Wikileaks Collateral Murder Video

yes bod I agree that certainly is an issue. And warlord where did I try to compare modern day to ww2 I was pointing out that fact that we've come a very long way from our once "accurate" methods of warfare during ww2 and how people forget that the amount of civilian casualties during that war were catstrophic, yet no one complains about that. Think before you post nut sack. As for the rwst of yoou, stop being ignorant. None of us can speak from experience and don't even PRETEND that you can. Trying to cover it up was a huge mistake yes, but none of us can ever say we think and act on the level of a soldier. Once again, welcome to war. This shit happens.

Ps sorry for sp, typing on droid >_>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cojafoji

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p0lar_bear

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

.

---

I agree with you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InnerGoat

hey guys let's justify blatant war crimes because SUPPORT ARE TROOPS

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InnerGoat

actually it is and you're a sociopath who justifies mass murder and casual violations of international law because ARE TROOPS

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack

Why are people in this thread defending the soldiers? Their actions, that is, point and click murder, was not justified

---

@ you guys:
Nobody is justifying the actions. Some people are justifying the actions, but not me. This was not a war crime, but it was a mistake, and people make mistakes. We're defending the soldiers because this sort of thing happens and it's detrimental to the discussion on the war to cherrypick incidents like this one to skew the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ßðÐŻÍ££å

i'm not critising the soldiers, i'm criting the military bureau that tried to cover up what actually happened.
THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.

---

You're right, that is the thing to get outraged over. We can condemn the actions of the soldiers; mistake or not people are responsible for their actions. Yes we should hope for ways to keep these mistakes from happening again. But we should not condemn the soldiers themselves, and we should not be outraged at them and call them terrible human beings for making a mistake.
I can understand why the military would want to cover up this sort of thing- this thread is exactly why. People focus on mistakes instead of taking into account the real reasons mistakes are made, without understanding the nature of the situation they are discussing. I don't claim to understand the nature of the situation.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't be having this discussion- far from it. But it's far too easy to look at video like this from the comfort of your home and see it analyzed and broken down after the fact and then dish out condemnation. Like I said- people make mistakes, and mistakes are bad, but that doesn't mean the people who made the mistakes are bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StankBacon

lots of trolls in this thread :|

---

Sir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

And warlord where did I try to compare modern day to ww2 I was pointing out that fact that we've come a very long way from our once "accurate" methods of warfare during ww2 and how people forget that the amount of civilian casualties during that war were catstrophic, yet no one complains about that.

---

Right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PenGuin1362

This is war guys, this is what happens. What the fuck do you think happened during ww2. You think innocent deaths are high now? Think back to the days of carpet bombing, random artillery strikes, IN CENTRAL EUROPE. We should be happy how low the civilian casualties have gotten.

---

You're comparing event's that happened before the birth of the modern computer, the technology then and now are severely different in comparison.
Many people hold a day of remembrance each year to honour those lost during the wars, So don't even think about trying to pull that clause.
Accidents imply there was careful thought put into the actions and remorse for the results, the video shows in graphic detail neither of those were present and then the military tried covering it's own back in the hopes of being able to sweep the incident under the carpet without having to own up responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar

. Like I said- people make mistakes, and mistakes are bad, but that doesn't mean the people who made the mistakes are bad.

---

By that very logic, someone who intentionally committed a crime and then after everything is done and dusted decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all but later had remorse should be considered an accident purely because the act was made in haste and impulse with no accountability.

He did compare them, but all he did was say that things have gotten safer.

Now hold on, people should be held accountable for their mistakes. Just because it was a mistake doesn't mean we should forgive them for it or excuse them altogether. I'm just saying, there's a difference between judging a person based on a single action and extrapolating that action to their entire character (or the character of the US military, for that matter).
Let me be clear once again in saying I strongly oppose the creation of the war in Iraq. That said, I support our troops, and I understand that we can't just stop it now that it's started.
Also, after discussing it with Snaf a bit, it's crystal clear to me that the soldiers in the video were in the wrong here. It's not a moral grey area as such--morally speaking, they simply should not have opened fire--but it's a confusing situation with practicality, morality, emotion, and a whole set of other issues. It's hard to say I wouldn't have done the same thing in their position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehoodedsmack

He did compare them, but all he did was say that things have gotten safer.

---

thank you smack. It wasn't hard to comprehend there warlord. derp.

Straight from MOUT (Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain)

i. Rules of Engagment (ROE). The nature of the military operation may restrict our use of weapons. The majority of urban batles since 1967 (such as Beirut II, Hue, Jerusalem) have had one or more of the following restrictions imposed on the attacking force:

(1) Minimizing civilian casualties and/or collateral destruction in order to:

-Avoid alienation of the local population.

-Reducing the risk of adverse world or domestic opinion.

-Preserving facilities for future use.

-Preserving cultural facilities and grounds.

(2) Limiting the use of specific ground or air weapons.



Further in under "commander's estimate" in the section "enemy"

(2) Unconventional Forces. Urban areas have become a haven for unconventional forces.
The large noncombatant population provides cover and concealment for unconventional force operations. Conventional forces operating in MOUT will normally be placed under restrictive ROE to minimize collateral damage. Unconventional forces will often use our restrictive ROE and the noncombatant population to their advantage when devising an urban defense.


Simply, this was a complete failure on every level, and practically a direct breach of the ROE. The cover up attempted was for "-Reducing the risk of adverse world or domestic opinion." There you have it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Good_Apollo

Insurgents have already proven a multitude of times that they care not about the civilians they're trying to 'liberate,' often using them as shields to disrupt ROE for the US/Coalition.

---

Please don't try to talk about ROE when you don't know how or why they are implemented :\

Aside from all this, there was no clear and present danger to troop by means of legitimately identified small arms, and no SLAAM/MANPADS (any of a multitude of shoulder fired anti-air guided missiles such as stingers or grails) were ever identified. Location of incoming fire by troops on the ground was not specified, and the conversation of the guys in the helo(s?) hinted at a rather casual demeanor of their "targets" on the ground. "See that group of people just standing there?" There was no soft-contact, much less hard contact from this group of civilians.

Combatants do not act casual when a heavily armed and armored gunship is present, nor are they casual when attacking ground forces. This whole thing is botched and a lot of people in this thread need a pretty thorough head-check.

I have to say, regardless of the situation, it's always better to just come clean and be like "hey we fucked up big time". Trying to cover it up not only makes the government look bad but all those involved. Retarded choice on their part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freelancer

Look around 03m45s in the video, there's an obviously long tube shaped object that could be ID'ed as an RPG from that far away. You need to note that the pilots/gunners in question don't have video that's better quality than what we've got here, this video is also zoomed in, the gunners and pilots would have trouble seeing it any better with the naked eye. Yes I noted the two guys with cameras fairly easily, there were at least three other people with weapon shaped objects on their persons as well.

These Apaches were well within their rights to initiate the attack, it's easy for us to sit here and pick their shit apart from behind our computer monitors, but when you're over there it's either you or them. I don't know about you guys but I'd rather take the safe side and attack anyone that could possibly be threatening to me or my allies now or in the future.

---

The possibility of the presence of weapons does not grant the right to directly engage, so no, they were not well within their rights, what fantasy world do you live in? If anything, they should've been put on observation. God damn, please don't join any military with a thought process like that.