Wikileaks, the US Government, and the slaughter of civilians

[Wiglaf]

Because they were actively rendering aid to insurgents (The ones with RPGs) and were fleeing, I think you are overstating your case, software engineer

[Felch]

What civilians do you see? What combatants? I can't tell the difference, because the enemy refuses to wear uniforms. I can't tell the difference, and the pilots can't tell the difference. You say, "The people in the van were certainly not combatants," but that's not true at all. Nothing is certain in this situation, so the pilots have to err on the side on protecting the friendly patrol. How do you know that the van wasn't carrying armed men? How do you know that they didn't put their weapons aside to grab the wounded guy, and then plan to pick them back up and continue fighting. Personally, I would never go out into a clearly unsafe area to rescue somebody. No rational person is going to risk their life for some someone who just got lit up by an Apache. The only reason to go out there is if you are also an insurgent and you're trying to rescue one of your people before the Americans come and capture them.

It all boils down to a refusal to identify themselves as combatants. If the insurgents wore uniforms, and if the emergency responders had marked vehicles, none of this would happen. It's not a cost issue. Red paint isn't that expensive. Uniforms aren't that expensive. The only reason they don't do it is because they have no respect for the laws of war. If you want somebody to be mad at, maybe you should consider why we have Geneva Conventions, and why people do wear uniforms.

[Asher]

What civilians do you see?

The clearly unarmed people with children in a minivan would be the most visible, no?

There was not a SINGLE gun visible on those people. Not a single one. You cannot ASSUME they are combatants and kill them when there's no weapon in sight.

[Ecofarm]

So Asher, according to you:

1. Terrorists should be allowed to escape if attempting to do so.

2. Engagements against people without clearly visible weapons (bearing the standard neon-orange paint markings of a combat weapon, of course) is a war crime; thus, anyone with terrorists that are actively engaging friendly forces is safe as long as their weapon is hidden.


Surely you have some idea just how retarded both of those ideas are. You are really showing yourself to be an idiot on this subject, and for what? To slander the US military? Very nice.

[Asher]

1. Not all Iraqis are terrorists.
2. I've explicitly not defined anything was a war crime

You fail.

[Ecofarm]

1. When did I say all Iraqis are terrorists? Are you a fkn ****? Those guys were terrorists, you moron.

2. Fine, an atrocity not a war crime. Hell, call it a shady decision - I don't care what you call it - you're totally wrong.

[Asher]

Yep. It's wrong to condemn the murder of unarmed civilians and attempted murder of several children. Totally wrong.

[Ecofarm]

Well, you're the only person condemning the engagement on this forum.

You are alone. And you are full of sht.

[giblets]

IMHO the military should have been more cautious about shooting people. Don't wanna give the enemy propaganda material.

[Asher]

Well, you're the only person condemning the engagement on this forum.

Apparently you've the reading skills of Ben Kenobi, as this is false.

In fact, I've seen very few people expressing their pleasure with the decision to attack the minivan with children trying to rescue an unarmed reporter crawling to safety.

Who here wants to say that was the right call? Other than Ecofarm, who thinks all Iraqis are terrorists.

[Hauldren Collider]

I pick the banana option because I trust soldiers' tactical judgment more than I trust my own.

[Asher]

If all of the friendly fire incidents and civilian causalities have told us anything, it's that the tactical judgment is what's lacking. This is why they have Rules of Engagement.

I'm not convinced that it's intelligent to have RoE that says it's okay to fire on a van with no visible guns or weaponry anywhere near it while IN A FRICKIN CITY. In fact, I'm pretty sure the RoE specify there must be fairly strong evidence of a weapon being available (not even the possibility of a gun) to make it an acceptable call.

I'm less upset about the original strike (as it is clear there were guns visible and it's very likely the Reuters employees were embedded with insurgents), but the strike on the van is just unacceptable.

[Felch]

The attack on the van does look bad from where we're sitting, but I bet I'd make the same call under those circumstances. Bystanders are unlikely to rush into a situation like that. It's reasonable to believe that a minivan that shows up and tries to evacuate one of the guys could be a fellow insurgent though. It just seems strange to drive your vehicle up to where trouble is going on.

Do we know at all what the motivations were for the people in the van? You seem awfully sure, and I just don't think it's as obvious as you say. That's why I don't blame the pilot. It's impossible to distinguish civilians from combatants, and when you are pumped up and trying to hunt down bad guys it gets even harder. If they were civilians, it's tragic, but not unexpected.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm less upset about the original strike (as it is clear there were guns visible and it's very likely the Reuters employees were embedded with insurgents)

That's not what you were saying a page ago.

[Asher]

People are allowed to change their mind.