Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Riesstiu IV]

Not really accurate as they specifically don't kill wounded not still resisting.

The pilots sounds like complete psychos.

06:33 Come on, buddy.
06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.
06:44 Crazyhorse this is Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Four break.
We are right below you right time now can you walk us onto that location over.
06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares].
We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage.
07:07 Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.
07:14 Where's that van at?
07:15 Right down there by the bodies.
07:16 Okay, yeah.
07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
07:25 Let me engage.
07:28 Can I shoot?
07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
07:36 Picking up the wounded?
07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
07:41 Come on, let us shoot!
07:44 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
07:49 They're taking him.
07:51 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight.
07:56 This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead.
07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
08:02 ****.
08:06 This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage.
08:12 One-Eight, engage.
08:12 Clear.
08:13 Come on!
08:17 Clear.
08:20 Clear.
08:21 We're engaging.
08:26 Coming around. Clear.
08:27 Roger. Trying to uh...
08:32 Clear.
08:35 I hear 'em co.. I lost 'em in the dust.
08:36 I got 'em.
08:41 I'm firing.

-------Hellfire Missile Incident that killed three families-------
36:49 Firing.
36:53 There it goes! Look at that ***** go!
36:56 Patoosh!
37:03 Ah, sweet.
37:07 Need a little more room.
37:09 Nice missile.
37:11 Does it look good?
37:12 Sweet!

[Patroklos]

Thank you for that, as it proves my point exactly

[Jon Miller]

They are definitely disturbed. It doesn't mean that the overall decision was incorrect.

JM

[Wiglaf]

Even those people did have weapons, it wouldn't automatically means they are insurgents since each household is allowed an AK-47. There are also no laws against open carry of weapons.

You idiot. These people had two RPGs, which were found immediately by ground forces. And yes, they can own an AK-47, not carry it around in public like this. If they do they assume obvious risks.

Really wonder what reactions here would be if some FBI helicopter circled over a Tea Part rally, saw what looked to be guns being held be two or three protestors, and began firing 30mm rounds into the crowd

If the security situation ever deteriorated in this country as it has in Iraq, laws governing domestic policing would also be suspended. This sort of thing could happen, if there were no police force and the Army had to be called in, under our constitution.

But now all they need to do is have a guy with a telephoto lens in their posse, and WE CANT TOUCH EM

[rah]

Yes, disturbed but if you note the time the asked for permission to the time they got it, it shows that they were able to restrain themselves. So at least they were patient psychos.

While I can understand some mistakes, this one does seem to be a bit beyond the line.

The hell fire one doesn't really show much. Except for pleasure at seeing a missile launched. I'd need more context on either side to determine evil intent.

[Wiglaf]

It is unbelievable people here legitimately think we cannot engage a crowd of 10 insurgents if one guy carrying a telephoto lens is voluntarily walking with them. What a crock. An easily exploitable naivete.

[Ecofarm]

Given the chance, I'd shoot a terrorist in the back knowing he will kill innocents again if I don't. Please, terrorists, give us the chance... or...

Fk the chance, get you some. Rgr out.

Given the opportunity (legit or not), I'd shoot the terrorist's friends in the back too. Shooting enemies in the back is a time honored war heroism, just ask John Kerry (or any democrat). Hell, Kennedy would say shooting our own guys in the back is a good idea... at least he's not in charge (bay of pigs).



Here's your poll:

Should we shoot known terrorists in the back, given the opportunity?

Yes or No.


I believe the results will show the pilots to be rational. Let's not completely lose our fkn minds and pretend they were engaging known innocents (as terrorists so enjoy).



They thought they were engaging confirmed terrorists and aside from the child shields (which were never seen by the pilots) they were entirely correct.




/thrade

[Drake Tungsten]

Shooting the Van with the two kids and launching 3 Hellfire missiles into a building which had 3 families inside, all of them killed were probably most sickening of all.

Now you're *****ing about the Hellfire attack? I watched that part of the video on Al Jazeera and they clearly show militants entering the building before the missiles are launched.

[Wernazuma III]

They thought they were engaging confirmed terrorists and aside from the child shields (which were never seen by the pilots) they were entirely correct.

Right, this is how human shields usually are used: sitting on the by-seat of a van so that they are barely visible. Although I agree that the pilots could not see the kids, which probably would have given a break to their killing spree.

[DaShi]

This whole thread = :facepalm:

[Felch]

I just watched the whole video. Some notes.

First, the initial group of eight guys clearly included armed men. I saw the weapons in the video. I did not see anyone that looked like press in the video.

Second, the van had no markings, and the pilots had no reason to believe it was an ambulance and not a getaway vehicle.

Third, the fact that they gave enough of a **** to evacuate the wounded kids is a hell of a lot more than any insurgent would do for one of us.

Most of the criticism seems to come from people who are blatantly distorting facts, or ignoring that the pilots had incomplete information. It sucks that it happened, but it's not a war crime.

[Asher]

I'm not sure if it's a war crime, but the most egregious and indefensible part of the video was blowing up the van. No weapons were in sight by anyone, even if they didn't see the children. They were unarmed men, one of which was near death. No excuse. The fact that it "may have been a getaway" vehicle is also borderline retarded -- you are allowed to flee the scene of a battle if you are dying and unarmed.

I also don't think it's right to kill a group of a dozen people because a couple of them had rifles -- bodyguards for press tend to carry rifles, too, in Iraq. I don't disagree that some/most of those men may've been insurgents, but the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude is unacceptable.

[Felch]

Do you see any of these on the van?



If not, then it is not protected. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. The pilots aren't mind readers, they're combatants. Legitimate, uniformed combatants. Unlike the war criminals who endanger the civilian population by refusing to wear uniforms.

As far as the bodyguards for the press nonsense. I don't see any press in the video wearing anything like this.



If you want protection as a member of the press or as an emergency responder, it is your responsibility to identify yourself. Anybody in Iraq at the time would have known that.

Finally we know that these guys were combatants. The patrol found RPGs (not exactly a bodyguard's weapon) and they had been fired on from that location. All of your arguments are horse****, Asher. This was some **** that happened to Reuters guys who tried to blend in with the losers in a gunfight. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

Also, don't forget that a lot of ambushes are filmed by insurgents for propaganda purposes. If I saw a guy with a camera mixing in with a bunch of enemy riflemen, I'd assume that he was one of their guys doing psyops or gathering intelligence.

It's a ****ty situation, but I doubt that anybody on this forum would have behaved differently from the pilots.

[Asher]

Do you see any of these on the van?



If not, then it is not protected.

Unarmed civilians are not to be targeted. I am not going to get into an argument about the geneva convention (I've already said I don't know if it's a war crime, I don't care...it was wrong).

Finally we know that these guys were combatants. The patrol found RPGs (not exactly a bodyguard's weapon) and they had been fired on from that location. All of your arguments are horse****, Asher.

I suppose it is asking a lot of a Catholic to understand morality at this point?

Not all of those guys were combatants. That's a fact. The people in the van were certainly not combatants, nor was the guy they were trying to save. They posed no threat to anyone, especially the heavily armed soldiers about to converge on the scene.

It was completely and utterly wrong to kill the people in the van and destroy it. No ethical person can argue otherwise. Hiding behind fine print in the Geneva Convention is loathsome.

[Drake Tungsten]

This was some **** that happened to Reuters guys who tried to blend in with the losers in a gunfight. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

QFT