wikileaks.org releases classified US military video depicting killing of civilians

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

"That's what happens when you bring your children to the battlefield" or something like that.

Not the most gentle of quotes. But we're getting a small part of the picture here. first and foremost the pilot and gunner don't know that there are children in the van.

Soldiers do talk like this, they have to detach or they wouldn't be able to do their job which at times can be horrible.

If anyone is expecting an emotional response tears, cries of anguish, your never going to hear it.

Plus these are members of the gunship fraternity, these are guys that have to be especially icy, and are picked for their aggressiveness and decisiveness in the field. they're the fighter pilots of the army.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not the most gentle of quotes. But we're getting a small part of the picture here. first and foremost the pilot and gunner don't know that there are children in the van.

Soldiers do talk like this, they have to detach or they wouldn't be able to do their job which at times can be horrible.

If anyone is expecting an emotional response tears, cries of anguish, your never going to hear it.

Plus these are members of the gunship fraternity, these are guys that have to be especially icy, and are picked for their aggressiveness and decisiveness in the field. they're the fighter pilots of the army.

Yeah, I get that, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to listen to or for me to somehow sympathize with what they did. Of course I'm going to be sickened and angered from it, and I think that should be the natural response to seeing and hearing what happened there. If not, something's seriously wrong with us as a people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Yeah, I get that, but that doesn't make it any easier for me to listen to or for me to somehow sympathize with what they did. Of course I'm going to be sickened and angered from it, and I think that should be the natural response to seeing and hearing what happened there. If not, something's seriously wrong with us as a people.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Nobody likes to see children hurt, and it should elicit a strong response. I got upset about it as well. When I joined the forces the whole concept of protecting people that can't protect themselves was an appealing part of the induction speech that I got on my first day of basic.

I doubt the pilot and gunner once they got to base, the adrenaline left their bodies and they had a chance to think were especially proud of that mission. But at the same time, it sounds like they followed the rules of engagement and did request permission before engaging.

I just feel that too many people are rushing to condemn these men without knowing the whole picture.

[flip]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm not disagreeing with you. Nobody likes to see children hurt, and it should elicit a strong response. I got upset about it as well. When I joined the forces the whole concept of protecting people that can't protect themselves was an appealing part of the induction speech that I got on my first day of basic.

I doubt the pilot and gunner once they got to base, the adrenaline left their bodies and they had a chance to think were especially proud of that mission. But at the same time, it sounds like they followed the rules of engagement and did request permission before engaging.

I just feel that too many people are rushing to condemn these men without knowing the whole picture.

The bolded part is important for a few reasons I think.

Who gave permission? Somebody who could see what they saw? Someone who was going by their reports of 8 insurgents with weapons?

If they relayed incorrect info, even if by accident, they may have gotten permission to engage based on false pretenses.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flip

The bolded part is important for a few reasons I think.

Who gave permission? Somebody who could see what they saw? Someone who was going by their reports of 8 insurgents with weapons?

If they relayed incorrect info, even if by accident, they may have gotten permission to engage based on false pretenses.

That's not how it works.

AS much as we like to believe that the commanders in the field are omnipotent and they have all of these high definition screens and satellite images and predator views right in front of them because we see it in the movies. Often they have to rely on the radio communication sitreps from the units in the field.

As soon as they hear the key words armed men the only natural response is to order engagement.

Plus looking at the videos, and even the paused stuff posted earlier, I think that the pilots did see armed men. The video might not have seen shots, however the camera is a different view from the gunner and the pilot so we don't know.

[HPLovecraft]

So why do we automatically take the side of the killers a opposed to the actual innocent people that just got blasted into smithereens and run over by a tank? While you can't be sure if anyone had any weapons at all, there is, however, one thing you can be definitive concerning.

[Berger_4_]

A lot of people seem to be content to throw these guys under the bus without ever having been in combat or at least considering the stress it entails. Now, I'm not an member of the armed forces, nor will I ever be, but I think when you go to work and it's kill or be killed, it's a shoot-first, ask questions after sort of thing. If I was in that gunship and thought I saw somebody with what looked to be an RPG with other people who had already been identified as having rifles, I would be gearing up to shoot too.

As for the kids getting injured, yes it's a terrible thing. But really, the gunner was right. Why would you take your children anywhere near an area where 12 men had just been killed, especially in an unmarked vehicle? I can understand being stressed and not thinking clearly, but I think I would be hightailing it out of there to at least hide my children, then going to see if I could help.

[T@T]

If anyone thinks that vid depicts the worst that happens in a war zone really needs to have a sit down with a soldier someday.

He will tell you how we live in our little bubble driving our BMW's,taking our beach holidays and getting pizsed off with the idiot on dearfoot is not the real world.

The real world is vast. War is cruel, unnecessary and mostly very very stupid...but don't blame the soldiers.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

A lot of people seem to be content to throw these guys under the bus without ever having been in combat or at least considering the stress it entails. Now, I'm not an member of the armed forces, nor will I ever be, but I think when you go to work and it's kill or be killed, it's a shoot-first, ask questions after sort of thing. If I was in that gunship and thought I saw somebody with what looked to be an RPG with other people who had already been identified as having rifles, I would be gearing up to shoot too.

As for the kids getting injured, yes it's a terrible thing. But really, the gunner was right. Why would you take your children anywhere near an area where 12 men had just been killed, especially in an unmarked vehicle? I can understand being stressed and not thinking clearly, but I think I would be hightailing it out of there to at least hide my children, then going to see if I could help.

You could argue that the father was doing the right thing in trying to help a fellow human being in need. I somehow doubt he was knowingly/intentionally putting his kids in danger in order to do this.

I agree with many on the point that the soldiers are for the most part caught in a lose/lose situation and the blame ultimately lies with with their superiors, especially those in the Pentagon/White House, but that is a discussion for another day.

[PIMking]

three things.

1. CC how high are those helicopters? Is it possible that they have a nice scope were they can actually see if those are rifles from say 2000 feet? Doubt it. It's not like these guys are going to drop down to 100 feet so they can be 100% sure if that is a rifle or not.

Two the video shows no evidence of Small arms fire, But it doesn't show evidence that it didn't happen either.

Three, If you have never served in a war zone and been activly shot at by someone I think your baseless bubble comments don't mean crap. You don't know what it's like to be in an area were people are trying to kill you and shoot at you and can care less about you. I do understand why these pilots did it.

My fiances cousin is an apache pilot in Afghanistan now. He has only came home for his 3 week vacations to spend time with his family only to go back and fight. I hope to god it wasn't him in this video.

Again, If you have never fought. (being a national guardsman that has never seen combat doesn't count) you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[ResAlien]

ARGH! My head is literally shaking from the crap I've read in this thread. These are soldiers, trained to do their job, which happens to be killing the enemy. They thought they saw the enemy, were under the impression they were in danger, that someone had an RPG, and they did their job. I like to think of myself of a bit of a left winger, but I'm wrong after reading this horse crap garbage of a thread.

Those soldiers did their job. They identified a threat, they got the necessary approvals and they then neutralized that threat. Sure, the luxury of sitting behind a computer screen and analyzing the video is good for me and you, but they had this happening live.

The self righteousness of some of you irritates the crap out of me. Whether you think this war is just or not, these are men doing their jobs. Continue to do it and come home safe.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by photon

Psych studies have shown even the average person will do evil things in the "right" conditions.

Stanley Milgram and his experiments say "I agree"

The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.
At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

ARGH! My head is literally shaking from the crap I've read in this thread. These are soldiers, trained to do their job, which happens to be killing the enemy. They thought they saw the enemy, were under the impression they were in danger, that someone had an RPG, and they did their job. I like to think of myself of a bit of a left winger, but I'm wrong after reading this horse crap garbage of a thread.

Those soldiers did their job. They identified a threat, they got the necessary approvals and they then neutralized that threat. Sure, the luxury of sitting behind a computer screen and analyzing the video is good for me and you, but they had this happening live.

The self righteousness of some of you irritates the crap out of me. Whether you think this war is just or not, these are men doing their jobs. Continue to do it and come home safe.

I agree that it is quite easy for us to be arm-chair QBs in cases like this, but at the same time I think the discussion is important and necessary. We are dealing with human lives here and sweeping this under the rug and not learning how to better differentiate threats from non-threats would be unfortunate, especially in a new era of warfare where classic rules of engagement don't necessarily apply and are not easily defined.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

I agree that it is quite easy for us to be arm-chair QBs in cases like this, but at the same time I think the discussion is important and necessary. We are dealing with human lives here and sweeping this under the rug and not learning how to better differentiate threats from non-threats would be unfortunate, especially in a new era of warfare where classic rules of engagement don't necessarily apply and are not easily defined.

That's the point. This is the new era of warfare. These soldiers don't have the luxury of looking for uniforms to establish the enemy. This is as close to Vietnam as any of our generation will get. No uniforms, no sides clearly defined. Simply insurgents and those that want to kill our soldiers. I hate to say it, but I'd rather they err on the side of caution than have some jagoff take out a chopper with an RPG. These are your friends and mine, guys who signed up and are now in the line of fire. Perhaps I'm too close to this situation, but I find nothing wrong with this video.

Again, perceived threat, approval, action on that threat. These soldiers did what they have been taught to do. End of story.

[joe_mullen]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

That's the point. This is the new era of warfare. These soldiers don't have the luxury of looking for uniforms to establish the enemy. This is as close to Vietnam as any of our generation will get. No uniforms, no sides clearly defined. Simply insurgents and those that want to kill our soldiers. I hate to say it, but I'd rather they err on the side of caution than have some jagoff take out a chopper with an RPG. These are your friends and mine, guys who signed up and are now in the line of fire. Perhaps I'm too close to this situation, but I find nothing wrong with this video.

Again, perceived threat, approval, action on that threat. These soldiers did what they have been taught to do. End of story.

In a vacuum I agree, but due to the very complicated nature of the situation the US has gotten itself into, I'm not sure the answer is as simple as perceived threat = definitive action taken. This obviously does not jive with likely any theory of warfare (of which I know little about), but at some point the bigger picture needs to be looked at, meaning, in the total "war" effort, are such definitive actions productive or counter-productive to whatever the stated cause is (ie. will the occasional mistakes actually lead to more insurgents fighting for their cause). That being said, it is senseless to put all the blame on the soldiers as they simply small pieces of a big machine. These questions need to be asked of those at the top of the decision making pyramid.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PIMking

three things.

1. CC how high are those helicopters? Is it possible that they have a nice scope were they can actually see if those are rifles from say 2000 feet? Doubt it. It's not like these guys are going to drop down to 100 feet so they can be 100% sure if that is a rifle or not.

I don't think they were that close. When they shot out, you notice the camera shake and then the rounds impact about a second later. The chain gun on the apache fires 30 mm rounds at a rate of 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of about 2600 ft/s so at the least the apache was 2600 feet away elevate which is a little over 17 football fields away.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

In a vacuum I agree, but due to the very complicated nature of the situation the US has gotten itself into, I'm not sure the answer is as simple as perceived threat = definitive action taken. This obviously does not jive with likely any theory of warfare (of which I know little about), but at some point the bigger picture needs to be looked at, meaning, in the total "war" effort, are such definitive actions productive or counter-productive to whatever the stated cause is (ie. will the occasional mistakes actually lead to more insurgents fighting for their cause). That being said, it is senseless to put all the blame on the soldiers as they simply small pieces of a big machine. These questions need to be asked of those at the top of the decision making pyramid.

Absolutely. Question those at the top of the pyramid. But don't you dare vilify the men that are out the, RIGHT NOW, as we speak laying their lives on the line for the country they signed up for and the country they believe in. The men that are out there now? Frag every enemy you see and take no chances, come home alive and deal with it later.

If you want an argument about the justness of this war, the legality of these actions, well, start up another thread I say. Those points are up for debate for sure. OT for this, these men did what they were trained to do, they responded as they should have, and anyone who truly thinks they did something wrong has never spent a single damn minute in combat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by joe_mullen

In a vacuum I agree, but due to the very complicated nature of the situation the US has gotten itself into, I'm not sure the answer is as simple as perceived threat = definitive action taken. This obviously does not jive with likely any theory of warfare (of which I know little about), but at some point the bigger picture needs to be looked at, meaning, in the total "war" effort, are such definitive actions productive or counter-productive to whatever the stated cause is (ie. will the occasional mistakes actually lead to more insurgents fighting for their cause). That being said, it is senseless to put all the blame on the soldiers as they simply small pieces of a big machine. These questions need to be asked of those at the top of the decision making pyramid.

Except what your describing is what really harmed the American's in Vietnam and was one of the key factors in their defeat. They fought that war with too large and inflexible of a command structure where by the time confirmation and orders were given the enemy wasn't there anymore.

The decision to shoot probably didn't go any higher then the squadron commander.

This is an extremely fluid battleground where the belief is if you see the perceived enemy you almost have to take the shot before the enemy can fade back into the civilian population and vanish until he or she decides to plant a road side bomb, or worse.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think they were that close. When they shot out, you notice the camera shake and then the rounds impact about a second later. The chain gun on the apache fires 30 mm rounds at a rate of 600 rounds per minute with a muzzle velocity of about 2600 ft/s so at the least the apache was 2600 feet away elevate which is a little over 17 football fields away.

That just furthers my point. No real possible way of telling 100% if those were weapons. No way in hell will they lay low and come down on top of them to be 100%.

It's funny how people expect them to know from 2600 feet away (estimate) that's almost a half mile to be 100% of weapons.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except what your describing is what really harmed the American's in Vietnam and was one of the key factors in their defeat. They fought that war with too large and inflexible of a command structure where by the time confirmation and orders were given the enemy wasn't there anymore.

The decision to shoot probably didn't go any higher then the squadron commander.

This is an extremely fluid battleground where the belief is if you see the perceived enemy you almost have to take the shot before the enemy can fade back into the civilian population and vanish until he or she decides to plant a road side bomb, or worse.

The generation that fought in ww1 and 2 are completely different than the Vietnam generation. I have family that fought in Nam and the boys just were not into it.