CENTCOM investigation: Killed Reuters cameramen were in company of armed ins s

[Jack21222]

How is it different when a reporter is with American troops while they kill Iraqis? Are those reporters making bad choices?

Or is it only a bad choice when reporters are with the people defending their country, and a good choice when they're with the invading troops?

 

[russ_watters]

1) People who attack military targets are not "terrorists."

True, but while we're at it, the typical word used, "insurgents", is insufficient as it doesn't convey the fact that these are unlawful combatants as they are violating geneva conventions for the protection of civilians in a combat zone. Without even considering what was going on with the van, we can see in the video the following violations:
1. Mingling of troops with civilians in a battle.
2. Non-uniformed combatants.

Both of these are in many cases calculated to use the civilians as human shields as the (obvious from the reaction to this incident) propaganda value of a dead civilian is huge.

2) That doesn't excuse the bloodlust in hoping the wounded man reaches for a gun so you get to kill him. That is despicable behavior.

This is a more difficult issue. Soldiers in a combat zone are under extreme emotional duress for months at a time and the things the soldier in the video said are relatively tame and reasonably professional. Much more important than the expletives and "bloodlust" is the fact that he asked for orders and didn't act until he received them. That's about as much as you can ask from a soldier in that situation. I heard much worse from my navy comrades in conversations while on counter-drug ops, when there was very little danger to us. Pick up a book about WWII some time and read the stories of how soldiers act in battle and you'll see that this comes nowhere close to the common level of brutality in war. There are a few certified crazies, but I'd wager that most soldiers have done things in battle they aren't proud of later. That's part of the reason most don't talk much about it later.

That said, the fact that we are able to listen to and scrutinize the words of an individual soldier in the middle of a battle should be breathtaking. It shows just how far we've come with our expectations of and scrutiny of our soldiers.

But just because we can watch it on tv, doesn't mean we should forget the truism: War is hell. We can do our best sanitize it, but we will never be able to turn it into a boxing match. (heck, while we're at it, I've heard worse from boxers in pre-fight interviews!)

A bit was made of the probability that the APC drove over one of the bodies (presumed, but not proven dead). In war, that's par for the course. It was also SOP to leave men-overboard behind in a lot of cases, as the risk of stopping to rescue them was too great. Hundreds, if not thousands of sailors lost their lives that way in WWII.

3) The US spent a lot of energy trying to prevent the release of this video. What were they trying to hide?

1. Did they? Could you cite evidence of that?
2. I don't know: you tell me what you think they were trying to hide.

 

[Jack21222]

They denied a FOIA request from Reuters, for one. They're calling Wikileaks a national security threat, too. I'm still posting from a cell phone, you can google it if you'd like.

I think they were trying to hide the callous disregard for human life that our soldiers have. Military members are deified in this country; this could tarnish their image in the eyes of many.

 

[russ_watters]

I will call out the government for waging a war that I do not believe should be fought. I will not call out troops for accidents of war as if they were war crimes.

Agreed: I see much of the backlash on this issue is people taking out on the troops, their frustrations with the government. It is misplaced.

 

[russ_watters]

So after you kill them your going to laugh about it and talk about lookin at their dead bodies as if it's something to be proud of?

You have a very odd conception of war my friend. I don't think that you've ever been in the army have you?

Have you? Yes, performance of your duties as is expected/required of you is something to be proud of.

 

[russ_watters]

Anybody thought about all those Iraqi suicide bombers that waltz into public places and blow themselves up killing 40 of their own civilians on average?

For some strange reason, it doesn't generate anywhere near the emotional backlash that this video does. I have trouble finding an explanation for that.

 

[russ_watters]

And don't give me that "they have to participate" stuff, either. They don't have to participate in the Iraq war any more than the Nazi soldiers "had to participate" in the holocaust.

"I'm just following orders" isn't a defense. Everybody fighting in Iraq is there because they choose to be. First, they had the option to not join the military. Then, they had the option to face dishonorable discharge and/or jail time rather than go.

The difference here, of course, is that these soldiers committed no crimes they need to defend themselves against.

The soldiers in this video were clearly enjoying their job. It was a lot like the scene from Full Metal Jacket where the helicopter pilot responded to "How can you shoot women and children?" with "Easy, just don't lead them as much."

The person begging for the wounded man to reach for a gun do he can shoot him is a bloodthirsty monster.

You are free to believe that because people such as this "bloodthirsty monster" are willing to and have laid down their lives to give you that freedom.

 

[Jack21222]

That bloodthirsty monster has not ever in his life risked his life for my freedom. The Iraqis never threatened my freedom, ergo he is not defending them.

As I have stated previously, the fact they even try to make that claim is the reason I care more about this video than about random suicide bombers.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Agreed: I see much of the backlash on this issue is people taking out on the troops, their frustrations with the government. It is misplaced.

...And as comedian Lewis Black pointed out, WE are the government. Ok, presumably we're not a bunch of people who elected W., but he was (sort of) elected. Pretty much the only blameless individuals are the soldiers, who are fashioned into tools to serve our needs. As I implied with Jack, our lives are built on massive death and destruction, even if we're not looking at it through an Apache's FLIR.

"For some strange reason, it doesn't generate anywhere near the emotional backlash that this video does. I have trouble finding an explanation for that."

They're not us. Again, we can't pretend we're more than human. As you said, soldiers are doing a job, and if they live in constant shame and misery, they probably won't stay soldiers! Pride in a job completed is not unnatural, it's expected. It's ugly in this case, but that's life.

I suppose Jack has the answer, "It's not [his] taxes" or government. I think that is a very convenient line to draw, and one that shows the liits of his empathy. TB, Maleria, Dengue, DYSENTERY, starvation, bad water, etc... etc.. kills more people in a DAY than will die in Iraq as a result of Apache fire for the duration of this conflict.

I find it interesting that we DID seem to care about Bosnia... oh wait... they were white, and some were Chrisitan... I keep forgetting. Maybe it's just that we don't care what others do to each other, even if rape is a way of life in the DRC, or what's STILL unfolding in Darfur, etc... etc...

Such limited outrage and compassion is pathetic and pitiable even if it can be explained by prejudice and evolutionary biology, and of course geopolitics...


@Jack: How many FOIA requests are NOT denied? That... and look at the backlash! I'm not sure if releasing this was a good idea or not... I think mostly it's just a tidbit of outrage for those who live in a fantasy of peace, that has never existed.

 

[cronxeh]

The helicopter pilots said they perceived a threat from below. They called in saying there are '5-6 people with AK47s' Let's examine this fear. In the video, at 3:20 the heading is 274 deg, at 4:35 its 94 degrees. Thats a 180 degree sweep in 75 seconds. At average speed of 3 km/minute that places the chopper at 1.19 km. If they were at cruise speed of 265km/hr that places them at 1.75km. If they were at maximum speed of 293 km/hr that places them at 1.94 km away. So that's a distance from the insurgents to the chopper of 1.19-1.94 km away. Effective range of AK47 is 0.4 km.

Now looking at the pictures posted on the CENTCOM's website, there is no picture of an RPG, just a caption of 'RPG-7' over a pool of blood. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I am not going to claim there were no RPGs in the crowd.

What I am upset about is that van being fired upon. The pilot/gunner said that "there were individuals picking up bodies and weapons". Clearly they were not picking up weapons, as that would make them enemy combatants. They were assisting the wounded, which makes it a war crime to shoot at them under any convention on the books.

 

[Evo]

That bloodthirsty monster has not ever in his life risked his life for my freedom. The Iraqis never threatened my freedom, ergo he is not defending them.

As I have stated previously, the fact they even try to make that claim is the reason I care more about this video than about random suicide bombers.

Incredible statement. These soldiers have never been in danger. No one has tried to kill them. That's what you think? They are sent to war and have no say.

Also, the audio was transcribed from an ecrypted version. Possibly not the real soldiers at all.

 

[lisab]

When you are in a war/battle zone innocent casualties ("collateral damage") will occur. The only absolute way to avoid this is to not go to war. I will call out the government for waging a war that I do not believe should be fought. I will not call out troops for accidents of war as if they were war crimes.

Yes, that's true. And that's why we have to be *so* careful before we go to war.

As for the reporters, I could care less that they were embedded with Iraqi insurgents. They have the right and freedom to do so. There is nothing suspicious there. They should also have the sense to realize that being in a hot zone with armed troops, regardless of affiliation, is hazardous. They deserve no special sympathy (or lack of sympathy) beyond that they were killed while doing dangerous work.

I agree with this too. What if reporters crept in behind German lines on D-day, to get a nice juicy story, and were killed? I think most people would think, "Oh that's too bad, but they knew what they were getting into, though."

It occurred to me, watching the video: there's a reason you don't see *anyone* else on the streets - it was an active war zone!

 

[Jack21222]

Evo:

Those soldiers are risking their lives FOR A PAYCHECK. Not for my freedom.

I never claimed they weren't risking their lives, I said they weren't doing it to protect my freedom.

 

[MotoH]

I suggest you stop before your hole gets to China.

 

[Evo]

Evo:

Those soldiers are risking their lives FOR A PAYCHECK. Not for my freedom.

I never claimed they weren't risking their lives, I said they weren't doing it to protect my freedom.

Then you are very, very wrong. You don't know anyone in the military, do you?

 

[Jack21222]

Please outline for me how the actions of our military today protect my freedom. I have never seen the connection made. It sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

My cousin just got out of the army. He did it for the paycheck and the free tuition.

 

[russ_watters]

Wikileaks use those terms specificly in regard to the killing "of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers", seen starting after 8 minutes into the full video. That said, having watched the full video, I don't see anything which could rightly consitutue provication for the first round of attacks either.

Rightly, based on what criteria? And is even "provacation" necessary? IMO, openly displaying weapons near American troops shows a danger to those troops exists. That seems to be fitting with the rules of engagement.

How would you suggest the ROE treat the situation? What should be required, in your opinion, before the American troops can engage. Remember, this is a war and the general purpose of the military in the field of battle is to seek out and destroy the enemey. Even if he's on the crapper and his gun is leaning against the wall outside.

Can you present anything resembling proof of what you are claiming as fact here, or are you simply referencing the investigation you quoted, from the same organisation which has been refusing the FOIA request to release this tape for years?

That investigation is all we have of any substance to go on. Referencing that is certainly superior to making it up as you go along, which is what you are doing.

I'm at a loss as to how one could reasonably reconcile the tape with what you quoted from the investigation, as the closest thing to "attacking" I've noticed from the guys on the ground is...

This group was making their way to the scene of an earlier battle, which implies a desire to participate in said battle. Perhaps "attack" is too strong a word, but they certainly pose a credible thread. And that's without even considering what I said above: combatants in a war are fair game, whether they have their weapons up to fire, slung over their shoulder, or sitting on the ground near them.

Or it could have simply been a man driving his kids to school when he happened upon the scene and was compelled to stop by the sight of other human beings in dire need of medical attention. After all, it is a rather large urban area which is under US occupation, it's not like people can just go into hibernation until whenever that might be over.

That is certainly possible. Does it change the responsibility of the helicpoter crew to protect the nearby infantry? No. Why? The helicopter crew had no way of knowing if it was kids on their way to school or a bomb or a group of a dozen more insurgents and as a result had to make the safest (for them) assumption. That's how war works: be careful or be dead.

That claim doesn't jive with my understanding of the RoE, but since WikiLeaks where I found them has somehow been deemed a "conspiracy site", I'll have to settle for this MSNBC interview with a LTC quoting and elaborating on them, starting about 4:40 here:

Could you comment on how you think this doesn't fit with the ROE? The commentator (a former soldier) says that the choice of to shoot or not is a judgement call. While he says he thinks the ROE was not followed properly, he offers up pretty thin reasoning for it.
First, for the initial situation, he says the ROE says soldiers "may" choose to apply "minimal force necessary" to attempt to capture these combatants and as a former intelligence officer, he would want to do that. However, he doesn't offer up a suggestion for how a helicopter can capture infantry.

For the second, he talks about the wounded as being out of combat (unless they pick up a weapon again), but doesn't really address the possible threat of the van.

Sure, we aren't fighting a war here though, but rather attempting to stabilize Iraq though an occupation, and I'm at a loss as to how what is shown in that video could rationally be considered productive to that goal. Put simply, I don't see how such actions as demonstrated in the video, or excusing it, is doing either Iraqis or us Americans anything but harm.

Productive to the goal? The act shown in the video killed some of our enemies. Obviously, that's productive to the goal. Let me be clear here: The fact that there were civilians intermixed and that some of what they were carrying was mistaken for weapons, combined with the PR fallout makes this action a mistake by the military. But that is only in hindsight. In the heat of the battle, these soldiers acted properly and clearly in a way designed to be productive to the war effort. And that is the lens by which their actions must be judged.

 

[Frame Dragger]

MotoH I am confused. Did you graduate high school yet? You seem to talk about the military as if you've been serving for years. You are not. You may in all likelyhood not even pass the psychological test, as you clearly seem to have sociopathic traits. Your statements and hence your views are what is wrong with the soldiers today. You don't seem to see the problem with what has transpired in this video.

I would say more, but I think it is against the PF guidelines.

You have no clue what you're talking about. What sociopathic traits have you identified in him? For the record, pretend I know a LOT about psychology, and neurobiology. Prentend that I know all of the diagnostic criteria. Pretend, because I do.

You're making a partial diagnoses of "sociopathic TRAITS" ONLINE. You've never studied psychology in a rigorous forum, or you wouldn't be that dim. The guy hasn't sworn or railed at Jack... so he has impulse control, and he realized that saying what he WANTED to, would get him banned. Right there, Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Pscyhopathy/Sociopathy) is ruled out. Neither of us know ANYTHING about his life, except that he has a 40 year old friend who has had 2 tours in Iraq, and is going for a third. This implies an emotional connection to the issue, in addition to the NK thread.

That rules out even sociopathic traits such as the ones you describe. Like it or not kid, it's just human. If you want to meet a real sociopath, I'd be happy to introduce you to some, and you can learn the difference between beliefs, attitude, emotion... and someone who UTTERLY lacks empathy, impulse control, planning, etc. I'd watch, I'd hate to get blood on my shoes.

Willfull ignorance on the scale being shown by some in this thread should be a shooting offense. And yes, conxeh, I am being dramatic, not murderous.

@Jack: There are better, safer, and MUCH easier paychecks. You're full of ****, and it's starting to get all over the thread. MotoH might be a good man with religious convictions... I'm much more of a relativist and conditional moralist. Make of that what you will, and the fact that I never surf without a proxy and a BNC.

 

[Evo]

All right, this is getting too emotional, let's all take a step backwards and chill out for awhile.

 

[russ_watters]

How is it different when a reporter is with American troops while they kill Iraqis? Are those reporters making bad choices?

Do you mean when a reporter is with American troops when Iraqis kill them? Yes, it is their choice to put themselves in harm's way. A reporter must gage the risk and the reward before making that choice. Obviously, though the situations are logically identical, statistically it is a lot safer to imbed yourself with American troops than with insurgents.

Or is it only a bad choice when reporters are with the people defending their country, and a good choice when they're with the invading troops?

You're making baseless assumptions about who those insurgents were and what their motivation was. They may be Iraqis, Iranians, Saudi/Afghan Al Qaeda, etc.

But to answer the question: the "good" choice in the context of the issue of this thread is the one that doesn't get the reporter killed. It is safer to be traveling with the side that is winning and taking less casualties: the Americans.

 

[Frame Dragger]

All right, this is getting too emotional, let's all take a step backwards and chill out for awhile.

*deep breath*

You're right I'm fairly pissed off, and this isn't usually an emotional issue for me. I'm going to call it a night, and clear my head.

Thanks for good and timely advice Evo.

 

[russ_watters]

The helicopter pilots said they perceived a threat from below. They called in saying there are '5-6 people with AK47s' Let's examine this fear...

Ok...what is your point?

Now looking at the pictures posted on the CENTCOM's website, there is no picture of an RPG, just a caption of 'RPG-7' over a pool of blood. I am not a conspiracy theorist, so I am not going to claim there were no RPGs in the crowd.

Ok...so what is your point?

What I am upset about is that van being fired upon. The pilot/gunner said that "there were individuals picking up bodies and weapons". Clearly they were not picking up weapons, as that would make them enemy combatants. [emphasis added]

Clearly? It is tough to tell exactly what they are doing (if anything) besides picking up the wounded. And that's the entire point: since the helicopter crew's responsibility is to protect the the nearby soldiers, they aren't entitled to make generous assumptions about the actions/motives of people in a war zone. Doing so gets Americans killed.

They were assisting the wounded, which makes it a war crime to shoot at them under any convention on the books.

The reason that medics and ambulances are required by the Geneva conventions to be clearly marked is so that soldiers know they are noncombatants and only there to protect the wounded. As the van was unmarked and the people were not uniformed, assuming they were only there to help the wounded is not prudent.

 

[russ_watters]

Please outline for me how the actions of our military today protect my freedom. I have never seen the connection made. It sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

My cousin just got out of the army. He did it for the paycheck and the free tuition.

If that's the only reason, then he's lucky he flew under the radar and didn't get in trouble for violating his oath, which contains this phrase: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

While you may not agree with any specific action of the military, that's your luxury, sitting at home on your comfy couch. That you can't see the obvious need for the military to exist speaks volumes about your mindset here.

No, we don't live in a world as dangerous as in 1939 or even 1962, but in part because of the military, we also don't live in a world as dangerous as in 2001. The war on terror has been a huge undertaking, but it is at least partly responsible for the failure of Al Qaeda to have much of an impact since 2001. And that's only part of what the military does. Recently, besides keeping Al Qaeda at bay, they've airlifted supplies to Hati and Indonesia, protected South Korea and Japan from North Korea, mingled with foreign forces for foreign relations and mutual defense, etc.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Ok...what is your point? Ok...so what is your point? Clearly? It is tough to tell exactly what they are doing (if anything) besides picking up the wounded. And that's the entire point: since the helicopter crew's responsibility is to protect the the nearby soldiers, they aren't entitled to make generous assumptions about the actions/motives of people in a war zone. Doing so gets Americans killed. The reason that medics and ambulances are required by the Geneva conventions to be clearly marked is so that soldiers know they are noncombatants and only there to protect the wounded. As the van was unmarked and the people were not uniformed, assuming they were only there to help the wounded is not prudent.

Instantly breaking my pledge, I would add the old axiom: "Assumptions make for dead soldiers"

Corollary: "Those who hesitate, meditate, in the horizontal position forever."


----

@cronxeh: They followed protocol, and considering that an Apache gunship could have leveled that building with some rocket fire, using it's 30mm WAS restrained. Not firing through the building was restraind. Not shooting first and asking for permission later is what makes it LEGAL.

@EVO: Apparantly I have the willpower of a toadstool.

 

[cronxeh]

Ok...what is your point? .

The point is, the choppers were in no danger from either AK47's or RPG-7's.

Not to mention that RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon. The effective distance was under 1 km and probability of the RPG hitting the chopper over 1 km away is almost zero.

There were no ground forces around that area, they were not being engaged by this group of people, so what rules of engagement govern the use of deadly force in this instance? If you don't want to be technical about this issue, then just admit it - its not about rules and regulations but about 'us vs them'.

 

[Evo]

Instantly breaking my pledge, I would add the old axiom: "Assumptions make for dead soldiers"

Corollary: "Those who hesitate, meditate, in the horizontal position forever."


----

@cronxeh: They followed protocol, and considering that an Apache gunship could have leveled that building with some rocket fire, using it's 30mm WAS restrained. Not firing through the building was restraind. Not shooting first and asking for permission later is what makes it LEGAL.

@EVO: Apparantly I have the willpower of a toadstool.

That's fine frame dragger. There are some things that deserve a response.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The point is, the choppers were in no danger from either AK47's or RPG-7's.

Not to mention that RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon. The effective distance was under 1 km and probability of the RPG hitting the chopper over 1 km away is almost zero.

There were no ground forces around that area, they were not being engaged by this group of people, so what rules of engagement govern the use of deadly force in this instance? If you don't want to be technical about this issue, then just admit it - its not about rules and regulations but about 'us vs them'.

Their mission was to find and kill militants in that region, due to previous attacks. Did you bother to research this at all?

As for the RPG-7... wow, now it's not a puddle of blood? Speaking of which, I seem to recall seeing LIVE people hilding one.

Lets put that aside... You're a police officer, and on your patrol you see a man with a gun sticking out of his pants. He's the only person you can see, but he shouldn't have that gun, it's a Machine Pistol. Your job, your duty, your oath requires you to take action, and that may well end up in someone injured or dead. It doesn't matter if the fellow isn't currently shooting something, they are acting unlawfully, and your job is to stop them.

Well... in war, your job is to kill or capture them. How do you approach a man with an RPG?
I'm also amazed that you determined the effective distnace of that RPG in relation to the elevation/distance of the helos! Heck, you couldn't even SEE the other two! You must refer me to your psychic optometrist.

EDIT: Oh, and btw, AK-47 fire CAN bring down a chopper, and why would you assume that people armed with weapons of war don't have OTHER weapons at their disposale? It's WAR.

@Evo: Thank you Evo.

 

[kyleb]

First, for the initial situation, he says the ROE says soldiers "may" choose to apply "minimal force necessary"...

I'm going to jump right to the heart of our disagreement here. LTC Shaffer said:

First rule is "You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent by minimum force necessary."

So, when did the men on the ground commit a hostile act or show hostile intent? I see a couple of them carrying what looks to be rifles, but not even holding them in a hostile manor, let alone firing, and I'd figure that if they had any intent of doing so they wouldn't be casually hanging out while paying no attention to the circling chopper.

 

[cronxeh]

Lets put that aside... You're a police officer, and on your patrol you see a man with a gun sticking out of his pants. He's the only person you can see, but he shouldn't have that gun, it's a Machine Pistol. Your job, your duty, your oath requires you to take action, and that may well end up in someone injured or dead. It doesn't matter if the fellow isn't currently shooting something, they are acting unlawfully, and your job is to stop them.

Your job is not to shoot him in the head first, and handcuff him later. And then shoot the responding EMS in the head as well. Your job is to attempt to handcuff him, and if he grabs the weapon, shoot him as that would be a hostile intent.

Well... in war, your job is to kill or capture them. How do you approach a man with an RPG?

You dont.

I'm also amazed that you determined the effective distnace of that RPG in relation to the elevation/distance of the helos! Heck, you couldn't even SEE the other two! You must refer me to your psychic optometrist.

I haven't even included the elevation in those simple calculations, which would bring the total distance from ground to the chopper way over 1.5 km.

Oh, and btw, AK-47 fire CAN bring down a chopper, and why would you assume that people armed with weapons of war don't have OTHER weapons at their disposale? It's WAR.

Because when you start extrapolating you propagate the error. If you assume they had RPGs, let's assume they had Stinger missiles, then let's assume they also had a sniper there in the van, aiming a 50 cal rifle at the pilot. Let's go further and assume they had drugs in the trunk and weapons of mass destruction. Let's just be on the safe side here and napalm the whole area.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I'm going to jump right to the heart of our disagreement here. LTC Shaffer said:


So, when did the men on the ground commit a hostile act or show hostile intent? I see a couple of them carrying what looks to be rifles, but not even holding them in a hostile manor, let alone firing, and I'd figure that if they had any intent of doing so they wouldn't be casually hanging out while paying no attention to the circling chopper.

Hint: people in a warzone with assault rifles and an RPG (or what looked like them to the chopper spotter/gunner) are PRESUMED to show hostile intent.

Now, what is the minimum force you need to subdue/kill people with military grade weapons? Hint: You shoot them.

Overkill would be rocket fire.

War-crimes would be leveling that block.

Keep in mind that ONE of those choppers had that choice.

Short of leaning out of the canopy and firing a sidearm at these people, that WAS minimum force... unless you think they should have waited for nonexistant ground-troops? Ground troops who would probably suffer casualties...


All of this because Journalists who are most probably, in the case of those in active warzones, people with high arousal thresholds and this is their "base-jumping". There are passionate people trying to tell a story, but that is a distinct minority. If you choose to report on your own or with militants in a warzone, you might die. That goes for Americans and everyone else. They made a choie to put themselves in MASSIVE risk, and they paid the price. It's unfortunate, but not a war crime.

 

[signerror]

The point is, the choppers were in no danger from either AK47's or RPG-7's.

Not to mention that RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon. The effective distance was under 1 km and probability of the RPG hitting the chopper over 1 km away is almost zero.

There were no ground forces around that area...

Actually, there were ground forces just 100 meters away, in the direction where the camera lens was pointing.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View={41BA1AAF-785A-481A-A630-12470AFCD6FD}

2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation, page 11:

The Bravo Company 2-16 soldiers were within 100 meters of the location of a group of insurgents and two individuals carrying cameras when Apache helicopters engaged the insurgents with 30mm gunfire.

ibid, page 12:

One of the cameramen is seen peering from behind the wall looking west toward the approaching Bravo Company soldiers. The voice on the gun tape mistakenly identifies the long telephoto lens as an RPG.

Sworn Statements, page 13:

We first saw people standing by the trailer in the courtyard and as we were coming around and started to lose visibility because of the buildings, we saw the one guy standing in the corner. From what I could see, he was in a crouching position on that corner and focused down the street where the friendly HMMWVs were parked. They were a few blocks down the road. From what I could tell, it looked just liked a weapon and the guy was in a crouching posture with a weapon. Because there were guys with RPGs and AK-47s right there in that same spot, that's what we assumed it was. I couldn't tell if it was an RPG or AK-47, but it looked like someone coming around the corner engaging friendly forces. So, we already had a report of the small arms fire at friendly forces in that direction and here we saw a guy leaning around the corner with something in his hands at the friendly forces, right next to guys who we knew had weapons.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Your job is not to shoot him in the head first, and handcuff him later. And then shoot the responding EMS in the head as well. Your job is to attempt to handcuff him, and if he grabs the weapon, shoot him as that would be a hostile intent.

Sorry, that was the incorrect answer! If the person reachs for that gun, or the police officer THINKS they are, "bang". Oh, and you're right, no headshots unless you're cocky, because it's tough to hit. ALL LEOs in this country are tought:

1.) Never draw your gun unless you may need to kill what is in your sights.
2.) A gun is not a shield, it is an offensive weapon, with no defensive value.
3.) ALWAYS... ALWAYS aim for center mass, and empty your clip.

I've trained with LEOs, courtesy of a friend, so unlike you, I'm not guessing.

You dont.

A luxury not afforded a soldier OR a police officer.

I haven't even included the elevation in those simple calculations, which would bring the total distance from ground to the chopper way over 1.5 km.

Which chopper? The one from which we see the video? 17? Or 18?

Because when you start extrapolating you propagate the error. If you assume they had RPGs, let's assume they had Stinger missiles, then let's assume they also had a sniper there in the van, aiming a 50 cal rifle at the pilot. Let's go further and assume they had drugs in the trunk and weapons of mass destruction. Let's just be on the safe side here and napalm the whole area.

I'm not making assumptions, I'm repeating the observations made by the people on the scene. The hostile intent is expressed by the weapons they have, do you not realize that? It's not a philosophical debate, it's military doctrine. You are making INCREDIBLE assumptions about the situation both on the ground, and in the air however. You haven't confirmed an error to propogate, so in fact you're a source of unrealiable information. That said, Napalming the area would be the prudent action if we were trying to fight a winning war. Instead, we're in a terrible mess we should never have entered, and we're trying to withdraw and stabilize, not engage.

I'll say it again, war should be like surgery: Fast, efficient, cold. The longer they're on the table, the more that can go wrong. AGAIN, this is the nature of warfare, and why it is to be avoided! That war can be fought according to rules only works when the nations involved don't stand to utterly lose.

 

[Jack21222]

Alright, I'm home now, I can post properly.

Jack... you're making a soldier you've only just heard of into a charictature every bit as ugly as those racists on this side of the ocean do of "The Terrorists". I don't believe you have a grasp of human history that is required to discuss this issue, and your utter misunderstanding (or deliberate side-stepping) of my point about mission vs. choice is ridiculous and offensive. I'm not relgious, but I was raised Jewish, in the culture so try not compare ANYTHING to events around WWII unless you're ready to defend that position with more than bluster.

I'm not comparing this situation to the holocaust. I'm referencing the Nuremberg trials, in which it was established that "just following orders" is no excuse to do something immoral. Yes, I know about the Milgram experiment. Still doesn't make it right.

You also missed my point about how humans handle stress... I'd say the numbers coming back haunted by their expereinces preclude your notion of bloodthirsty monsters. That, and the average age of entry into the armed forces is YOUNG... and young people don't always have the best grasp of consequence.

They have also been TRAINED to kill, to disassociate themselves from the act of killing, and to react in the best interests of their unit. They were on patrol SPECIFICALLY to kill militants in the area because of previous fire from that region. They see people with weapons, spend a great deal of time waiting to engage, and then carry out their mission to kill these people.

All this explains is HOW they became so savage. It doesn't change who they are. And sure, some will regret what they did later. It still doesn't excuse their behavior. My assessment of "bloodthirsty monster" doesn't mean it's a lifelong label. Just at that particular time.

That's war Jack, and that's why it should be avoided at all costs, if possible.

The tragedy here is that Iraq didn't need to be invaded by us, but that doesn't change how you carry on with warfare. The fact that we're stuck in hell because W. et al were sociopathic to an extreme that makes J.W. Gacey look like a FRIENDLY clown...

We agree on this.

doesn't mean that our armed forces should stuff flowers in their rifles and walk away.

Part of blowing a country to hell after crippling it with 10 years of sanctions is an OBLIGATION to rebuild the infrastructure of that country. You can't do that if people are shooting at you, shooting each other, and blowing themselves (and others) away with IEDs, bombs, etc.

And disagree here. If they don't want us there, we should leave. Every time we try to "fix" things, they seem to get worse. They want us out to rebuild on their own? Fine, let's get out and stop making the problem worse. This is like a rapist sticking around to raise their kid.

By the way, you give (medical I presume) doctors too much credit. Yes, many of them are there to save lives, and plenty are there for a career, and acively avoid cases that would harm that career. Medicines are made, and then abadoned because too few people need it, even though that condemns them to death. Then there are the COSMETIC Plastic Surgeons all over the world, and the pill dispensers who've made Rx's more lethal than all illegal drugs combined.

Not too many cosmetic surgeons talk about their patients "circling the drain." I was specifically referring to the medical doctors working to save peoples lives. Even when they're callous about losing a patient, I don't know of any that intentionally kill their patients. That's where the analogy breaks down, but it's also where the analogy was trying to be applied.

By the way Jack, if your life depended on shooting a woman and child, you really are staring death in the face in this scenario, are you POSITIVE that you could overcome your fear, anxiety, terror... and let them kill you? Your morality is shallow and that is reflected in your limited ability to grasp some basic concepts, nd separate them from your opinion, emotions, and history.

If my life depended on it, I'd have no problem shooting. At least, I'd like to think I'd have no problem doing it, I may chicken out at the last second. The "women and children" comment was referring to a scene in a movie that this reminded me of.

And Jack?... enjoying your modern internet lifestyle? You must know the asymmetry inherent in that, and just how many lives a day go into how you take your ease, when you average it out? My "guess", is that soldier has less kills than you; of course the soldier had to make a choice for a selfeless reason... we just enjoy petrochemicals, abundant food, medicine, etc... etc... that is pure hypocrisy.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, as it takes us far off topic.

I suppose Jack has the answer, "It's not [his] taxes" or government. I think that is a very convenient line to draw, and one that shows the liits of his empathy. TB, Maleria, Dengue, DYSENTERY, starvation, bad water, etc... etc.. kills more people in a DAY than will die in Iraq as a result of Apache fire for the duration of this conflict.

It's a convenient line because I can only control what directly involves me. I have no control over Malaria. On the other hand, the actions of American soldiers reflect upon me personally. I'm funding them. While I care about the things you mentioned (I donate computer time to World Community Grid to help solve some of these problems, for example), it's impossible to be outraged about everything all the time. Because this directly reflects on me, it is controlled by my government, and paid for by my tax dollars, and is a direct action of some human beings, it makes sense to spend time of my time on this subject as opposed to the others.

I find it interesting that we DID seem to care about Bosnia... oh wait... they were white, and some were Chrisitan... I keep forgetting. Maybe it's just that we don't care what others do to each other, even if rape is a way of life in the DRC, or what's STILL unfolding in Darfur, etc... etc...

I might be wrong, but it seems you want to imply that I supported the intervention in Bosnia. I did not, so the implications of racism don't apply to me. If you meant this to be an aside, and not connected to the comment directly before it, I apologize.

@Jack: There are better, safer, and MUCH easier paychecks. You're full of ****, and it's starting to get all over the thread. MotoH might be a good man with religious convictions... I'm much more of a relativist and conditional moralist. Make of that what you will, and the fact that I never surf without a proxy and a BNC.

Maybe I've just had a long day, but the last few sentences there seem to have no connection to anything being discussed.

But to answer the question: the "good" choice in the context of the issue of this thread is the one that doesn't get the reporter killed. It is safer to be traveling with the side that is winning and taking less casualties: the Americans.

I must have misunderstood your previous post. To me it sounded like you were calling reporters embedded with Iraqis a "problem" based on morality, not practicality of staying alive. I apologize.

 

[zomgwtf]

I just want to point out that I'm not disagreeing with the pilots taking out the enemy ground forces that were perceived to be a threat, nor am I saying anything about the reporters death being anyones fault but their own.

I still feel that the attitude conveyed in the clip by the military personel in my opinion isn't the attitude they should have in their operation. I understand that it is extremely stressfull and I do give the soldiers a lot of credit, you can read through my previous posts I feel very strongly towards these soldiers and am extremely respectful and thankful for what they do. Coming from New Brunswick (I'm not sure if you guys understand Canadian lifestyles or not but anyways) I have a large amount of family members in the Canadian forces. There's been many tragedies that hit close to home, not in my immediate family mind you. I've also had close friends who have been in the American military, some which have been killed in duty over in Iraq.

However generally speaking from what they tell me they all had their heads on properly. They didn't want to see people die, and they certainly didn't get excited when the moment came. They didn't take personal joy in killing enemy combatants in fact it haunts them to this very day.
Do I know that while they were in the moment that they didn't act in such a manner as seen in the video? No, I do not know but I take their words as being honest. There are plenty of soldiers serving however that do act this way though. It's sad to see and in my mind it's quite disgusting. They might be insurgents, or terrorist but they are PEOPLE, living breathing people, with parents and possibly siblings, significant others and maybe children.

In short, you should kill when you have to and leave it at that, even in war. You shouldn't be hoping that on this time out your going to get to shoot someone and watch them die while you laugh at them. That's the general attitude I picked up from the video and I've seen many documentaries on this. Where officers congratulate soldiers on getting their first kill, or where they intentionally kill innocent people in front of their families just because they can and are happy about it. Some will argue (like I believe waht was trying to do) that once they earn the respect they'll receive it, or once they show American troops some respect, they'll receive it. I don't buy these arguments at all.

As well, before people ask me if I'm in the military or try telling me I don't know because I haven't been there. I have actually gone to the recruiting office and was in the process of being enlisted, something came up in my family so I decided to back out. I now have to wait before I can resubmit a new application. I was applying to become either an armoured soldier or infantry, I was also looking at options of Entry officer programs for schooling however I've heard from people that those officers are not really respected in the military due to lack of experience so I'm not sure if I'd want to be 'that guy'.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm not making assumptions, I'm repeating the observations made by the people on the scene. The hostile intent is expressed by the weapons they have, do you not realize that? It's not a philosophical debate, it's military doctrine. .

If its not a philosophical debate, then why is it that from 2003 and 2007 the attacks have steadily risen?

March 19 2003, we invaded Iraq. March 30 2003 Donald Rumsfeld knows where the WMDs are. May 1 2003, Bush on the carrier with Mission Accomplished banner. December 13 2003, Saddam captured.

Up to this point, as of Jan 17 2004, 500 US soldiers were killed in Iraq total. April 28 2004, Abu Ghraib revealed. June 28 2004, Bush transfers the sovereignty to Iraq. September 7 2004, 1000 soldiers dead total. Sept 16 2004, the UN secretary states that Iraq war was illegal.

March 3 2005, total of 1500 soldiers dead. October 26 2005, total of 2000 soldiers dead... and so on until today.

Did you identify the point at which the war was in it infancy and still salvagable? It was before April 2004. There was still a chance to withdraw. We entered under false pretenses, billions of dollars went missing on reconstruction work, thousands of lives lost and countless number of innocent civilians killed.


The objectives, as stated prior to invasion of Iraq, were:
-end of Saddam's regime: done
-eliminate whatever WMDs could be found: not there
-eliminate whatever Islamist militants could be found: as it turns out, this is a poorly stated objective
-obtain intelligence on militant networks: probable best left for CIA
-secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure
-assist in creating a representative but compliant government as a model for other Middle East nation


Nothing in this list of objectives talks about Bin Laden or going after the terrorists who were responsible for September 11 attacks. If this was a philosophical debate, then perhaps critical thinking was applied and thousands of lives saved.