OnPoint: Iraq, from the air
252 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
The Iraqi war was about oil but more importantly it was about having a permanent strategic position in the Middle East. Remember that America lost the War when in the 80's they armed and supported Iraq in the USA war against Iran - until they lost. Unfinished business?
-
Because they don't give a shit about Iraqis?
They care enough for Iraqis to risk their own lives to stop insurgents who might someday blow up apartment blocks with people inside.
-
Keith, I think the actions and the video are pretty bad. Even if it's not 'men with guns go psycho', it's certainly underlying cultural, competence and discipline problems.
The initial coverup and denials are truly damning though. The initial claims were that it was a terror group engaging, which a look at the video, or an honest chat with any of the helicopter gunners would have revealed to be a lie.
There are going to be fuckups in wars, if we insist on having them. At least they could be honest about it rather than being pushed into admitting it.
-
There are going to be fuckups in wars, if we insist on having them.
But it does seem a tad optimistic to expect the lads to just follow the rules in what is otherwise an illegal war.
-
But were they American children?
Because that seems to be all they care about. Everyone else is a wog to them.
Well, the soldier in the video seemed pretty keen to get help for the young girl he was carrying, and attempted to get her and her brother to a military hospital.
This reinforces my suspicion that the Apache crews have a more abstract relationship with the Iraqis on the ground, denoted by their cavalier attitude towards the atrocity they were undertaking.
Once you have dehumanised all Iraqis, and consider each one a potential insurgent, then the logical conclusion is to translate normal behaviour (in the context of Baghdad) into insurgent behaviour. Getting sign-off to kill from someone who can't see what is happening on the ground becomes a mere formality, as the video indicates.
-
How long would it take for any 20 year old (or anyone for that matter) to start defining their existence as a kill or be killed concept
living in that hell.I'm not defending the murder at all but "occupation" sounds so sensible on news reports where in reality it's just young men pointing guns at each other.
There isn't an army in the world trained for this impossible task? Dick Cheney knew that.
-
-
We are so not in the area of "catastrophic mistake" here, one cannot find adequate words to express it.
-
Watching now.
Bloody hell, that injured man from the initial shoot-up crawling away on hands and knees, and the crosshairs on him and the chopper crew just aching for him to pick up a weapon so they have a reason to blow him to pieces...
-
interesting. a commenter on the New Yorker suggests that it's actually a AC-130 Hercules, not an Apache, that does the killing.
makes sense. it seems to take an awful long time for those chaingun rounds to reach their target. also, the movement of the camera was odd for a chopper - i was wondering why they had to keep moving in that broad arc.
finally, they make reference to "bushmaster" which is probably the 25mm variety of autocannon (i still need to watch the remainder of the vid)
the cowboys who did this were probably about km out, or very high up. nice bit of "proportionality" there. a 25mm chaingun will kill a lot of armoured vehicles, but here they popping off people who *might* be a threat to some nearby humvees (if i'm hearing it right).
-
But it does seem a tad optimistic to expect the lads to just follow the rules in what is otherwise an illegal war.
Not at all.
In the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, charges of murder resulted in findings of not guilty precisely because of the distinction between lawful wars (which the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor was not) with the lawful conduct of war (which many of the actions were - you kill people in war, etc.).
Also, although the invasion may have been unlawful, such a complaint cannot be leveled at the continued presence of US and other forces in 2007, which by then was at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.
-
finally, they make reference to "bushmaster" which is probably the 25mm variety of autocannon
The M242 is not used on aircraft. The AC-130U and the AV-8 Harrier II use a different 25 mm weapon, the 5-barrel GAU-12/U. The sister weapon of the M242, the M230 30 mm chain gun, is standard equipment on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.
It is standard practice for aircraft such as helicopters to be constantly moving. It makes them harder to hit.
Also, I read somewhere recently that Apache crew can usually only guarantee to get rounds within about 10m of th intended target. It's not usually pinpoint-accuracy shooting.
-
Scoop copies of investigation docs
Includes references to video 'from Apache'; I think we can consider that one settled. I do recall seeing another gunsight vid in the countryside where the chopper was so far aways the victims didn't notice it.
Though the AP says the US Mil are having trouble finding their copy of the video.
Edit: From AP "The video was taken by the tactical unit that operated the helicopters."
-
Helicopters in Iraq can be thought of as frequent fliers. Therefore one would not even bother to look up let alone run for cover. It is reported also that many Iraquis carry guns for self-protection whereas in the USA of course no people would walk around armed. That would be too provocative.
-
Not at all.
In the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, charges of murder resulted in findings of not guilty precisely because of the distinction between lawful wars (which the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor was not) with the lawful conduct of war (which many of the actions were - you kill people in war, etc.).
The subtlety of the distinction may not be priority consideration for a 20 year old with a weapon.
I meant in the sense that following the illegal attack on Pearl Harbour, they then went on to engage in further atrocities. regardless of the findings of the courts, a moral precedent had been set, by the leader (supported by dozens of world leaders).
Also, although the invasion may have been unlawful, such a complaint cannot be leveled at the continued presence of US and other forces in 2007, which by then was at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.
I can't realistically see Saddam having offered the same invitation had he been in office in 2007, unless of course the country had been ravaged by some other invader.
-
I can't realistically see Saddam having offered the same invitation had he been in office in 2007, unless of course the country had been ravaged by some other invader.
I can't see how that's relevant.
The Government of Iraq (elected by the Iraqi people) has asked the US to be there, therefore that the US is there isn't illegal.
-
You're right, that's not really relevant Graeme. I didn't categorize the current occupation of Iraq as requested by the Government to be Illegal or not.
But it does seem a tad optimistic to expect the lads to just follow the rules in what is otherwise an illegal war.
March 20 2003-present.
You are correct that midway through the war crossed the threshold of legality, but I'd contend in that light, it seems even more optimistic for the lads to be expected to just follow the rules, given the rules could be construed as being arbitrary and malleable.
This video and surrounding events as an example.
-
Thanks Keith for posting this dreadful video. Of course it's hard to judge these children with guns, brought up on video wargames and George Bush's homilies and posted to an illegal occupation that means nothing to them, really. It's their leaders we have to worry about. I'm still optimistic (or at least everlastingly hopeful) that Obama will be able to have some moderating effect on this out-of-control military-industrial machine.
My thought, watching the video, was that with all that wonderful technology and information at their disposal they seemed to be missing only a pair of high-powered binoculars. Perhaps there were men with guns there, but the film seemed to indicate that the men the soldiers identified as having guns were the journalists, carrying nothing but cameras.
-
My thought, watching the video, was that with all that wonderful technology and information at their disposal they seemed to be missing only a pair of high-powered binoculars.
I think the video was already put through binoculars. The aircraft taking it probably was a km or so back. Whether or not the voices you hear are using the video to make their decisions, or whether they're using some other equipment, I'm not sure.
-
I thought that the President of Iraq had recently expressed a wish that the USA should leave? Not a direction of course and anyway Iraq couldn't/wouldn't dare. They would not let him even though it is a democracy.
-
I'm not entirely sure that the rounds were being fired from the aircraft that was taking the pictures at all. There is so much point and click technology now, that it's hard to know. Perhaps the video is coming from a remote spotter drone (which would explain the constant circling), and the firepower directed from elsewhere. It did certainly seem from the movement of the crosshairs that they were involved in the aiming process, they were "leading the target" and so on, a few moments before the rounds arrived.
I'm no gun expert but it looked to me like the rounds were exploding. There just seemed to be too few of them to account for the carnage. But if direct hits are not needed, that also explains how one person actually survived being hit. A round from a 25 mm cannon hitting the human body is surely only going to leave pieces. Everything that was hit would be completely dismembered. Although I have heard that some of these rounds are so powerful that they only have to pass within a meter of you to kill.
-
I thought that the President of Iraq had recently expressed a wish that the USA should leave?
I believe the President of the United States has expressed the same wish...
-
I've blogged about how confirmation bias killed those journalists.
http://morgue.isprettyawesome.com/?p=1399Bad bloody business. Greenwald's been emphasising just how typical and expected this is, though.
-
Although I have heard that some of these rounds are so powerful that they only have to pass within a meter of you to kill.
That and some of the pavement being converted into supersonic concrete shards by the impact of the rounds.
Oh well, freedom isn't free!
-
Aggressive wars. Subsequent occupations. And massacres like these with their obligatory coverups. Then liberal apologists like Keith.
Is it any wonder people want to fly planes into their buildings?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.