OnPoint: Iraq, from the air
252 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Simon, there may well have been hundreds of suspect incidents, where the US military's ROE were either bent or broken and deaths resulted, but that is out of how many missions? Probably an average of hundreds of missions per day over 7 years and longer in Afghanistan, a hell of a lot of missions. Several hundred suspect incidents is a bloody small % and proof that the US military as a whole has been very disciplined in the sandbox, as much as that might be difficult for far too many to accept.
You might as well just say that you wont change your preconceived notions in the face of evidence given by Simon and myself. If we post a thousand instances, you'll move the goal posts to hundreds of thousands before you see that it is a military wide disregard for Iraqi lives.
As far as whether or not they had enough justification to engage, having AK 47s is more than enough justification. Firedoglake again:
Regardless, no one is allowed to be armed except for Iraqi police and Coalition forces. There is no such thing as an armed Iraqi escort for journalists. My only guess is he underestimated how quickly and deadly the situation can become if he were to hang around with armed insurgents
Again, there is no independent verification of the group possessing arms. I can see in the relatively low quality video what could be either a tripod or a camera. I would reference the higher quality video the military has but uh oh
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_IRAQ_VIDEO?SITE=INLAF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
War is horrible, no doubt about it, but Iraqi's has a shot at a future now. It didn't when Hussein was there. How many people would Hussein's regime have killed since 2003 if he was still in power? If he continued his average, probably tens of thousands at least as well as continuing to brutalize the entire population. And we would have Iran and Iraq both with nutcases in charge both racing to go nuclear. Nice. Leaving Hussein in place had a lot of drawbacks that never seem to get considered in discussions like these. It was hardly a picture perfect situation that 'ole Dubyah went over and stuffed up. It was already a mess.
I.......don't....know...where...to....begin.
That's pretty disingenuous double speak. You need to kill Iraqi's to give them a future?
Let's not also forget that the stated purpose of the invasion was never about helping the Iraqi people, it was about going after the fictional MWD's and also the oft repeated lie that it was about payback for 9/11.
-
and everyone freaked out about an "RPG".
When I see a guy with an rpg I know the rule is to stay calm but i always get a bit nervy.
-
yeah, my viewing of the vid suggests that it may well have initially been a mistake. but... the subsequent conduct of the pilots belies that as a factor, and they were instead actively seeking *any* target they could construe as "legitimate".
this was further belied by their response. the humane response to error is horror, not, "please pick up a gun" or "aw well i killed some kids".
-
I also forgot to note that Wikileaks has 10 further videos for release showing civilian casualties from airstrikes.
-
You need to kill Iraqi's to give them a future?
Nothing new in that. Anyone remember It became necessary to destroy the town to save it?
-
James, the sword cuts both ways. Whether Iraq has a future or not has no bearing on the fact that the crew shot at and killed unarmed civilians who were picking up the wounded.
Even if having AKs counts as PID (which does seem pretty dubious), that doesn't justify shooting the van that arrives to pick up the wounded.
-
Don't get me wrong, those soldiers are nuts. I don't know if they were nuts before they joined the army but they were in a place that day which begs belief in experience. Surely the lessons here are occupation u.s style is a non option in the future. It's a crazy strategy, like going up the rivers of vietnam.
-
yeah, my viewing of the vid suggests that it may well have initially been a mistake. but... the subsequent conduct of the pilots belies that as a factor, and they were instead actively seeking *any* target they could construe as "legitimate".
this was further belied by their response. the humane response to error is horror, not, "please pick up a gun" or "aw well i killed some kids".
I really don't think it's fair to judge them on their dialogue or their attitudes. People talk a lot of shit. Especially in testosterone-filled environments, especially when under stress, especially seconds after they've just fucked up.
They may be assholes, but that's not - in itself - a crime. We should only judge them on what they did. And they did plenty.
-
yeh, the babble after the killing is kind of sick team building, talking themselves back to somewhere real.
-
"this clipping from the paper shows us young and strong and clean.
And there's me in me slouch hat,
me SLR and greens.
god help me.
i was only nineteen." -
It became necessary to destroy the town to save it
And saving whales requires killing them
-
apropos.
-
Who'd join the army here?
-
Nothing new in that. Anyone remember It became necessary to destroy the town to save it?
Yep and all these decades latter can anyone tell me exactly how the deaths of 2 million Vietnamese in the name of America's freedom / domino war actually advanced that nation?
This bullshit didn't start in 2003.
-
Che Tibby:
yeah, my viewing of the vid suggests that it may well have initially been a mistake. but... the subsequent conduct of the pilots belies that as a factor, and they were instead actively seeking *any* target they could construe as "legitimate".
this was further belied by their response. the humane response to error is horror, not, "please pick up a gun" or "aw well i killed some kids".
I linked to my blog post about this earlier but shoulda made clearer what it was about. Basically - no. There's a well-known cognitive bias working here that says *everything they saw* after the initial misidentification was just reinforcing their views. They believed these were dangerous insurgents and right to the end of the video everything they saw was a reinforcement for that.
Their failing here is entirely and precisely and specifically human. (As is their bantering tone. It's a coping response to a job that involves you killing other human beings.)
I'm horrified by this video, but lets not kid ourselves that the people pulling the trigger are crazy or monstrous. They're not. They're just like you and just like me and just like the people they killed in every important way.
http://morgue.isprettyawesome.com/?p=1399
Here's the bit about this in my post:
You can hear in the spotter’s (gunner’s?) commentary as he sees the men and sees guns that he believes this is a legitimate military target. Look again at how exactly this happens:
At 3 mins into the video, the leaked footage begins as the spotters identify a group of people standing together.
At 3 mins 20 seconds, Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen is in the centre of the frame, hoisting his camera. The spotter says “That’s a weapon.” (With those words, Namir and companions were condemned to death.)
At 3′37, the spotter reports: “Have individuals with weapons.” Note the plural – one weapon has become several, without obvious cause.
At 3′40, two other men come into frame, and they both are carrying weapons, AK-47s apparently. (These are, again, legal to carry here.) Spotter, on seeing the first of this pair: “He’s got a weapon too.” Then, after seeing the other: “Have five to six individuals with AK-47s.” Three identified weapons (one erroneously) have become five to six. They’ve seen enough. At 3′50, permission to fire is sought, and soon after is received.
At 4′10, a long camera piece is identified as an RPG. Note, permission to fire has already been received at this point.
There’s a well-known perceptual/cognitive phenomenon called confirmation bias. This says that we interpret what we are seeing in terms of what we expect to see. This video captures confirmation bias in action. A camera became a gun, then two others with guns became proof of an attack squad, then the camera again became an immediate threat. The pattern is clear: there is no way for the spotters in the helicopter to step out of this chain of perceptions.
-
Can someone confirm that they were looking through the same relatively clear lenses we see. There is some talk out there on what the soldiers in the helicoptor were actually seeing, that their pictures weren't so high definition.
-
I'm horrified by this video, but lets not kid ourselves that the people pulling the trigger are crazy or monstrous. They're not. They're just like you and just like me and just like the people they killed in every important way.
They may have started out much like any other human being, but thanks to the unquestioning obedience instilled by military training, and the circumstances in which they've been placed, they've become, to a degree, dehumanized.
As for the "coping response to a job that involves you killing other human beings", I'd have thought that would be plain to all but the most cognitively challenged. While you claim to be "horrified by this video", you appear to imply that by taking that into account the common-sense response is simply to harden up.
-
None of it makes it right, but they are real distinctions, and it should make a difference to how we feel about the situation and the people involved.
I really couldn't be arsed commenting in this thread, for the simple reason it seems to me only an idiot could equivocate about whether or not this is an atrocity. However, the waffling going on has driven me to conclude - yet again - that PA is full of fools in love with the sound of their own sophisticated mendacity.
It is wrong to kill civilians. That's the law in New Zealand. That is international law, it is U.S. law and I daresay it is the law of numerous international legal protocols both NZ and the USA have signed up to. So, lets all repeat that again for the people who can't quite grasp it. IT IS WRONG TO KILL CIVILIANS.
Now, the excuse makers, the deflectors, the apologists will say but-but-but! But what? But that Iraq isn't a "proper" war? Oh really? Define what is? But for the purpose of argument, let's agree it isn't war, more a heavily armed urban policing operation where the bad guys don't wear uniforms.
Would it be, then, OK for the Armed Offenders Squad to take out some bank robbers in downtown Palmerston North with a fucking great big, indiscriminate, helicopter mounted 30mm cannon if that also wiped out several hostages and two small children in a passing car? Yes or no? Because that is exactly what happened here.
It occurs to me that an AOS officer might shoot a robber, if the robber looks like he is about to execute numerous hostages. The AOS officer might kill a hostage by mistake in doing this, but that would be an accidental and unintentional act, performed saving mutliple lives and in line with his lawful duties. That is morally quite distinct from indiscriminately opening fire with a 30mm cannon on a bunch of civilians because you SUSPECT a couple of them are terrorists. That is murder, a morally pure, simple, open and shut case of murder. And it beggars belief that any civilised person would try to excuse opening fire on a heroic passerby who stops his van (containing small children, not that the murderers bothered to pause to consider that) to offer succour to the wounded. That act is the sort of ice cold killing that would bring a smile to the face of the Waffen SS - an organisation whose cult of violence the US Military appears to admire, and seems hell bent on emulating.
YOU CANNOT TARGET CIVILIANS PRIMARILY AND/OR INTENTIONALLY. THAT IS ILLEGAL. THAT IS MURDER.
YOU CANNOT KILL CIVIILIANS. THAT IS ILLEGAL. THAT IS MURDER.
-
no one is debating that tom
-
They may have started out much like any other human being, but thanks to the unquestioning obedience instilled by military training, and the circumstances in which they've been placed, they've become, to a degree, dehumanized.
As for the "coping response to a job that involves you killing other human beings", I'd have thought that would be plain to all but the most cognitively challenged. While you claim to be "horrified by this video", you appear to imply that by taking that into account the common-sense response is simply to harden up.
Dehumanized - yes, exactly. Being "dehumanized" is about the weaknesses/loopholes/patterns in human thinking and behaviour being systematically exploited. Horror and anger at this event should be directed at the military system that exists around it, not at the specific behaviour of the people pulling the trigger to kill other humans and then joking about it.
And of course I'm not saying "harden up". If I have to boil it down to one point, I'm saying that talking about the conduct of the soldiers we hear in the video, as Che did and as so many have done and are doing, is not helpful. Fury is better directed at the processes and systems surrounding these people, and the politicians and bureaucrats who create them.
Actually, no, my point is even shorter: beware the fundamental attribution error.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error -
What now Tom? We could hang them like old times.
-
Oh I just want to be clear where the guilt lies here. It doesn't lie with the US military system - as much as they have lost their moral compass. It doesn't lie with the so-called "rules of engagement". It sits squarely on the man who pulled the trigger. He is solely responsible for these killings.
Let us remember the shooter in this atrocity isn't some ignorant white trailer trash G.I. Hyped up on propaganda to kill the sand niggers who hate freedom.
Oh no.
The shooter in this atrocity is an officer, a pilot in the top percentile of aptitude tests and almost inevitably holding a batchelors degree. An intelligent man, then. Maybe even a family man. A successful, career man.
A moral man.
-
or prison perhaps.
-
Tom: as the post immediately above yours makes clear, I disagree completely.
-
a moral man , not anymore
Post your response…
This topic is closed.