insurgent" was being carried into the van.
He did shoot. He killed all three men. Then they shot up the van.
krazy kaju: Really? If ROE is "rules of engagement" what is TOE?
Really? If ROE is "rules of engagement" what is TOE?
Terms of Engagement.
Esuric: krazy kaju:Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. Insurgents, you know, fire at enemy helicopters, or at least take cover when they spot enemy helicopters. Any moron could tell that they were not insurgents. So please, stop apologizing for them. They are murderers who wanted to kill something, and they did.
krazy kaju:Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other.
Insurgents, you know, fire at enemy helicopters, or at least take cover when they spot enemy helicopters. Any moron could tell that they were not insurgents. So please, stop apologizing for them. They are murderers who wanted to kill something, and they did.
I've never been to war, but I know a few folks who fought in Gulf War I and supposedly the Apache helicopter is very hard to see/hear. Supposedly many Iraqi soldiers wouldn't notice an Apache until it was already firing on them during Gulf War I.
The libertarian and anti-war movements would do best to distance itself away from conspiratorial hacks like Arianna Huffington.
krazy kaju: The libertarian and anti-war movements would do best to distance itself away from conspiratorial hacks like Arianna Huffington.
The fact that the military outright lied about what occurred is reason to believe otherwise. Had this been an honest mistake there was no reason for the military to cover it up by claiming there was a firefight in the area and civilians were caught in the crossfire.
This is no conspiracy theory. it's a fact.
During a Monday appearance on MSNBC'sDylan Ratigan Show, a retired intelligence officer claimed that U.S. forces violated the military's Rules of Engagement in events depicted by a video released by whistleblower site WikiLeaks, which allegedly shows the murder of civilians and journalists in New Baghdad, Iraq. The Pentagon maintains that no crime was committed and no investigation will be carried out. In the video, U.S. military personnel apparently mistook the cameras slung over the backs of two Reuters journalists for weapons when they opened fire on them and a group of people on July 12, 2007. The video purportedly shows the deaths of Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22 and Saeed Chmagh, 40, along with six other people on a street corner. It also shows US forces firing on a minivan in which two injured children were found. "The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured," Wikileaks states. Story continues below... "You can see, in this case we really have unique material that shows how modern aerial warfare is done," WikiLeaks' co-founder Julian Assange said, appearing on MSNBC. "Hasn't been revealed before. It also shows the debasement and moral corruption of soldiers as a result of war. It seems like they are playing video games with people's lives." Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who joined Assange on the program, said that based on what he saw in the video, it appeared to be a violation of the military's Rules of Engagement. "First rule is, you may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary," he said. "Minimum force is necessary. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer is, 'How can we take these guys and capture them?' We don't want to kill people arbitrarily; we want the intel take. "Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded, do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. So, the wound part of that I find disturbing, being that you clearly have people down, you have people on the way there. Speaking as an intelligence officer, my intent is to capture people, to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not really doing that, you're not really doing precise combat." Salon writer Glenn Greenwald, who also appeared on MSNBC to discuss the leaked video, later wrote that the footage " is truly gruesome and difficult even for the most hardened person to watch, but it should be viewed by everyone with responsibility for what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., every American citizen)."
The Pentagon maintains that no crime was committed and no investigation will be carried out.
In the video, U.S. military personnel apparently mistook the cameras slung over the backs of two Reuters journalists for weapons when they opened fire on them and a group of people on July 12, 2007.
The video purportedly shows the deaths of Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22 and Saeed Chmagh, 40, along with six other people on a street corner. It also shows US forces firing on a minivan in which two injured children were found.
"The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured," Wikileaks states.
"You can see, in this case we really have unique material that shows how modern aerial warfare is done," WikiLeaks' co-founder Julian Assange said, appearing on MSNBC. "Hasn't been revealed before. It also shows the debasement and moral corruption of soldiers as a result of war. It seems like they are playing video games with people's lives."
Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who joined Assange on the program, said that based on what he saw in the video, it appeared to be a violation of the military's Rules of Engagement.
"First rule is, you may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary," he said. "Minimum force is necessary. If you see eight armed men, the first thing I would think as an intelligence officer is, 'How can we take these guys and capture them?' We don't want to kill people arbitrarily; we want the intel take.
"Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded, do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. So, the wound part of that I find disturbing, being that you clearly have people down, you have people on the way there. Speaking as an intelligence officer, my intent is to capture people, to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not really doing that, you're not really doing precise combat."
Salon writer Glenn Greenwald, who also appeared on MSNBC to discuss the leaked video, later wrote that the footage " is truly gruesome and difficult even for the most hardened person to watch, but it should be viewed by everyone with responsibility for what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., every American citizen)."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/ret-intel-officer-us-shooting-violated-rules/
It looks like the military was in the wrong here. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a story here just because it seems so unbelievable, because, as Jonathan M.F Catalan mentioned, if this was just a mistake the military had no reason to cover it up.
The "unedited" version of the video:
In the first 1:30 someone says that there is a group of people with at least one of them having a weapon.
At 1:45 one of the guys seems to say "That's a weapon?" to which the other responds "Yeah." Listen to the intonation of the voice. It seems like he's asking a "passive question," if you will.
Also, these men are carrying *something* slung over their shoulders. Since the viewer sees the front of the men, not the back, you CANNOT distinguish what they are carrying. The man is told it's a weapon.
At 2:05 the crosshairs come close to another individual, who definitely is carrying a weapon. At 2:07 I thought the man to his right might have been carrying a weapon, but upon reflection it seems much too light to be anything significant.
At 2:28 the man with the weapon walks behind the building.
At 2:35 you see a man sticking his head out around the corner with something sticking out. This could be a camera. The guys in the chopper believe it's an RPG getting ready to fire.
There's multiple voices over the intercom so it's difficult to tell who's saying what.
At 3:13 you can see the group of men crowded behind a corner. I can't make out any weapons now. Then they get shot.
6:16 "Roger we'll cease fire."
6:18 "Yeah we won't shoot anymore."
6:27 "Maybe he's got a weapon down in his hands?"
6:28 "No I haven't seen one yet."
Around 7:00 "C'mon buddy... all you gotta do is pick up a weapon."
7:25 "If we see a weapon we're gonna engage."
7:45 A man is helping the injured guy up as a van pulls up. The soldiers suspect it's somebody who wants to pick up "bodies and weapons." The soldiers ask for permission to engage (7:49). Another man comes to help.
7:53 "Can I shoot?"
7:58 "Request permission to engage."
7:59 "Picking up the wounded?"
8:01 "Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage."
Next couple seconds you see the two men pick up the injured guy and begin to move him into the van.
At 8:30-ish they get permission to engage the "Bongo truck" from "Bushmaster Seven" - some sort of superior? So they end up shooting the van and the men who run away from it.
11:38 someone else (someone on the ground?) says over the intercom "be advised, there were some guys popping out with AKs behind that dirt pile." Also mentions getting fired at with RPGs.
14:04 a tank comes in
15:55-ish one of the guys in the chopper mentions that they believed that there was a guy "with an RPG cropping out the corner" (see 2:45)
17:17 "Eleven Iraqi KIAs, one small child wounded."
Everyone talking about driving over bodies, at 19:01 the gunner says "maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like [the Bradley drove over the body of an Iraqi]"
19:20 One of the troops says: "I got one individual looks like he's got an RPG round laying underneath him."
31:36 They follow another man with an AK
Around 33:00 Someone asks about an RPG round and whether it's still live. Seems to be referring to 19:20 "RPG round laying underneath him."
At 34:48 they put a missile into a building where the man with the AK went
By the way, my training included being told that it was illegal for us to fire on wounded personnel and personnel in full-fledge retreat. That is one of three main problems. Like I keep saying, the other two are:
krazy kaju:Rewatch the video and try to put yourself in the boots of the guys in the chopper.
Which ones were in the chopper? Were they the ones who sounded completely out of danger, even jovial, while they said things like, "Come on, let me shoot!" Or were they the ones who were laughing about Namir's body getting run over by a tank?
Please refresh my memory.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Remember guys, the video camera that is recording and the actual lens of the the pilots are different. Different in the sense that the lens in the helicopter is much clearer....Hopefully they were struck with adrenalin rather than murderous intent.
gocrew: krazy kaju:Rewatch the video and try to put yourself in the boots of the guys in the chopper. Which ones were in the chopper? Were they the ones who sounded completely out of danger, even jovial, while they said things like, "Come on, let me shoot!" Or were they the ones who were laughing about Namir's body getting run over by a tank? Please refresh my memory.
That's exactly the way I saw it. They weren't actually under-fire. They were all in a hissy fit when they were just watching civilians. Even before they really were under-fire they said that they were being attacked so they could have the opportunity to shoot. So wouldn't that implicate the military men?
I wish there were more focus on the overall bad aspects of the war effort. Even if this is as bad as it looks its still just one isolated incident. It would be easy for pro-war people to say "Well I don't support mindless killing. Those people should be court marshaled!" (and they probably will be no?) "But I think overall the war is a good thing"
So bring in the overall statistics! What % of ppl dead are innocent? How many more have died from the collapse in infrastructure (health), how far back is the country set? What are the projected total costs for this fiasco?^More important, less emotional = strongest argument
Whenever you hear about a group of insurgents being killed on the news this is the sort of thing that should come to mind.
So I watched the entire 39 minute video, and apparently one of the dead guys was laying over a possibly live RPG round, which would imply that there was an RPG there. You can see my notes here. The video directly contradicts what several of you have been saying (e.g. lying in order to shoot an injured person; they waited till they got permission to engage when the injured guy was being picked up by the van).
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: The ROE says that you cannot open fire unless they open fire on you, but whoever was confirming their order to open fire didn't seem to consider that, so maybe that's not a rule for helicopters.
The ROE says that you cannot open fire unless they open fire on you, but whoever was confirming their order to open fire didn't seem to consider that, so maybe that's not a rule for helicopters.
That is not the case."By the third tour, if they were carrying a shovel or bag, we could shoot them. So we carried these tools and weapons in our vehicles, so we could toss them on civilians when we shot them. This was commonly encouraged."Washburn explained that his ROE changed "a lot"."The higher the threat level, the more viciously we were told to respond. We had towns that were deemed 'free fire zones'. One time there was a mayor of a town near Haditha that got shot up. We were shown this as an example because there was a nice tight shot group on the windshield, and told that was a good job, that was what Marines were supposed to do. And that was the mayor of the town."Jason Wayne Lemue is a Marine who served three tours in Iraq."My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved', that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion nearly five years ago.Lemue continued, "After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel, or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew [meant the people] were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us."http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8354
Snowflake:Those people should be court marshaled!" (and they probably will be no?)
Don't be naive.What you see is a daily occurrence.
Snowflake:So bring in the overall statistics! What % of ppl dead are innocent?
Define innocent.
Marko:Don't be naive.What you see is a daily occurrence.
Marko:Define innocent.
Snowflake: Prove it. This argument will be much more productive than "hey did you see that one time that one group of guys were jerks maybe. Lets argue about that"
Prove it. This argument will be much more productive than "hey did you see that one time that one group of guys were jerks maybe. Lets argue about that"
And what would you deem proof enough?
Snowflake: idk... noncombatants... children. Metaphysically pure... you know what I'm getting at.
idk... noncombatants... children. Metaphysically pure... you know what I'm getting at.
So what are the combatants guilty of?
Link of interest: Iraq Body Count Project
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
krazy kaju:So I watched the entire 39 minute video, and apparently one of the dead guys was laying over a possibly live RPG round, which would imply that there was an RPG there. You can see my notes here. The video directly contradicts what several of you have been saying (e.g. lying in order to shoot an injured person; they waited till they got permission to engage when the injured guy was being picked up by the van).
I don't understand your position. This is what we all saw: A few guys were walking in the streets with cameras on their shoulders. Two U.S. helicopters saw them, and began to fire until all were dead. They (a) didn't ask any questions (they immediately requested permission to "engage"), and (b) gleefully cheered as they mowed down the crowd. Those who survived the initial "engagement," to use their terminology, crawled for their dear lives, and were shot upon once more. Then, a van came along with two men who were clearly unarmed, and which tried to rescue those that showed any signs of life. They were also fired upon repeatedly. So is your argument basically, "wrong place, wrong time," or that all is justified during war?
Those who wish to "serve their country" need to watch this video.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Marko:And what would you deem proof enough?
Marko:So what are the combatants guilty of?
Snowflake:You could just try. I don't want you to throw statistics at me because I already basically believe that the war is bull, but I'm saying that my approach is a more effective anti war strategy.
I don't think Marko cares about "effective anti war strategies." I think he opposes murder, undeclared wars of aggression, and things of that nature. Either way, appeals to emotion are quite effective. Also, what do you mean by "basically believe that the war is bull?"
Esuric: I don't understand your position. This is what we all saw: A few guys were walking in the streets with cameras on their shoulders. Two U.S. helicopters saw them, and began to fire until all were dead. They (a) didn't ask any questions, and (b) gleefully cheered as they mowed down the crowd. Those who survived the initial "engagement," to use their terminology, crawled for their dear lives, and were shot upon once more. Then, a van came along with two men who were clearly unarmed, and which tried to rescue those that showed any signs of life. They were also fired upon repeatedly. So is your argument basically, "wrong place, wrong time," or that all is justified during war?
I don't understand your position. This is what we all saw: A few guys were walking in the streets with cameras on their shoulders. Two U.S. helicopters saw them, and began to fire until all were dead. They (a) didn't ask any questions, and (b) gleefully cheered as they mowed down the crowd. Those who survived the initial "engagement," to use their terminology, crawled for their dear lives, and were shot upon once more. Then, a van came along with two men who were clearly unarmed, and which tried to rescue those that showed any signs of life. They were also fired upon repeatedly.
So is your argument basically, "wrong place, wrong time," or that all is justified during war?
You're trying really hard to straw man me and I know it's intentional. Either that or you clearly didn't read one of my posts that you quoted before in this thread.
My position is that these weren't intentional killings of civilians. First of all, at least one of the guys in the group of young men was carrying a weapon. Even the video states "some of the men appear to have been armed." If you watch the full 39-minute video, it appears that one of the dead guys was on top of a live RPG round. Anyone wanna tell me how that got there? Anyway, then the gunner engaged the "Bongo truck" and the men trying to help the injured guy into the truck, but only after he received permission to engage from a superior. I honestly doubt it's against the rules of engagement to stop someone from aiding an insurgent in escaping from US forces.
So my point was that this isn't the huge deal it's made up to be. The left is trying to use this as some damning piece of evidence against our military occupation in Iraq. It isn't. Let's stick to the facts. We shouldn't be trying to nation-build and we shouldn't be occupying other countries for many reasons. We don't need to be inventing stories about soldiers with such bloodlust that they purposefully lie in order to kill dozens of people. Attacking people doesn't convince anyone. Being negative doesn't convince anyone. Spreading a positive message does.
Just for all to see. I hate it when people straw man.
Esuric quoting my position in a post of his:
A clear-cut straw man:
Esuric: krazy kaju:So I watched the entire 39 minute video, and apparently one of the dead guys was laying over a possibly live RPG round, which would imply that there was an RPG there. You can see my notes here. The video directly contradicts what several of you have been saying (e.g. lying in order to shoot an injured person; they waited till they got permission to engage when the injured guy was being picked up by the van). I don't understand your position. This is what we all saw: A few guys were walking in the streets with cameras on their shoulders. Two U.S. helicopters saw them, and began to fire until all were dead. They (a) didn't ask any questions (they immediately requested permission to "engage"), and (b) gleefully cheered as they mowed down the crowd. Those who survived the initial "engagement," to use their terminology, crawled for their dear lives, and were shot upon once more. Then, a van came along with two men who were clearly unarmed, and which tried to rescue those that showed any signs of life. They were also fired upon repeatedly. So is your argument basically, "wrong place, wrong time," or that all is justified during war? Those who wish to "serve their country" need to watch this video.
(my emphasis added)
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The gunner told control the man had an RPG.
You wanna bet money on it? Here's the transcript:
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Have you ever held a rifle, or seen someone hold a rifle?
Buddy, I'm from Michigan.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Even at a distance, those are obviously not rifles. However, one of them did have an AK-47 according to the Huffington Post, but it was not the man holding the camera. In any case, what about the rest of what you quoted? Whether or not they had an AK-47 is the least of it.
Huffington Post said there was one AK-47. The video stated in the very beginning that "some of the men appear to have been armed." Later on in the uncut video (18:56) one of the soldiers on the ground says that one of the dead guys the chopper shot is laying on top of a live RPG round. At 32:33, Bushmaster Six (a superior) asks "has that RPG round extended already or is it still live, over," to which the soldier responds "looks live to me" (32:38). Now I might be missing something major here, but I'm wondering how an innocent civilian ended up with a live RPG round under his body.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:These are the same Iraqi insurgents who are able to snipe U.S. soldiers on convoys from long ranges, and consistently hit unarmed areas, such as where the vest is buckled on the flank of your torso, or under the armpit.
Are there skilled Iraqi snipers? Yes. Does that mean that all insurgents are tactically proficient? No. Insurgent snipers are a pretty bad example, BTW. They often miss completely and their only claim to fame are a few poorly manufactured propaganda films that are distributed in Bagdhad and elsewhere.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The same Iraqi insurgents who are able ambush convoys and blow up entire trucks of IP without the convoy knowing what hit them.
Having someone skilled at bomb-making build you an IED doesn't make you a skilled soldier.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Nobody tried to kill the people in the helicopter, so your analogy doesn't apply
Say you're in the armed forces and you're into the whole brotherhood thing. Will you let someone who will heal and come back to kill US troops get away?
My god.
Tears came to my eyes. What a horror.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
krazy kaju: I doubt it's illegal to kill someone who is escorting injured insurgents (not soldiers) out of a war zone. The guys in the chopper had to receive permission from some kind of CO before firing.
I doubt it's illegal to kill someone who is escorting injured insurgents (not soldiers) out of a war zone. The guys in the chopper had to receive permission from some kind of CO before firing.
So lets say that it is legal, what does that matter? We are libertarians. Is it ethical/legitimate to shoot at "insurgents" (Pentagon newspeak for resistance fighters) to begin with?
krazy kaju:You're trying really hard to straw man me and I know it's intentional.
If you don't want to answer my question then don't. But please stop bullshitting about your position, and don't get hostile when I ask you a simple question. You're apologizing for the state, and talking about meaningless rules of engagement, which are just empty decrees. I don't give a damn about the rules of "engagement." That was a massacre, plain and simple.
I'm a libertarian. I don't accept state authority, and its arbitrary decrees.
Marko:So lets say that it is legal, what does that matter? We are libertarians. Is it ethical/legitimate to shoot at "insurgents" (Pentagon newspeak for resistance fighters) to begin with?
The way you frame the question: It depends. Many of these "resistance fighters" invade the property rights of others, so I can definitely see times where it would be legitimate to kill them.
That said, I believe the war in Iraq is unjust and that the entire government of the United States is not only inefficient, but immoral too. But that doesn't mean that I can go around making up whatever I want to in order to bring down the US government. Lying is counterproductive. That's why I won't be crying over "civilian" deaths when one of the "civilians" dies on top of a live RPG round.
Esuric: krazy kaju:You're trying really hard to straw man me and I know it's intentional. If you don't want to answer my question then don't. But please stop bullshitting about your position, and don't get hostile when I ask you a simple question. You're apologizing for the state, and talking about meaningless rules of engagement, which are just empty decrees. I don't give a damn about the rules of "engagement."
If you don't want to answer my question then don't. But please stop bullshitting about your position, and don't get hostile when I ask you a simple question. You're apologizing for the state, and talking about meaningless rules of engagement, which are just empty decrees. I don't give a damn about the rules of "engagement."
Look who's bullshitting now. You either already knew my position or you didn't read what you quoted? Which is it?
To recap:
(emphasis added)
As you can see from the above, I clearly stated my position. Since you quoted it, I expected you to know what my position was (and is).
krazy kaju:07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
What exactly are you trying to prove here? If I say you're armed, when you're clearly not, do I get to shoot you? The man went straight for the body. He never touched anything but the body, and he was clearly unarmed.
krazy kaju:07:41 Come on, let us shoot!
Yeah, let them shoot!
krazy kaju: Having something slung over your shoulder in a weapon-like fashion, walking in the middle of a road and pointing your fingers around like a military leader apparently giving commands to the other young men around you, and then appearing to take aim at something in a war zone is grounds for taking action, IMHO. But hell, maybe that's just my survival instinct.
Having something slung over your shoulder in a weapon-like fashion, walking in the middle of a road and pointing your fingers around like a military leader apparently giving commands to the other young men around you, and then appearing to take aim at something in a war zone is grounds for taking action, IMHO. But hell, maybe that's just my survival instinct.
krazy kaju: Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. The issue I have with the video and accompanying article is that Huffington and her psuedo-Marxist ilk are turning this into something that it isn't. It wasn't a purposeful killing of photojournalists and children.
Look, I agree with you and you're taking everything out of context. I agree that just shooting someone who happens to be carrying around an AK-47 is being trigger-happy. I agree that property rights were clearly violated. As an anarchist, I believe that the very institution of the US Dept. of "Defense" is immoral. But at the same time, walking around in a war zone is stupid to begin with, especially when you have trigger happy insurgents on one hand and trigger happy US soldiers on the other. The issue I have with the video and accompanying article is that Huffington and her psuedo-Marxist ilk are turning this into something that it isn't. It wasn't a purposeful killing of photojournalists and children.
And what makes this a war zone? This isn't a war zone. This is New Baghdad. A suburb that belongs to its inhabitants. The only thing that makes it a war zone is that there is American military driving around. Something they don't have a right to in the first place. Wherever they appear it counts as a war zone. Wherever they are present they behave as if they were on a field of battle.The "stupid" thing was not that they walked around "in a war zone". The "stupid" thing was that they walked around in an area where American occupiers were near by. This is what is stupid because they are mad dogs and kill people.
Esuric:Either way, appeals to emotion are quite effective.
Esuric:Also, what do you mean by "basically believe that the war is bull?"
Personally, when I conceptualize the war I see it in terms of a giant subsidy to the military industrial complex. Imo its a shock to present it this way because most people have no knowledge and therefore no defense against the MIC aspect of it. Though the medical embargo that killed 500,000 people is something too.
krazy kaju: Marko:So lets say that it is legal, what does that matter? We are libertarians. Is it ethical/legitimate to shoot at "insurgents" (Pentagon newspeak for resistance fighters) to begin with? The way you frame the question: It depends. Many of these "resistance fighters" invade the property rights of others, so I can definitely see times where it would be legitimate to kill them.
What defines a resistance fighter is resisting an occupation. Is in the act of fighting the Americans itself any invasion of property rights inherent? Or is it actually perfectly justifiable to be an "insurgent"? (But not justifiable to be an occupier.)
Esuric: krazy kaju:07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons. What exactly are you trying to prove here? If I say you're armed, when you're clearly not, do I get to shoot you? The man went straight for the body. He never touched anything but the body, and he was clearly unarmed.
I'm showing Jonathan that he's wrong about claiming that the gunner shot the unarmed survivor under the pretext that he was reaching for a weapon. The gunner clearly said that he was not going for a gun. They didn't shoot until well after the "bongo truck" arrived because it was picking up the injured guy.
In any case, at that point they were only speculated. They then corrected their statement to this:
Also, note that there were weapons on the bodies nearby. Huffington reported one AK-47. The video stated that several of the men appeared armed. Watching the uncut video, you discover that one of the dead "civilians" was laying on top of a live RPG round. So, clearly, the gunner had to be right when waaaay earlier in the video he stated that he saw an RPG.
Honest question here for those of you who are giving Krazy Kaju a hard time. When you're walking through a bad part of town and a guy asks you for his wallet, do you wait until he's already reached into his pocket before you act? No, you react immediately, whether it be by coughing up, hitting the guy or running as fast as you can. Look, it's all very easy to sit here from your armchair and call this murder, when you've got your life on the line it's a little harder to think clearly, that's just the way we've evolved. Look, you don't get yourself out of these situations by being rational, you listen all these years of evolution and the instincts that have come with it.
Andrew Cain:Tears came to my eyes. What a horror.
Sorry buddy, worse shit happens everyday all of the world. I can tell you some pretty messed up stories that friends of mine have told me from where they've visited. If this really made you cry you should maybe go introduce yourself to the real world.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Marko:What defines a resistance fighter is resisting an occupation. Is in the act of fighting the Americans itself any invasion of property rights inherent? Or is it actually perfectly justifiable to be an "insurgent"? (But not justifiable to be an occupier.)
It's not justifiable to be an occupier. I never disagreed with that statement.
Marko:And what makes this a war zone? This isn't a war zone. This is New Baghdad. A suburb that belongs to its inhabitants. The only thing that makes it a war zone is that there is American military driving around. Something they don't have a right to in the first place. Wherever they appear it counts as a war zone. Wherever they are present they behave as if they were on a field of battle.The "stupid" thing was not that they walked around "in a war zone". The "stupid" thing was that they walked around in an area where American occupiers were near by. This is what is stupid because they are mad dogs and kill people.
1. The insurgents are mad dogs and kill people. These are radical Islamists and Baathists who won't think twice about violating property rights more egregiously than the worst American soldier.
2. The fact that it's a zone where a lot of fighting and killing is going on makes it a war zone. Being a war zone doesn't make New Baghdad unowned by its inhabitants.
3. The people in the video were armed. One of the "civilians" died on top of a live RPG round.
4. I agree that the US doesn't have the right to be in Iraq. That doesn't make this video a useful propaganda tool.
Well I'm eating and then going to bed for the night. Because I'm not a fan of being a broken record, this will be my last post in this thread, unless someone comes up with a new, useful, observation.
But here's the gist of what I've been saying:1. The war in Iraq is unjust for many reasons, but this video is a poor propaganda tool to show that.2. Huffington Post reports that one of these men had an AK. The video itself states that "some of the men appear to have been armed." The uncut version includes an exchange between a soldier on the ground and a superior which reveals to us that one of the "civilians" died on top of a live RPG round. That makes it look plausible that the gunner really did see an RPG before he engaged.3. Implying that troops are bloodthirsty babykillers isn't an effective method of gaining converts to the anti-war or the libertarian movements. We need to focus on other methods that employ positive messages.
krazy kaju: 1. The insurgents are mad dogs and kill people. These are radical Islamists and Baathists who won't think twice about violating property rights more egregiously than the worst American soldier.
The act of resisting an occupation is an act of heroism. No political views preclude one from being a resistance fighter. Also thinking about violating property rights is not a crime.
krazy kaju: 2. The fact that it's a zone where a lot of fighting and killing is going on makes it a war zone. Being a war zone doesn't make New Baghdad unowned by its inhabitants.
Cause and effect. What causes this to become a warzone? It is an act of aggression on the part of the Americans. So they can not hide behind the excuse that it is a war zone. I can not intrude on someone's property and then claim self-defence.