US army murders Reuters journalists and civilians

[Le Communard]

The horror. The horror...

[Stego]

One's a Marine in Afghanistan involved in the Helmand offensive, the other served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is in Japan atm.

Pics:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7421/ld81b915fcf30f10262a48ddl4.jpg - The Iraq/Afghan and now in Japan guy

http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs464.snc3/25466_363195540599_643580599_5294459_3592424_n.jpg -Guy in Afghanistan

http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/152/l_2500dc326f164243a62b175117f77c15.jpg - Same guy as the one above, he has the giant gun.

You are posting the pictures of people who are NOT you on the internet? Do you have any idea how classless that is?

I *am* a Marine, and I am telling you that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Commodore]

Walking around without any identification with RPGs and AK-47s in a warzone can be hazardous to your health.

Embedding with such individuals can also be hazardous to your health.

Or maybe it wasn't an RPG, but the person in the aircraft certainly thought it was (you can clearly see at 4:07 someone laying on the ground with what could very well be an RPG), identified it as a potential threat, and eliminated it.

Warzones are dangerous. War reporters are respected and rare because of the risks they take.

"Hey there's a bunch of guys with AK-47s with no identification coming up on the patrol we are supposed to be protecting. Looks like one of them has an RPG. Oh wait, let's not do anything, it could be an embedded Reuters reporter with a big camera sticking out of that building. We better not engage."

That's not how wars are fought. And if you were in the aircraft you wouldn't take the chance that it was some guy with a camera walking around in a fucking warzone. That wouldn't even enter your mind.

[jurble]

You are posting the pictures of people who are NOT you on the internet? Do you have any idea how classless that is?

I *am* a Marine, and I am telling you that you don't know what you are talking about.

Bah, they're cool guys.

And they tell me they enjoy what they do. I don't know if they do or not. Maybe they're bluffing - it could be all machismo bluster. But I take them at their word.

[Stego]

Bah, they're cool guys.

What the fuck does that mean? Does it mean they would be cool with you speaking for them and posting their image on the internet? I fucking doubt it.

And do Marines spout ridiculous machismo? We are bred on it.

Speak your own words from your own mouth.

[Shryke]

Same vein of mistakenly killing non combatants and the whole 'cover up' thing. I suppose I could have explained the rational of why I included the link a bit more.

Not really in the same vein at all though.

I mean, for one thing the original story occurred in a hot zone while protecting a convoy that had come under fire.

The one you linked is the US doing special operations in a country they aren't technically supposed to be in.

[Le Communard]

My question: if these killings were a "justified but unfortunate accident" why didn't the military fess up and try and make amends? Why the cover up?

[Stego]

Why the cover up?

If Generals are 'stained' by such events, they will not get their next star. Any military officer who has attained the rank of O-5 or above is a political creature and not a military one; as shifty and treacherous and untrustworthy as the worst congressperson.

[King Nobody]

Yes, except if you actually stopped for a second to think, you'd realise your position only makes sense if NOBODY enjoyed their job.

No it doesn't. Many people are employed who don't enjoy their job, this doesn't make their employers unreasonable. You get paid to perform a job, not to enjoy a job.

And since some people do, why is it strange to think some people enjoy being soldiers?

Obviously some people do enjoy being soldiers, I saw the video. I'm not arguing that people don't enjoy being soldiers, I'm arguing that the people that do enjoy certain aspects of soldiery are fucked up individuals.

There's actually a difference between bombs (indiscriminate and lots of collateral damage) and long range weapons.

If you actually stopped for a second to think you would realize the problem with this statement.

[litechick]

Four pages in and nobody has made the connection that a person shooting down another person might be happy to have been successful because said person believes he has just shot down a "bad guy." This surprises me.

I have to thank SJohn for saying "I can 100% guarantee you that the U.S. military, as an organization, is not interested in killing one single non-combatant. Not one." This is what I believe. (This is what I want to believe.)

If you think you have just made a kill which will lead to an overall decrease in Iraq fatalities, there's no reason to be morose. One must also strive not to be a douchebag American Cowboy but there is no reason to be morose...until later.

Whatever our judgments about the reality of their actions, it should not be overlooked that the people with the triggers believed they were doing the right thing.

I also need to thank Annelise for quoting: "I do want to say something that everyone understands. We really ask a lot of our young service people out on the checkpoints because there's danger, they're asked to make very rapid decisions in often very unclear situations. However, to my knowledge, in the nine-plus months I've been here, not a single case where we have engaged in an escalation of force incident and hurt someone has it turned out that the vehicle had a suicide bomb or weapons in it and, in many cases, had families in it. That doesn't mean I'm criticizing the people who are executing. I'm just giving you perspective. We've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none has proven to have been a real threat to the force."

I'm making the leap of logic that many service personnel who suffer PTSD suffer it because they had to make an instantaneous judgment call and made it incorrectly. That's the thing about war, normal mistakes have huge consequences.

If people can understand why Bill Clinton lied about his sex life, I don't get why people can't understand why the Pentagon would cover up an accidental non-combatant casualty. There are legions of people who are slavering for the chance to use anecdotal evidence to show why trying to kill enemy combatants is Wrong! Wrong!!!

The more courageous stance would be to own up to mistakes and accept the censure of the world for catastrophic mistakes but in a world where people are more than willing to see the military as bloodthirsty sociopaths, I can understand why they would try to cover it up even if I don't condone it.

Innocent people were killed. The people who killed them are going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Am I allowed to weep for the innocents and their families while simultaneously weeping for the guy on the trigger?

It doesn't really matter whether I am "allowed" or not, that's the way I feel.

[Ran]

... because said person believes he has just shot down a "bad guy."

Why did he believe it? Because he suspended his own judgment, it seems to me. The rules of engagement were, if they were followed properly -- and I gather they were followed properly, because there appears to have been no disciplinary action taken -- extremely liberal in what would be considered an acceptable target.

Bunch of unarmed people hanging around pretty casually with a couple armed people in Iraq, where everyone's allowed an AK-47? Enemy combatants. A van showing up with people trying to help pull wounded survivors who may or may not be enemy combatants? Enemy combatants. No question about it. I mean, to be honest, is that how insurgent act in Iraq? Chatting, walking around openly, apparently cracking jokes, and so on, not a care in the world? Having seen videos of Palestinian's preparing to face off with Israeli forces and so on, I don't know, the vibe is usually pretty different, a lot more furtive, more running or jogging from place to place.

In any case. I think the main thing I get out of this is that Apaches should not be used for this sort of work. If there was a firefight in progress or these individuals were absolutely involved in the firing on the raid going on, fine, helicopters are a fine support platform. But it's clear that they're not capable of identifying who is or is not an enemy combatant in certain circumstances.

[Sirius]

In any case. I think the main thing I get out of this is that Apaches should not be used for this sort of work. If there was a firefight in progress or these individuals were absolutely involved in the firing on the raid going on, fine, helicopters are a fine support platform. But it's clear that they're not capable of identifying who is or is not an enemy combatant in certain circumstances.

I don't know if you watched the whole long video of it, but at one point, after the "firefight" (for lack of a better word) is over, they do atleast try to justify their actions. I forget the exact wording he used, but it was along the lines of: "Those were the guys we saw with the weapons and possibly an RPG... oh and ya, they were the guys sending small-arms fire your way". He kind of added it as an afterthought, whether or not it was to cover his ass, or whether his adrenaline was pumping and he wasn't stringing together great sentences is debatable

Also, just to add, they did zoom in on the Iraqis in question, and if one was specifically looking for armed men in that particular area... I guess the best way to say it, is that it wasn't obvious that they were unarmed. To an over-alert mind it could have looked like they were carrying guns, and in a situation where hesitation could cost you your life or the life of your friends, it's tough to put them at fault.

For the record, I'm not in support of the cover-up after the fact. I understand that civilian casualties look bad to the public and the world, but like we all learned when we were 4, it's better to fess up on your own terms than be caught red-handed later on.

[litechick]

Why did he believe it? Because he suspended his own judgment, it seems to me.

I don't know Ran. I've read Generation Kill and it gives an example of a guy who was absolutely sure that a clump of huts was a superior team of combatants, so well trained that they didn't appear to move at all and another example of Marines getting fired upon without the ability to knock out the spotters because the spotters were unarmed and it would be against the ROE for them to fire.

The more I read, the more I am convinced that I have no fucking idea what it is like to be in a combat zone and I have no right to judge the people who are.

[Ran]

. I guess the best way to say it, is that it wasn't obvious that they were unarmed.

Think it was pretty obvious that most of them were unarmed. They spotted a couple of AK-47s and mistakingly believed the camera equipment were additional weapons. But there were, what, 8 people there? So half of them are not obviously armed, and yet they fire at the whole group, and then they fire at a van with not obviously armed people are trying to help the wounded. It seems to me the priorities are all wrong.

litecheck,

You know what? I'm not sure how well it fits to compare a helicopter pilot's experience to that of ground pounders, at least in this specific situation. They are not in a combat situation, as far as such things go -- they're more than half a mile away, looking at the specs of the M230 chain gun, which would be the extreme range (or perhaps even beyond that) of an RPG aimed at an airborne target.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for the error if this killing of civilians was carried out by infantrymen who were the subject of small arms fire and did misread what was going on.

The helicopter pilots were as safe as could be, had all the wonders of tens of millions of dollars worth of modern technology in their hands, and the rules of engagement still led them astray. They were not in a stressful position, they were not in danger, and they had no obvious evidence that these were combatants.

I blame whoever devised the rules of engagement as it applied to Apache pilots, more so than the pilots themselves. Like I said, I don't think Apaches should be used in this sort of action. As support for people on the ground, yes. As hunter-killers, no.

[jurble]

What the fuck does that mean? Does it mean they would be cool with you speaking for them and posting their image on the internet? I fucking doubt it.

And do Marines spout ridiculous machismo? We are bred on it.

Speak your own words from your own mouth.

They're fine with the pics, the pics are from our gaming guild's public forums. And I'm not speaking for them, I'm using them to support my damn premise.

[mormont]

They're fine with the pics, the pics are from our gaming guild's public forums. And I'm not speaking for them, I'm using them to support my damn premise.

I'm completely unclear on how you think they 'support your premise'. Because they are of soldiers holding guns? :huh:

[Tears of Lys]

The more I read, the more I am convinced that I have no fucking idea what it is like to be in a combat zone and I have no right to judge the people who are.

This.

I fault Bush and Cheney and the whole screwed-up mechanism that led to our guys being there.

[awesome possum]

*cough*Location:Bloomington, IN*cough*

Your country, run by your government that you elect sure as hell did.

"You" in this case obviously referring to US citizens in general (or British citizens or whoever with Military in the area in question).

So yeah, stop with the idiotic deliberate obtuseness.

If anyone here is being deliberately obtuse it's you, big guy.

The first election I voted in was 2004 and I voted against every single person who voted for the Iraq war. You can take that check to the fucking bank and cash it. And while you're there, get a new argument. This one is trite and horribly lame.

Or would you prefer for me to find some atrocities that can be laid at the feet of the Canadian army and blame them on you?

Can you find me the part where killing is not part of the job?

So you're admitting that you were wrong in saying that armed forces only have one job and that's to kill people?

You mean right next to the post where you said it? "We easily killed people from the relatively safety and distance that our advanced technology provides us"

You act like there's something wrong with killing them from a safe distance. This is called "Common Sense".

No, I acted like there was something wrong with cheering and slapping yourself on the back after you pushed a button that killed people from a safe distance. You're the one who seems to think that people should be elated about killing other people. That's called "Fucking Insane."

Basically, you seem to be getting all pissy that war involves killing people.

Basically, you seem to be getting all pissy that people don't like that war involves killing people. I wonder which one is more fucked up?

You can not like War, that's fine. But once you start one, don't get all upset cause suddenly there's alot of bodies piling up.

You really don't get it, do you? You're not just playing obtuse.

Which statement here most typifies the sociopathic response? How are you defining sociopath?

Jurble's little quote about how his Marine friends "enjoy killing people." Maybe that's not sociopathic. It's just plain psychopathic and sick.

If you think you have just made a kill which will lead to an overall decrease in Iraq fatalities, there's no reason to be morose.

They had no reason to think such a thing. Maybe before the kill, but not after. Not when it was revealed that two children were wounded in the van and that they had just watched their father get murdered for trying to help people.

[Lord Mord]

Ser Possum,

Jurble's little quote about how his Marine friends "enjoy killing people." Maybe that's not sociopathic. It's just plain psychopathic and sick.

Oh, I see. I had thought you were calling the boarder a sociopath, or, apparently, a sick psychopath. If you're just saying there are sick and psychopathic Marines out there, then I'd find that hard to disprove so I'll accept it as true. Carry on.

[kungtotte]

Why did he believe it? Because he suspended his own judgment, it seems to me. The rules of engagement were, if they were followed properly -- and I gather they were followed properly, because there appears to have been no disciplinary action taken -- extremely liberal in what would be considered an acceptable target.

A military convoy was under attack in this area. They were being fired upon, and they called for the helicopter to support them. While circling the area trying to locate the shooters they spot a group of people that appear to be carrying weapons, some of those people are also leaning out behind cover like they are aiming towards the convoy. Did you watch the full unedited 40 minute footage or the edited 17-minute footage? In the shorter version it's not entirely clear that there actually was a firefight going on.

We know now that they were just aiming cameras, presumably looking to capture footage of the firefight, but given the context I have no difficulties in understanding why and how the helicopter crew arrived at their faulty conclusion.

As for shooting up the van, it stems from them misidentifying these people as enemy combatants. In that frame of mind, they didn't see a family in a van drive up to help some wounded people, they saw more enemies coming to the aid of their fallen comrades, most likely to recover any weapons on the scene.

As terrible accidents go, this one is rather gruesome, but it is still an accident. Everything can be traced back to misidentifying these people as a threat.

Here are two comments on Reddit that I think are pretty insightful. It gives some idea as to how these people could be misidentified as threats.