Video US helicopter guns down farmers by GinoBiffaroni

Hey Gino, could you maybe put some kind of warning about the graphic nature of the footage? I'm sure folks are curious but they may not want to see people methodically targeted and murdered on film.

For me, this video shows the fundamental absurdity of "war crimes." I have no doubt that this kind of thing happens all the time in every war. A soldier's job is to destroy people after all, not to empathize or even to mete out justice. They must be able to destroy people without question. You have to do something to most people before they are willing to destroy total strangers. Specifically, their natural empathy must be damaged, compromised, or at least given an "off" switch. Soldiering is not like being a cop. Soldiering requires that you be willing to kill without obvious provocation. If a soldier is only allowed to react to hostility, then that soldier is gonna get killed, like as not.

You and I can look at this video and see that the people on the ground are not in combat, unconcerned by the helicopter until it opens fire; but we don't know what's going on with the men in the helicopter. How many people have they already killed that morning? How many of their comrades have they lost in the last month or week or hour? I have more compassion for these men than to label them war criminals. To my mind, this so-called "war" is the crime, perpetrated on our young men and women by a government that's lost its way.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 8:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Gino, could you maybe put some kind of warning about the graphic nature of the footage? I'm sure folks are curious but they may not want to see people methodically targeted and murdered on film.

For me, this video shows the fundamental absurdity of "war crimes." I have no doubt that this kind of thing happens all the time in every war. A soldier's job is to destroy people after all, not to empathize or even to mete out justice. They must be able to destroy people without question. You have to do something to most people before they are willing to destroy total strangers. Specifically, their natural empathy must be damaged, compromised, or at least given an "off" switch. Soldiering is not like being a cop. Soldiering requires that you be willing to kill without obvious provocation. If a soldier is only allowed to react to hostility, then that soldier is gonna get killed, like as not.

You and I can look at this video and see that the people on the ground are not in combat, unconcerned by the helicopter until it opens fire; but we don't know what's going on with the men in the helicopter. How many people have they already killed that morning? How many of their comrades have they lost in the last month or week or hour? I have more compassion for these men than to label them war criminals. To my mind, this so-called "war" is the crime, perpetrated on our young men and women by a government that's lost its way.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Sorry, I felt the title was warning enough...

as to your points ... sure we can accept the killing of civilians by soldiers. I was once a soldier myself, and to some extent agree with your thoughts... But lets place your points in a different context:

The resistance fighters in Iraq and Afganistan surely can have the same arguements made on their actions, despite the way the US government and media demonizes the fight against the US, do they not deserve the same " compassion " you hold for the US troops, and failing that at the very least respect ? Especially considering it is their country for which they are fighting ?

Hell, for that matter your arguements could be applied to the so called " terrorist " as well.
Could not your definition of soldier apply there as well ?

" They must be able to destroy people without question. You have to do something to most people before they are willing to destroy total strangers. "

" Soldiering requires that you be willing to kill without obvious provocation. "

If it is completely acceptable to gun down farmers in their fields... then people riding the subway is not a far stretch is it ?

Should we consider the family members that those people might have lost, the horrors they may have been exposed to before we pass judgement on their actions ?

The standards of conduct of both sides MUST be the same, if such actions as the video is permisable... then how far down the road does that lead. If one side crosses the line, does it make it alright for the other to as well ?

I believe you and I agree on many points, but extending the arguments leads us down a road with no laws, no accountabilty. Is that really what our society is about, and if so... do we deserve that which we face because of it ?

" We train our young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders will not allow them to write Fuck on their airplanes.....

Because it is obscene... "

Col Kurtz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 8:41 AM

BARNSTORMER

Actually, I believe that this is a video that came out just after the fall of Bahgdad. The "victims" were not farmers, but Iraqi "Fediyeen Saddam" (sp) who were dropping off or gathering up (can't remember which) RPG's for use against coalition troops.

This is old news repackaged as Anti U.S. propaganda.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Actually, I believe that this is a video that came out just after the fall of Bahgdad. The "victims" were not farmers, but Iraqi "Fediyeen Saddam" (sp) who were dropping off or gathering up (can't remember which) RPG's for use against coalition troops.

This is old news repackaged as Anti U.S. propaganda.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

While not a photo intrepetation specialist... I can identify a tractor, a pickup and a 3 ton truck. The two people in the left were definately not carrying weapons ( in this clip anyway )

There is no date stamp, but the when is really irrelavant to the arguements .

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:33 AM

America loves a winner!

Looks like a clean operation to me. No way can anyone tell in that context exactly what those folks are doing, so the claim ' this is a war crime' is ludicrous. They could be terrorist just caught at unawares, or merely attempting to act like civilians... could be a whole list of things. It could be that they shot innocents. Hell, I've seen video where mis communications resulted in the methodical shooting of our own troops. Things happen in war.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:35 AM

Here is some other video and reports that I believe also support my arguements:::

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410A.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress/archives/2004/09/12/us-helicop
ter-murders-children/

The first link has analysis from a former Special Forces Sergeant.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Here is some other video and reports that I believe also support my arguements:::

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410A.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress/archives/2004/09/12/us-helicop
ter-murders-children/

The first link has analysis from a former Special Forces Sergeant.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

Exactly what IS your 'argument'? I checked out the 1st link, it's from a mission in Fallujah. Great shot of a bomb taking out a gang of thugs. I LOVE that one. No 'analysis' though. Maybe you meant another link? 2 vids, no 'war crimes' that I saw.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 9:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Things happen in war.

This is the kind of thing people say who aren't on the receiving end of gunfire.

If they were bad guys, why no 'Down on the ground' announcements? I admit that the circumstances are vague, but blasting the wounded guy on the ground was wrong from any place you want to argue.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just consider that maybe we should behave better than that no matter what the situation.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Here is some other video and reports that I believe also support my arguements:::

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410A.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress/archives/2004/09/12/us-helicop
ter-murders-children/

The first link has analysis from a former Special Forces Sergeant.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

Exactly what IS your 'argument'? I checked out the 1st link, it's from a mission in Fallujah. Great shot of a bomb taking out a gang of thugs. I LOVE that one. No 'analysis' though. Maybe you meant another link? 2 vids, no 'war crimes' that I saw.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Perhaps if you scroll down a little you will find it, but I shall paste it in here :

War Crime

Stan Goff comments: "The “tell” is in the audio.

When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander's stated intent in the operations order. The pilot's exclamation of satisfaction, “Aw dude!” at the end just underlines how this casual sadism comes to dominate the psyches of those who are part of a military occupation force, and how the ground reality become “race war.”"

Stan Goff retired as a Master Sergeant from the US Army in 1996, his last assignment being 3rd Special Forces Group. He entered military service January, 1970, and his first assignment was as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. His service took him to seven more conflict areas after Vietnam, including Guatemala, Grenada, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Somalia, and Haiti. His assignments included 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 7th Special Forces, the Jungle Operations Training Center, and the US Military Academy at West Point, where he taught military science.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Things happen in war.

This is the kind of thing people say who aren't on the receiving end of gunfire.

If they were bad guys, why no 'Down on the ground' announcements? I admit that the circumstances are vague, but blasting the wounded guy on the ground was wrong from any place you want to argue.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just consider that maybe we should behave better than that no matter what the situation.

Chrisisall

Good Point Chris, I would argue that this is the true origin of what is being called " terrorism "

The powers that be try to make all the rules ( to their own benefit ), fight a war on a completely uneven basis ( aircraft, technology ) that the opposition has no means to cope with... Then the powers that be proscute their war effort by anymeans they feel they have to, will if the otherside does the same, they are called " terrorists " and " cowards " for either not giving in, or standing around to be gunned down.

Perhaps the majority of support for the policys of this war, and those which caused it are supported by :

" This is the kind of thing people say who aren't on the receiving end of gunfire. "

and perhaps New York, Washington, and London is the response.

Once you have made the choice not to fight and not bend over and accept things or die

the how becomes the only real question, I think they are simply following the example of Western civilization... and who is really to blame for that ?

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 11:16 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Actually, I believe that this is a video that came out just after the fall of Bahgdad. The "victims" were not farmers, but Iraqi "Fediyeen Saddam" (sp) who were dropping off or gathering up (can't remember which) RPG's for use against coalition troops.

This is old news repackaged as Anti U.S. propaganda.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

Gino,

You can keep spouting this Farmer war crime thing all you want, but remember, your source for this thread used years old video that was released by the US Army just after the fall of Bahgdad showing an operation against Iraqi troops in possession of a load of RPG's (ie Enemy combatants in wartime).

This is no war crime. The explanation given by this newspaper as to the contents of the video are blatantly false. This video was shown on CNN years ago with the correct explanation.

Again, this video is OLD NEWS repackaged by someone else and given a false and nefarious explanation to be used as Anti U.S. Propoganda.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The resistance fighters in Iraq and Afganistan surely can have the same arguements made on their actions, despite the way the US government and media demonizes the fight against the US, do they not deserve the same " compassion " you hold for the US troops, and failing that at the very least respect ? Especially considering it is their country for which they are fighting ?

Of course. In some cases, even more, because we are an invading force and at least some of the folks we're killing over there are defending land their people have held for several centuries.

Quote:
Hell, for that matter your arguements could be applied to the so called " terrorist " as well.
Could not your definition of soldier apply there as well ?

I believe the widescale dehumanization of "the enemy" began with the invention of ariel bombing. 150,000 civilians died in the Dresden firebombings, 50 times the number of people who died on 9/11. We ended the Second World War with an act of terrorism that killed over 100,000 civilians. Back in the day, when you killed a civilian, it was a terrible error. Now it's policy.

Quote:
If it is completely acceptable to gun down farmers in their fields... then people riding the subway is not a far stretch is it ?

Not a far stretch at all, really, is it? But, I never said that gunning down farmers was "completely acceptable," only that it was an unavoidable correlative of war. I don't believe war is "completely acceptable" either, I believe it is thoroughly unacceptable, but there are exceptions. That's why you don't go to war unless they're invading your land, you know, that whole imminent threat thing. The "war on terror" finesses the point because terrorism per se is always an imminent threat. The other problem, of course, is that This "war on terror" has rendered the entire world a battle field and every person on it either "for us or against us."

Quote:
Should we consider the family members that those people might have lost, the horrors they may have been exposed to before we pass judgement on their actions ?

Absolutely. Makes things kinda complicated, don't it?

Quote:
I believe you and I agree on many points, but extending the arguments leads us down a road with no laws, no accountabilty. Is that really what our society is about, and if so... do we deserve that which we face because of it ?

Welcome to the dilemma. In a world where people with sufficient power, wealth and/or public support can avoid the law, is there law?

Quote:
" We train our young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders will not allow them to write Fuck on their airplanes.....

Because it is obscene... "

Col Kurtz

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 12:26 PM

Thank you HK for the interesting conversation,

If more people were willing to engage in open debates about morality, conduct and the consequences of not really having any above board consequences... I think many of the troubles we face could be put to bed in a more reasonable manner.

BTW Barnstormer, we are talking of generalities, the exact incident this footage repersents does'nt really matter, thinks like this have happened, been investigated and justified... no one is screaming for charges to be laid

The debate is more about is it morally right
the people in both videos held no arms, did not return fire... other cases in point have occured such as some of the air attacks on villages in Afganistan that contained " suspected " militants

Vietnam should have taught the world that even with all the force available, you can't win a war without winning over the people of a country, otherwise they just keep fighting and resisting until eventually the price for you to remain simply becomes too high and you go.

The US has always feared accountabilty for their actions ( at least accountability beyond their direct control ) hence the withdraw of support for the ICC ( other people get tried there not Americans ) The lack of respect for the UN. Hell even NATO.

Your politicans want international support, they want countrys like mine to provide troops and money to support your goals... If you have failed to win even us over, how can you expect to win over the enemy whose father was gunned down plowing his field, or who lost a sister to cancers caused by your DU shells, or . Well if I have to go on the point is completely lost anyway.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
Again, this video is OLD NEWS repackaged by someone else and given a false and nefarious explanation to be used as Anti U.S. Propoganda.

BarnStormer, assuming that you are correct, it still works for me as anti-WAR propaganda.

And please remember: Hating war does not = hating the U.S.

Sorry, you know this already Chrisisall

Edited to add: War, like anything else in this country, is a buisness, loaded with corporate- style incompetence. Thing is that in the office, incompetence might cause a package to be late, or a good worker to be fired by mistake, whereas in war incompetence gets innocents killed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 12:56 PM

SIMONWHO

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Back in the day, when you killed a civilian, it was a terrible error. Now it's policy.

Which day was that? Armies have been raping and slaughtering civilians as policy for millenia. It's just recently though that we've been able to do it efficiently.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 3:45 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Looks to me like gino or someone has invented his own backstory to a video that says absolutely nothing. Nothing about this video says that these individuals are farmers in their field or in any way innocent. That’s pure speculation. There's not an ounce of evidence for such a claim.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And please remember: Hating war does not = hating the U.S.

Perhaps. But making up a fictitious back story to a 15 second war footage to accuse the US of war crimes that they didn’t commit very likely does = hating the U.S.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 4:08 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Wow. A lot of footage totally without context, labeled, post action, by folks who have an agenda. Who knows what the real story is? This the best you got?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 5:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Things happen in war.

This is the kind of thing people say who aren't on the receiving end of gunfire.

If they were bad guys, why no 'Down on the ground' announcements? I admit that the circumstances are vague, but blasting the wounded guy on the ground was wrong from any place you want to argue.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, just consider that maybe we should behave better than that no matter what the situation.

Chrisisall

Because 'down on the ground' announcements aren't even used in fighting street gangs in East L.A. ? I don't have all the answers, but Fallujah was a very hot zone of military action. Perhaps anyone not evacuated was 'fair game' by that time. One must look at the context of the war before passing judgement. There was very intense fighting at that time, hard for folks to cherry pick this or that video months, years after the fact and accuratly depeict what is going on.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 5:39 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Here is some other video and reports that I believe also support my arguements:::

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN410A.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1220750,00.html

http://www.bzangygroink.co.uk/wordpress/archives/2004/09/12/us-helicop
ter-murders-children/

The first link has analysis from a former Special Forces Sergeant.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

Exactly what IS your 'argument'? I checked out the 1st link, it's from a mission in Fallujah. Great shot of a bomb taking out a gang of thugs. I LOVE that one. No 'analysis' though. Maybe you meant another link? 2 vids, no 'war crimes' that I saw.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Perhaps if you scroll down a little you will find it, but I shall paste it in here :

War Crime

Stan Goff comments: "The “tell” is in the audio.

When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander's stated intent in the operations order. The pilot's exclamation of satisfaction, “Aw dude!” at the end just underlines how this casual sadism comes to dominate the psyches of those who are part of a military occupation force, and how the ground reality become “race war.”"

Stan Goff retired as a Master Sergeant from the US Army in 1996, his last assignment being 3rd Special Forces Group. He entered military service January, 1970, and his first assignment was as an infantryman with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. His service took him to seven more conflict areas after Vietnam, including Guatemala, Grenada, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Somalia, and Haiti. His assignments included 2nd Ranger Battalion, 1st Ranger Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, 7th Special Forces, the Jungle Operations Training Center, and the US Military Academy at West Point, where he taught military science.

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

Kinda like the sadism of stringing up four burned and mutilated bodies from a bridge, huh? It's real easy to paint things as black or white when you only tell 1 side of the story. And an incomplete version of that story at that.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 5:42 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Good Point Chris, I would argue that this is the true origin of what is being called " terrorism "

The powers that be try to make all the rules ( to their own benefit ), fight a war on a completely uneven basis ( aircraft, technology ) that the opposition has no means to cope with... Then the powers that be proscute their war effort by anymeans they feel they have to, will if the otherside does the same, they are called " terrorists " and " cowards " for either not giving in, or standing around to be gunned down.

Perhaps the majority of support for the policys of this war, and those which caused it are supported by :

" This is the kind of thing people say who aren't on the receiving end of gunfire. "

and perhaps New York, Washington, and London is the response.

Once you have made the choice not to fight and not bend over and accept things or die

the how becomes the only real question, I think they are simply following the example of Western civilization... and who is really to blame for that ?

It's sad that you'd try to elevate the true inhuman terrorist/ street thugs to some sort of hero status just because they're not fighting in military aircraft. You'd better be thankful they aren't. It really sickens me to hear such nonsenses as the crap you spew. Sorry we share the same planet.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Wow. A lot of footage totally without context, labeled, post action, by folks who have an agenda. Who knows what the real story is? This the best you got?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Wow, I don't really feel I have an agenda

Just brought this up for conversation to discuss the ethics and morality ( or lack of it ) when it comes to modern day warfare.

HK and Chris brought up some excellent points concerning just how far a soldier in such a situation can or should go, I rebutted by pointing out if it had of been someone shooting Americans it would have been a " cowardly brutal attack "

SimonWho brought out the point that all wars going back into history have had there share of brutality

Barnstormer keeps saying its old news and propaganda, but that doesn't matter, I am not accusing... just discussing the morality of it all

Finn Mac and Geezer think there is more outside the video clip, and I do agree, but have to add

" Perhaps. But making up a fictitious back story to a 15 second war footage to accuse the US of war crimes that they didn’t commit very likely does = hating the U.S. "

The story may or may not be fictitious, one side may use it to accuse, to other to defend. Not what this is about, and in addition. The website this came from does have an anti war bias, but really, didn't the investigating authority in these incidents have an equal bias ? I'm looking more for definitions and understanding than a fight here. Its not like we have access to interviews, after-action reports, intel summarys, briefing notes, etc.

And finally AURAPTOR, as always finds someone he disagrees with, skips the discussion and arguement stage and goes directly to the personnal attacks

" It really sickens me to hear such nonsenses as the crap you spew. Sorry we share the same planet. "

So I ask the question, since the US blew up a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, does that make every pharmaceutical plant in the US a fair target ?

Since the US blew up a automobile plant in Serbia, does that make every automobile plant plant in the US a fair target ?

Does justified action equal justified reaction

or does unjustified action equal unjustified
reaction

I'm going out of town for a few days, look forward to some well thought out debate when I get back

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 7:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I may be mistaken, but I am fairly sure that an excerpt of this footage was included, without backstory, in the film Ferenheit 911.

I happened to catch that movie on HBO earlier tonight, and I'm pretty sure this footage was there.

There is not enough information in the video clip to make much of a judgement about its contents. It may seem callous, but my first reaction upon seeing the footage was, "I wonder why they don't just destroy the vehicle that the man is hiding behind, rather than waiting for him to poke his head out."

Certainly, there was sufficient firepower available to obliterate the entire vehicle.

Another thought that occurred to me, was that I had no idea that a helicopter could be far enough away to be unheard by these people, and yet be able to perform precision burst fire capable of killing a single individual.

I will give this much of an opinion: I don't think these people were ignoring the helicopter. They didn't appear to be aware of its presence. This speaks well about the technological sophistication of the helicopter in question. It can either target accurately from a great distance away, or travel relatively silently... or both.

I know these aren't the kinds of thoughts or observations that the poster of the footage intended to provoke. But these are the thoughts that I had.

--Anthony

Edit: Upon further reflection of the footage, I feel that the Helicopter gunner probably didn't realize the man was hiding behind the truck until he poked his head out. Perhaps it is a video game mentality that suggests to me that the vehicles should have been obliterated on the off chance that there were targets within or behind them.

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 8:10 PM

" I know these aren't the kinds of thoughts or observations that the poster of the footage intended to provoke. But these are the thoughts that I had.

--Anthony "

I'll agree that the technology is extremely impressive. The M230 30-mm automatic cannon is an extremely accurate trouble free weapon, I suspect that this footage involved the radar equipped D model, and the autorange feature was seeking a return from one of the trucks.

Another point, I live fairly close to an airport with a fair amount of helicopter traffic. I have noticed by sound alone it is hard to track on the exact direction of a helicopter in flight if it is several kilometers away and at altitude. In addition, if there was other sources of noise... tractor or trucks running, perhaps other aircraft in the area, it would be easy to ignore the sound of one helicopter orbiting a distance away.

But hey, based only on info in the clip ( we do not have the full story here, and likely never will, this is only for the purpose of arguement ) Your have a tractor ( as an old farmboy, I'll testify it was a tractor) and two trucks. Three people, two clearly unarmed ( during the clip anyway )

Based only on what was seen, were the actions appropriate ?

Feel free to duck the question if you don't want to get into this debate. Also if you want to throw in anymore observations on aviation technology please, kinda into it myself.

BTW like your signature,

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

kinda fits right in to this topic

When my eloquence escapes you
My logic ties you up and rapes you

http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/the_police/de_do_do_do_de_da_da_da.h
tml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 11, 2005 8:38 PM

JARED

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kinda like the sadism of stringing up four burned and mutilated bodies from a bridge, huh? It's real easy to paint things as black or white when you only tell 1 side of the story.

Care to share your inside information that shows that the people in this video are the ones doing the burning and stringing? Or are you saying that it would be perfectly fine and justified and start blowing up Americans if some of them committed acts of sadism?

Also, are you always just blindly believing what some official military pr guy is saying, no matter if there is evidence or not? Because in that case I am confused. Official sources said there are no American troops in the streets of Baghdad, so what's going on? Or is it just your officials that are shiny beacons of virtue that would never ever tell a single lie while "the others" are automatically evil murderers and liars, most likely possessed by the devil himself?

Talking about black and white worlds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:21 AM

SIMONWHO

I must admit that I watched the video and was horrified. Three probably innocent men just gunned down from a distance. I didn't have so much of a problem with them "finishing off" the third guy as the idea of not killing a wounded man is only applicable under controlled circumstances, i.e. he's down on the ground, has no weapons in reach, you're not under fire.

But when I get presented with something apparently important like this, I don't mind spending a few minutes investigating it a little more thoroughly. And what did I find?

Context. This video was taken on 1 December 2003 in central Iraq a few hundred yards from an American checkpoint. But more importantly, this video was edited and deliberately so as to make the helicopter troops look like random murderers.

Here's the full video:

http://virus.shackspace.com/videos/apache_mission_in_iraq.avi

Now you can see what actually happened. Two men meet, one of them runs into the field and drops what appears to be either a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher. They spot the helicopter, run forward and back, apparently unsure if they should retrieve the launcher or not. Another man driving a tractor arrives and talks to one of the men and then as one of the original pair walks back, he is killed after the copter crew have asked for clearence and waited until it was given. The tractor driver then doesn't try to duck for cover, instead he pulls the cover off the weapon that was dropped (you can see this really clearly even in the edited version). The gunner shoots him before he can ready it. They then shoot, wound then kill the last remaining man.

I know the government has been lying about the war. But we stand no chance of nailing them for any of the lies if evidence is also manufactured in the other direction. Those fake Mirror photos were bad enough (several of which I came across again in this bit of research) but obviously the person who uploaded this video didn't think that their charge of "war crimes" would hold against attacks on those who were obviously guilty so they just cut out the evidence of their guilt.

The helicopter crew did a professional job, by the book and doubtlessly saved lives. Misrepresenting the evidence, even with the best of intentions, is appalling and should be condemned as strongly as possible.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Perhaps anyone not evacuated was 'fair game' by that time. One must look at the context of the war before passing judgement.

Indeed, I posted very quickly on that one. When I heard the comments made by the crew of the helicopter I almost cried at the casual talk going on as they targeted fellow human beings to be ripped to shreds as they walked. Efficiency in war demands dehumanization, and it gets the dander up fast with some.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:09 AM

FOCHT

Hrm...

Okay, I've had the fortune to see these videos within hours of the actual events transpiring. I've seen them whole and unedited as well as their newest truncated versions that made their way around the net once the files managed to worm their ways off the alleyways of the government internet.

Yup. I'm a part of that big, fearful, murdering, lying machine known as the US Government and Armed Services. Fear, tremble, hate!

War. It's nasty. Dirty. People die. They die horribly. They die screaming or without so much as a direct thought into what's happening before their life is snuffed out. Is it fair? Nope. But it's war.

Am I pro-American? Reactive, really. I can go either way. I'm not naive enough to think for an instant that my nation is the holy guiding light in the gorram 'verse for anything, let alone democracy. But, frankly, I don't think there's any better government or nation in the world. All I know is that I'd rather not live /anywhere/ else on the face of the Earth and under any other form of government.

To each their own. Opinions are like a***oles, everyone's got one. Sure. I'll listen to yours but there's nothing in the 'verse that'll make me agree with it just as you wont agree with mine. Not on this particular subject, anyways.

So...Video #1: The infamous 'innocent farmer' incident. Yup. Gunned down. The entire video does show suspected 'insurgents' hiding what appears to be weaponry. Operating on the ROE, the helocopter pilots performed their jobs without hesitation and professionally. Sometimes in war you can't go down and say 'Hey...Uhm...Is that a RPG or AK-47/74 you got there? Yeah? Okay. Stand here a moment, please'.

As for the third 'cold blooded killing'? Yeah. I work with a system that utilizes a DU (Depleted Uranium) projectile and can tell you that that killing was not needed. The man was already dead. The heavy metal would've made sure of that. All they did was kill him more ... humanely. Believe it or not.

I'm still undecided on what the firing aircraft was. The Apache has the single mounted swivel chaingun on the bottom. In the video it seems that there are two streams of tracers, indicating a dual mounted weapon. At least IMO. This, coupled with the fact that that actual video appear recorded at least ten to fifteen feet above the firing source would indicate to me that it was a Kiowa (sp?) scout craft or something similar where the optical suite is located above the rotor. Why didn't we see the rotors? Because the range was that which would enable the camera to peer 'past' them.

I'm also not sure whether or not the rounds were simple DU-inert or a HE-PD/AI round. The way the first man turned into mist would denote HE but the subsequent shots look more like DU-inert.

As for the range, that's also equally undetermined. I'm willing to wager between 2000-4000 meters. The shot angle of the 'source' is severe enough that the gun appears to be 'further' away from the camera than it really is. But the gun shakes a fraction of a second before the first bullets are seen on screen. This tells me that the camera is the source craft and that the range is far enough for the bullets to travel a good distance before coming into view.

Video #2: The street bombing.

Okay. This one's much shorter. I can't remember if the aircraft was identified as a 16, 15, or 18 in the after action report.

Anyways, there's approximately 30-40 people walking down a street in a town that had a telegraphed assault going on. Also, these men know something is up. As you watch them round the corner, they begin to scatter a few seconds prior to the bomb impact.

Now...Fallujah. /Everyone/ knew this assault was happening. Alot of people left. Some innocents didn't. You are in a warzone and you know it.

Also, looking at the reports that came out of this assault late-2003/early-2004, you see documented footage from independent sources that /show/ you the type of 'assault' that was happening there.

You see barefooted teenagers holding rifles, rocket launchersr, etc. Men wearing various degrees of formal and casual wear. They're popping out from behind corners and firing, then hiding, running away in groups, etc.

The enemy is hard to identify in this particular war. How sure am I that those 40-odd folk who were turned into vapor were combatants? About 95% sure. 5% is for the unknown. It's war. Bad stuff happens.

To be fair, someone also said something about the strung up, burned, and torn apart bodies hanging from a bridge? Yeah. What was that, December 2003 or something?

Remember: Everytime you hear the word 'Civilian Contractors' that are killed, 90% of the time these individuals were employees of a trio of main companies in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals are paid roughly 500k for a six month stint overseas as 'Security Consultants'.

That's today's word for MERCENARY.

The bodies hanging from the bridge were those belonging to former Special Forces soldiers who got out of the military and went work for Blackwater, a 'security consultancy' agency in North Carolina.

Is war morally right? Is it ever? It's a debate that can go on for ages. Soldiers are people just like you. We go home at night and contribute to the local economy, see movies, love our families. We just have the unfortunate duty to sometimes to things others would find immoral.

Good news, though, I guess. You learn to switch off your 'human'. This is what is happening in Video #2 when the pilot says 'Aww dude!'. Trust me. He's not happy. He's coping.

Get insight: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/042520040X/qid=112118054
0/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-1780964-8301752?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 - It's a good book called Generation Kill by Evan Wright. Goes into both sides of the political spectrum and the morality of the Iraq War from a very personal point of view to the author, a freelance journalist. It also gives you an insight into the minds of this centuries first combat soldiers.

WARNING: Graphic. Anti-War site but gives you the lowdown on even your /own/ country and the atrocities done by it. Chances are, if your country's not on there, you either don't have cameras or you haven't been in a war for a while. ;) http://www.thenausea.com

Focht

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 5:20 AM

BARNSTORMER

SimonWho,

Thanks for finding that video. It's obvious that this is the same video posted by Gino, just edited to put the worst light on the coalition forces. Editted and attached to a bogus headline meant to make the coalition forces look like "war criminals" instead of the moral, well trained soldiers that they are.

Gino named this thread

"Video US helicopter guns down farmers"

HHmmmm, gee, that doesnt in any way put an anti U.S. slant on the thread does it.

No, Nope, I don't see any bias here. None at all.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 6:28 AM

SIMONWHO

They once did a fascinating experiment at a university lecture. They handed out a drawing to every member of the class then projected this image onto the board:

They then asked the students how old they thought the woman was. Half the class said she was young and pretty, the other half said old and crone-like. The reason was that the half the drawings handed out were a rough sketch of that drawing but made to emphasise the old person, the other half of the drawings made to emphasise the young.

What was fascinating was that when they exchanged the sketches, saw the other half's view, etc, etc, they still mostly saw the sketch the first way they had been introduced to it. I feel confident that a lot of people who watched the deliberately truncated video will feel they saw a war crime or at least an overhasty assault even after seeing the full video.

First impressions last, even when contradicted by later evidence. That's why it's so important to be sure of something major before spreading it around a popular forum (remember all the trouble Static had over that July 29th release date, plus if I have to tell one more person that there's no such thing as bonsai kittens...)

Focht, elsewhere I came across a post from someone claiming they were in the military and they saw the video then later found out that they discovered arms in the back of the truck. Do you know anything on that?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:06 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:

"Based only on what was seen, were the actions appropriate ?"

I can't base things only on what was seen. That would be something of a travesty of justice. You need a context to understand anything.

There was a funny episode of Reno 911 where these officers were chasing a man dressed as a milkshake. He was wearing a big, encapsulating, foam milkshake outfit... a bit like a mascot costume used at ball games. This one was clearly for advertisement purposes.

After chasing the milkshake man for some time, the Reno officers finally caught up with him. They decided for whatever reason that they didn't need to arrest him. They got into a chat with him, and he revealed that the foam on the suit shielded him from the many falls he took during the chase. "You could even hit me with a stick and it wouldn't hurt."

The officers hit him with their clubs, and they all had a jolly laugh that it didn't hurt the foam covered milkshake man. Then the man said goodbye, walked across the street, and was hit by a bus.

The footage on the eight o'clock news was of a bunch of Reno officers beating the crap out of a milkshake mascot, who staggered across the street and was struck by a bus.

It's a comedy. It's rediculous. But it IS a very good lesson on how things can look out of context. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I'm not prepared to cry 'Wolf' every time I see something suspicious, either. You need a context for everything.

Quote:

"Feel free to duck the question if you don't want to get into this debate. Also if you want to throw in anymore observations on aviation technology please, kinda into it myself."

I try not to duck questions, and I try to say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. (see below) I wish I knew more about military aircraft. Those vehicles are darned impressive.

Quote:

"BTW like your signature,

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

kinda fits right in to this topic"

I spent a good deal of time defending the decision to go into Iraq. I defended it on the basis of WMD, which while it may not have been the 'legal' reason for going into Iraq, was certainly the most compelling. 'Ignoring UN resolutions' just doesn't carry the same emotional weight as 'he's got nerve gas and he'll sell it to terrorists.'

Once we found no WMD, I was crestfallen. But I clung to the President's new line that these people had been under an inhumane regime, and now they were free from all that. I posted on this very board defending the Iraq invasion. For even if we were wrong about WMD, we could still turn things into a positive by treating the people of Iraq better than they'd ever been treated before. We could show them what Freedom looked like. Something they may not have craved, because they'd not have known about it... but something they'd appreciate later.

Then we were torturing Iraqis in an old Iraqi torture fortress. Bleh. I gave up on justifying the war at that point.

I also changed my signature. "Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner"

Who can argue with the Captain? We've done some things in the name of Liberty that don't make me feel good as a Human being. Things that were wrong. I just don't believe our presence in Iraq is a positive one, nor do I believe it was done for positive reasons. At least, not positive to the Iraqis. Anything good they get out of this invasion is a side effect, not the mission goal.

So I've changed my stance on Iraq. I'm not particularly glowy about our president. I'm disillusioned.

But that doesn't mean I'll soak in every new illusion presented to me. Even if it supports my new view of things. Context.

Everything has to have context.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:59 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

This thing goes back to that "Core Beliefs" thread we had a few weeks ago. One of mine is "If you've never looked at a man down the sights of an assault rifle with the firm conviction that it's him or you, then you're not qualified to talk about war". I have. It sucks. Civilians just don't understand what it's like knowing that your life could be snatched away at any moment.

In the second place, you'd have to be an absolute fool not to realize that that video has been removed from its context such that it casts the helo crew in the worst possible light. From looking at that video, there's no way to determine the context of the firing, let alone the purpose of that particular sortie.

War is hell. The smell of burning flesh, the screaming, the horror of witnessing violent death, the terror that it might be you next...well, suffice it to say that it's a damned dirty business. I, along with all people (including every military man I ever served with), wish that war would just go away. But it won't. There will always be people willing to use violence to further their own ends. Those people can not be reasoned with, and no amount of prison time will "rehabilitate" them.

People like Zarqawi and his men, who believe that every Muslim has the duty of killing Americans--of any occupation, age, or gender--can only be stopped permanently by ending their life. This is the cold reality of war. To prevent him from killing my comrades and threatening my way of life, the enemy must be killed. The enemy would do the same to me and mine; and believe this: I aim to go on living.

You may not agree with the reasons for the war. You may not even agree with the concept of war itself. But when you demonize the American soldier with preposterous accusations like the one being foisted upon us in this thread, you are setting up our fighting men for a repeat of the treatment they received in Viet Nam. Baseless claims of American atrocities gained widespread acceptance, and when the soldiers came home from the most traumatic experience of their lives, they faced another trauma at the hands of the very countrymen in whose service they'd suffered.

My uncle was a clerk in a forward artillery base in Viet Nam. He saw his best friends die in front of him. He saw the random nature of combat and was left with the question all combat veterans struggle with: "why him and not me?"

When he came home, he flew through San Francisco. As he walked through the airport in his dress uniform, he was spat upon, called "babykiller" and "murderer" and had rotten vegetables thrown at him. When he arrived back in his home town, he discovered that his fiancee had left him because of his involvement in the war. Old friends wouldn't give him the time of day.

My uncle was completely shattered by that war; he hasn't made a friend in 30 years. He suffered the worst trauma a man can face, and when he returned to the country he suffered for, his own people persecuted him because of baseless accusations.

I shudder to think that another generation of young men will return to a country that despises them because of groundless claims of atrocities.

My plea is simply this: if you are against the war in Iraq, then do what your conscience bids you do to oppose it. But please, oppose the politicians who started and sustain the war. Attacking the American soldier might work to turn public opinion against the war. Butit will also scar yet another generation of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are doing what they believe is their duty.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
This thing goes back to that "Core Beliefs" thread we had a few weeks ago. One of mine is "If you've never looked at a man down the sights of an assault rifle with the firm conviction that it's him or you, then you're not qualified to talk about war". I have. It sucks. Civilians just don't understand what it's like knowing that your life could be snatched away at any moment.

Apparently you've never lived in the parts of cities where I lived! Had a gun in hand more than twice, each time with the idea I might have to use it.

Quote:
There will always be people willing to use violence to further their own ends. Those people can not be reasoned with, and no amount of prison time will "rehabilitate" them....

I assume this applies to Bush as well? I mean, violence is violence, and remember- we invaded them, not the other way around. That certainly sounds like "using violence further their own ends" to me!

Quote:
People like Zarqawi... To prevent him from killing my comrades and threatening my way of life, the enemy must be killed.

You're using Zarqawi to justify war against Iraqis. Iraqis didn't threaten you or your "way of life" (whatever that means). We, however, are certainly threatening THEIR way of life.

Quote:
Baseless claims of American atrocities

complete with photos and videos of torture etc.

As far as opposing the politicians and appointees who started this war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al) and leaving the soldiers blameless... Where atrocities were committed (and atrocities were committed) I suppose our troops could say they were only following orders. That's what the German troops said, too. At what point does duty end and personal responsibility take over?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But when you demonize the American soldier with preposterous accusations like the one being foisted upon us in this thread, you are setting up our fighting men for a repeat of the treatment they received in Viet Nam. Baseless claims of American atrocities gained widespread acceptance, and when the soldiers came home from the most traumatic experience of their lives, they faced another trauma at the hands of the very countrymen in whose service they'd suffered.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

I'm very sorry your uncle, along with so many other soldiers brutalized by that war, have had to suffer from their own people's ignorance and misplaced rage. This country is completely clueless when it comes to grief. All we want to do is blame and blame and cover our own asses.

When somebody questions the official ass-covering, they're accused of hate, when often they are merely agents of a healthy grief process. What was our part in 9/11? How did we contribute to the developement of that situation? Are we ready yet to ask these questions, or is it still a question of blame and "us vs. them?" When will we end this game of "Who's the biggest victim?"

We, as a nation, have neither the time nor the inclination for sorrow and forgiveness--just a little perspective is all I ask. I'm not sure any nation is any better at it, except maybe Germany. But does it take a holocaust and a Berlin Wall for nations to learn a little humility or humanity? God, I hope not.

I don't see our troops being vilified the way they were in Viet Nam. The country's changed since then, for the better. I think we've learned something from all that. When the Abu Graib scandal surfaced, I didn't once hear the anti-war folks blaming the guards--we blamed Rumsfeld and his leutenants. It was Bush himself who ended up demonizing the guards, to save face. Disgusting.

I don't see this thread as contributing to demonization. The type of scenario depicted in the first clip, doctored as it surely was, nonetheless, certainly occures in war. There are certainly tapes the Army does not release which show the real thing. Any adult should be able to understand that.

Though Gino has been all too willing to demonize and vilify in other threads, his conduct in this thread has been very reasoned and inquisitive. I really think that kind of behavior should be encouraged around here, don't you? I wish folks like Barnstormer could recognize such differences and not react like people are trying to crucify his Lord.

I often wish folks would actually have the conversation in front of them, instead of reacting to the conversations they carry in their own heads. You know, read what people say, react, inquire, discuss, that kind of thing. We need to grow. The status quo got us in this mess. We need to become better people.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:19 AM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

Off the bat, I've decided not to respond to your comments about Zarqawi and how we're fighting the Iraqis, etc. I'm uninterested in your position on the war (mostly because I know it so well from other threads).

My post was meant to get people to think twice about demonizing American soldiers. So I'll respond to what little you had to say on that topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Apparently you've never lived in the parts of cities where I lived! Had a gun in hand more than twice, each time with the idea I might have to use it.

Living in a scary part of town where you have to pull a gun every so often is a far cry from carry a weapon in combat. The mere fact that you would even compare the two is mind-boggling. In combat your life is in danger 24/7, and people are attempting to kill you all the time. No neighborhood, no matter how scary, is like combat. It's like comparing apples and tire irons. And "the idea" that you might have to use it is a far cry from knowing that you will have to, and then, in fact, doing so.

Quote:
complete with photos and videos of torture etc.

Right, and I hope those fuckers get hammered, because what they did was wrong. But the notion that "torture" or "atrocities" are endemic to the entire military effort there is laughable at best. The situation at at Abu Ghrayb is noteworthy in that that sort of behavior on the part of American troops is so exceedingly rare. That's why it gets so much attention: we know that Americans aren't supposed to act that way. So on those rare occasions that it does, there's a media firestorm.

Also, when I say "baseless claims" what I mean are things like the video that purports to show Americans massacring farmers, or SEALs taking a photo of a bloodied insurgent. One snapshot or 60 seconds of poor-quality IR video aren't enough for an ignorant civilian to adequately assess the situation.

Quote:
As far as opposing the politicians and appointees who started this war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al) and leaving the soldiers blameless... Where atrocities were committed (and atrocities were committed) I suppose our troops could say they were only following orders.

Again, you seem to be assuming that torture, atrocity and abuse is the norm for the soldiers over there. Where abuses occurred, they should be dealt with. But you are being reckless, irresponsible, and just plain stupid if you think that all American servicemen commit atrocities, and that therefore all American servicemen ought to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:
At what point does duty end and personal responsibility take over?

Every member of the Armed Forces learns the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and furthermore learns that it is his duty to disobey unlawful orders, and further learns that following unlawful orders makes him liable for the unlawful act, regardless of whether he was following orders. That is why the Abu Ghrayb soldiers are in trouble--and they should be. But not everything that seems to a civilian like an unlawful order actually is one. There again, the role of actual combat experience is vital. If you haven't been there, you just don't know what it's like.

To reiterate my main point: don't demonize American soldiers in order to turn public opinion against the war. That will only create another VietNam-like experience for the guys coming home from this war.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 11:58 AM

FOCHT

Okay,

Normally I refrain from responding once I've said my piece 'cause it usually boils down to a bunch of 'We're better! No, we're better!' type of arguments. Particularlly where this exact subject is brought up. Infact, I try my hardest just not to comment.

Again, it boils down to my previous post on the section about opinions.

This is way off topic. Way off topic and any who want to ignore are more than happy to.

Here's my thoughts: Abu Ghraib ...

Did anyone else notice that those 'responsible' were by and large GED/High School graduates from relatively low-income portions of the US and were all guardsmen? Sure, on the surface, that's to be expected of enlisted sevicemembers and the fact that they were National Guardsmen is for the mere sake that their unit was the one posted at this precise prison facility.

The true travesty isn't so much, IMO, that the tortures were happening. It's the fact that the pictures were taken and then released to the public. This was followed by the government and media latching onto this idea that this group of soldiers were acting solely on their own accord.

We already have a few prior- and current-service members who've responded here. So I'll ask this quasi-statement/question. How often are you, as soldiers, out of direct communication with those placed in charge (Officers, etc.) to do as you wish when your station is practically an 'office' that holds some of the more .... 'important' prisoners your country has captured?

Someone above mentioned that war is hell. In war - despite Geneva - torture happens. Why? If torture didn't happen, how do you think you'd ever get any information out of a fanatical prisoner? Ask him? He's a fanatic ... That's....Why...They're....called....fanatics.

What sickens me most about all this is the government's blatant covering for those who were in charge. My belief is that these soldiers, all with the seeming backgrounds to follow persuasive orders from a convincing senior advisor, were made to take the blame for what I feel was an acknowledged practice of 'soft psychological torture'. I mean, the pictures speak for themselves.

I would've never thought of torturing someone with inert electrical cables under the guise of 'fun torture' just for my own kicks. Or, infact, any of the other ways that the pictures showed the men being in ... demeaning situations. All that seems conveniently devised to break down those prisoner's particular social and religious beliefs.

Yeah. Those soldiers seemed to, at some level, enjoy what they were doing. That was wrong. It was wrong to take those pictures. Maybe not so wrong to share the pictures.

Bush, Rumsfield, some Generals...Yes. I believe they truely didn't know. Not because of the reasons most seem to think. It's called plausible deniability for a reason. It's just not something you see in the movies. I personally can't tell you how many times a superior's told me, "Now ... I'm not telling you to do it this way, but...."

The real travesty is that only those soldiers were punished with prison terms and not their immediate senior officers. A forced retirement is a far cry from spending ten years of your life behind bars.

BTW, how many here are aware of the fact that the US never formally got on the bus with the Geneva Convention and that we're simply obeying them as we see fit? The hallmark of an evil empire or simply smart business? Your call.

Focht

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:04 PM

INEVITABLEBETRAYAL

On the whole, your post is exactly what I've come to expect from you, Cavalier: calm, well-reasoned thought. Even when I disagree with you, I never get angry, because as a general rule, you don't engage in the same type of histrionics that others do (including myself at times, to be fair). But I have to take issue with one part of your post:

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't see this thread as contributing to demonization.

I do see it as demonization, because this type of thread is relatively common (see the time surrounding the Abu Ghrayb mess or the Fallujah assault), while threads praising our soldiers for the good they're doing is rare. This tactic is demonstrably effective--it got us out of Viet Nam (that and the body count, of course).

The damnable thing is that other arguments (like "Bush lied about WMD" or "Iraq had no link to terror") were largely ignored by the American people. But when accusations of atrocities started to fly (see Abu Ghrayb and Fallujah once again), public support of the war started sliding. My perception (repeat: MY perception) is that the people opposed to the war are so much against it that they will use any means necessary--including dragging the name of the American Fighting Man--to stop it.

Ultimately, I guess that's what sickens me. The ends never justify the means, even if the end is a really good one.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Inevitable- I was pretty careful not to say that ALL soldiers engage in atrocities. For various reasons, I can't see these specific videos myself and so I can't judge them. I'm basing my statement on other occurences including (but not limited to) Abu Graib. You said it yourself- war is hell. Some soldiers are bound to break down, and in addition there appear to be some units who have an unusually high number of complaints against them both stateside and abroad irrespective of the kind and amount of "action" that they've seen. It speaks to a problem with the unit culture. I can't remember the service or the unit- I'll try and find the specifics later, but don't hold your breath bc I'm extremely busy.

As far as what Focht says- One of the telling points that torture was encouraged from the top is that the guards at the various prisons and "detention centers"- situated thousands of miles apart- just "happened" to come up with the same form of amusement. And, where did they get the supplies? The hoods, cameras, and so forth. The local PX?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 1:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Fallujah was a very hot zone of military action. Perhaps anyone not evacuated was 'fair game' by that time.

It's sort of interesting. My recollection is that only females and very young male children and very old men were allowed to evacuate after the city was surrounded. Males between (roughly) 15 and 60 were forced to remain in the city. Before US troops moved on Fallujah, they were given instructions to fire on all males of (roughly) 15 - 60 years old, whether they were firing, uniformed, armed, had protective gear, or white flags - or not. While there were some legitimate insurgents killed, there were probably more who were simply caught with no other options. That's what happens if you cannot flee and you cannot surrender.

In addition there are credible accounts (news reporters) of obvious civilians - women and small children - being shot down either as they tried to flee across the river or as they tried to surrender. To this day, there is no civilian body count.

Bur speaking of civilian body counts, the US had a policy of targeting males between the ages of (roughly) 15 and 60 as insurgents (I have read different ages), and not just in Fallujah, but everywhere. Any male killed who appeared to be in that age range was automatically identified as an 'insurgent'. It reminds me of the Vietnam 'body counts' that were broadcast every evening to reassure the US that all was going well. More bodies = progress.

To us, the war is confusing. Back in the day - WWII in Europe - US troops could tell who was who even without uniforms either by what language they spoke or by what accent nuanced their English. But as all gooks looked alike to US troops back then in Vietnam, all rag-heads look alike to US troops now, because they don't know enough to make those important distinctions. (Like which language are they speaking.) You'd think that would be a clue that maybe if you can't tell the players you don't belong in the game.

As to how horrible death is, I have never seen anyone actually expire in a peaceful way. I have seen the body of a person who appeared to have died peacefully, I have heard of one peaceful death from a witness, but never seen one myself. That's out of the one or two thousand people I have personally seen die. You don't have to be a soldier to understand death is usually horrible.

There are over 300 service-people being investigated by the military for mistreatment of prisoners in GITMO, Afghanistan and Iraq. Seems like a pattern to me, not just the actions of a few perverts. And it was Bush et al who were more than willing to demonize the soldiers to protect their own a**es.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
...I do see it as demonization, because this type of thread is relatively common (see the time surrounding the Abu Ghrayb mess or the Fallujah assault), while threads praising our soldiers for the good they're doing is rare. This tactic is demonstrably effective--it got us out of Viet Nam (that and the body count, of course).

The damnable thing is that other arguments (like "Bush lied about WMD" or "Iraq had no link to terror") were largely ignored by the American people. But when accusations of atrocities started to fly (see Abu Ghrayb and Fallujah once again), public support of the war started sliding. My perception (repeat: MY perception) is that the people opposed to the war are so much against it that they will use any means necessary--including dragging the name of the American Fighting Man--to stop it.

Ultimately, I guess that's what sickens me. The ends never justify the means, even if the end is a really good one.

_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

At the risk of splitting hairs, I think an important part of not demonizing the troops is talking about whether or not we believe the soldiers are at fault. It's the single most destructive thing about our poisoned discourse these days: we need to discuss this stuff, if we are ever to get past our knee-jerk reactions. Lack of discussion only serves the status quo and the people in power.

Signy's question about "personal responsibility" is at the heart of the issue, isn't it? Are there circumstances where personal responsibility does not apply?

I don't think it's as simple as Singy seems to suggest: either you accept personal responsibility or you're another Eichman. I'm beginning to see people in the world living under varying degrees of coersion. The fear of losing one's job, the fear of terrorists overrunning our country, the fear of being seen as weak. People see fewer and fewer options. More and more, people don't feel they have the freedom to do what they believe is right, substituting what they believe will work, or what they believe won't get them in trouble, or what their bosses want because "they know best," or what won't get them labeled as a terrorist simpathizer. And, with Abu Graib, we're talking about 18 year olds, fer crying out loud!

Of course the guardsmen at Abu Graib were coached. Wasn't it all just part of a feud between the CIA and the DOD? Rummy didn't want the CIA to be the only game in town, so he started doing CIA "black ops" style "interogations" using untrained military personel who were too young and too bigoted to keep it together and do the job right. They obviously didn't fully grasp what "plausible deniability" means to field operatives. The men at the top with their thinktank lawyers and their constantly shifting version of reality have so far been fully insulated from the consequences of their decisions.

I think the reason Abu Graib struck such a chord with Americans was that it sensitized us to the real suffering of people other than ourselves. No mean feat. "Bush Lied" and "Iraq is irrelevant" did not implicate the American people directly enough. Also, they imply that Americans are stupid, and we hate it when people say we're stupid. It's a lot easier to say "Fuck you" than it is to say "I'm sorry." (Sometimes there's no substitution for the "F" word, sorry.) And trusting a dishonest politician is no crime. Ousting Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Abu Graib struck at the heart of our "we're the good guys" mentality. After that, it just wasn't fun to hate Iraqis anymore.

We may never be ready to say, "I'm sorry," but Americans will tire of always saying "Fuck you" to anyone who isn't "with us."

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 4:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For what it's worth, not all people bow their heads, or more realistically bend their minds, in submission.

I was one of the very small percentage that didn't cling to Bush after 9/11 (silly me, I said the US is too big a country to be derailed by that one thing), treat the escalating rhetoric as if it was about anything real, believe there were WMDs in Iraq, or agree that we have made Iraq a better place by making it a proxy-battlefield in Bush's never-ending war.

But you don't have to stand up and get called an anti-american troop-hating commie liberal terrorist supporter if you disagree.

As SignyM once pointed out, at night when it's just you, you are free to think. And that's the strange thing - too many people are too willing to trade away their thoughts.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 7:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't think it's as simple as Singy seems to suggest: either you accept personal responsibility or you're another Eichman.

I personally don't think it is a simple question. There is a whole spectrum of choices to be made and- as you so keenly point out- coercions to be endured.

In the military, you're not given orders to corral all "potential" enemies in a city and hunt them down and kill them... and in fact, almost no soldiers actually round up civilians and massacre them in cold blood. I imagine that you're given orders to secure the perimeter and turn back all suspicious people. Take that bridge. Bomb that target. Sweep the neighborhood. The responsibility is subdivided into so many small parts that from the individual soldier's point of view it may seem justified from a survival point of view. But the overall effect- which the strategists and politicians can see from their lofty viewpoint- can be quite something else.

It is very easy to be an Eichman. Remember-Eichman was just a technocrat. All he did was organize train schedules. So I guess my question is- at what point does duty end and we become little Eichmans?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 2:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just wanted to post something else. I read two opinions in the LATimes this past weekend. One, entitled "Time is running out for the bad guys" lists a number of judicial victories in the prosecution of certain dictators (Pinochet, Milosevic, Jean Kambanda of Rwanda, and Hussein) and ends with a tepid warning to the Bush administration. That was the happy news.
www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-brooks10jul10,0,3
481853.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

The other, simply entitled "When", ponders the effect of a radical Islamic nuclear bomb. It says, in part-

Quote:
The United States has bombed more than a dozen countries since 1948, and recently killed tens of thousands on the pretext of chasing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.... But the nuclear monopoly is breaking down. The making of atomic weapons — especially crude ones — has become vastly simpler than at the time of the Manhattan Project. Anger in Muslim countries at the United States has never been higher. The desire for an atomic weapon to seek vengeance — utterly immoral, foolish and suicidal though it be — is becoming ever more popular.

...The danger of a nuclear conflict comes from radicalized individuals within the (Islamic) states.... Today, the United States lives in fear of the bomb it created, because the decision to use it has already been made. Pious men with beards will decide when and where on U.S. soil atomic weapons are to be used. Shadowy groups, propelled by fanatical hatreds, scour the globe for materials. They are not in a hurry. Time is on their side. They are doubtless confident they will one day breach Fortress America.

If nuclear weapons continue to be accepted by nuclear weapon states as legitimate instruments of deterrence or war, their global proliferation — whether by other states or non-state actors — can only be slowed at best. ...

So what will happen when religious fanatics succeed in a nuclear attack? The world shall plunge headlong into a bottomless abyss of reaction and counter-reaction in a horror the human mind cannot comprehend.

www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-osamanuke10jul10,
0,6017089.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary

It is a warning that most people would interpret as a threat. But it is a realistic enough scenario that thoughtful people should ponder their response to an Islamic nuclear bomb. With foresight, we can avoid the misdirected response characterized by the Bush administration- only this time carried out with nuclear bombs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have already told family members I thought it would be a good idea to put a dose of potassium iodide for each family member in the home first aid kit.

I'm not a survivalist type. You have to have a tolerance for potential personal devastation living in Southern California - earthquake, fire, flood or massive refinery accident. But you also need to prepare for things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 3:15 PM

This is actually a response to a post from the Carl Rove thread, but I thought it would fit better over here. Sorry for any confusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[off topic] Many Americans are living a deep contradiction. On the one hand, they feel morally and militarily superior...I believe the invasion of Iraq will have powerfully dangerous consequences for us. I suspect this will be far worse than Vietnam ever was because potential oil resources and population size can combine to create a much stronger enemy. I hope I'm wrong. [/off topic]

I see a pattern beginning to emerge with the thinking of some people on the right, some of whom post on this board (you know who you are

): a basic complacence concerning this country's moral superiority; as if there is no way on Earth that we could falter. It's not even "the ends justify the means." Now it's the country justifies the means, with this one additional criterion: as long as our worst actions can be perceived as less atrocious than the worst actions of our enemies, they seem to think we should have free reign.

Is that really how we have to play it now? Let the worst criminals in the world determine the rules of engagement? If a nuclear device were to go off on American soil, I shudder to think what kind of genocidal fury it would justify in the minds of these Americans.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 6:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
... as long as our worst actions can be percieved as less atrocious than the worst actions of our enemies ... we should have free reign.
Is that really how we have to play it now? Let the worst criminals in the world determine the rules of engagement?

I think you have formulated the very essence of their position and its inevitable consequence.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

HK- you are insightful as ever. Perhaps you and Rue should run on the same ticket.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:10 AM

OPTIMUS1998

ok, all sides of arguments involving the morality of the actions depicted here, blah-bity,blah-bity,blah,
all that aside..
the person progamming the webpage linked here, seems to have discovered a new unit of data storage:

Quote:
video: MPEG at 4.6 mebibytes

MEBIBYTES??? to paraphrase Marty McFly - WHAT THE HELL IS A MEBIBYTE?
one would think if one knew enough html to program a basic page like that, they would be pretty familiar with the term megabyte, more so if it is a auto generated page, the person who wrote the software that wrote the page would be pretty familiar with the word....

or am i just being to picky???

...May have been the losing side, Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:38 AM