Sickening stuff. Watch the whole video to get a sense of how desensitised to cold blooded killing these trigger happy douches get.
more here: WikiLeaks VIDEO Exposes 2007 ‘Collateral Murder’ In Iraq
Re: Collateral Murder
Just read about this on the BBC.
Morons.
Re: Collateral Murder
three years into it the thing loses whatever potential it had to impact american public opinion. they've learnt lessons from vietnam for sure.
news also now of americans/nato soldiers admitting to killing pregnant women then doctoring the scene and claiming they were killed by their husbands.
Re: Collateral Murder
Yeah saw that on Al Jazeera. It sounds very much like when i play MMORPGs with Americans. It sounds like they are playing a game. Sickening.
Re: Collateral Murder
time was when the 'left' would pick this one up and run with it. make it about Bush etc. But since its Obama now they dont really have any incentive to do that.
so what exactly is the story here?
reality: these soldiers are fighting an urban war against guerillas and baghdad in 2007 was an insurgent hotzone. it is very clear from the dialogue in the clip that the soldiers believed they were firing only at armed insurgents, not civilians...and specifically waited to determine if the group was carrying weapons. some were carrying weapons, some were carrying cameras that looked like weapons. of the dozen people killed, two were revealed to be journalists. war correspondents take on significantly higher risk to their lives when embedding whether its with US soldiers or iraqi insurgents. but what about the other 10? what about the guys with weapons?
it's easy to judge them in hindsight with slow motion replays, detailed video analysis, and knowledge that two of the dead were cameramen. all said and done, in terms of battlefield ethics what was seen in this clip would probably rank 99th percentile in the history of warfare. unfortunately there has been no other war in history where we get to watch nice well-researched youtube video clips of live combat complete with audio and subtitles before passing judgment.
Re: Collateral Murder
its clear from the dialogue that the soldiers were itching to fire, and pleading with their superiors to let them fire. its obvious from the guy pleading with the wounded cameraman whos crawling on the ground to just reach for a weapon so he gets to shoot again. there is a clear incentive there to overstate how armed the men are if you get to fire if they’re armed.
which guys exactly had weapons? can you go through that video and identify them? the identities of the other victims isnt known, and you’re being a little optimistic when you think the rest were insurgents.
what was the need to fire at a vehicle loading up the wounded reporter? international law prevents you from firing on people engaged in recovering or treating wounded people, including combatants. did they see RPGs from the van too?
the gruesomeness and the dehumanization of the victims is shocking, it doesnt matter if past wars were no picnic. Just as beheading videos provoke a reaction and judgements on those killing others like animals, as they should, so does this, as it should.
you are deliberately misrepresenting. in the soldier’s view, the guy grabbing for a weapon doesn’t mean he gets a technical justification to shoot at a civilian. it means that he will be allowed to shoot at an enemy fighter. any soldier in any military should want to attack armed enemy fighters. that is in a soldier’s nature - and it should be. this being disturbing to you is a simple function of war and its mechanics being disturbing.
remember that only in hindsight do we know he was a cameraman.
you are not understanding a basic reality of the situation: it was a live engagement. a few of the guys clearly appeared to be carrying weapons and probably were. do you really think soldiers have time to do slow motion video analysis and figure out which one to shoot and which one not to shoot? they clearly made an effort to ensure that they did not breach the rules of engagement. imagine seeing an RPG when you’re in a blackhawk. do you know what the implication of that is? it means if you don’t eliminate the threat, you get blown up.
again, its easy to judge in hindsight from a moral high ground. those soldiers would have routinely seen live battle with insurgents in identical situations. they know that RPGs have taken out plenty of choppers. insurgents were literally everywhere in baghdad and by practice embedded with civilians.
again, you use language like “wounded reporter” as if it was a known fact at the time.
i’m not sure about the discrepancies between their ROE and geneva conventions, but the fact that the van had no markings and the guys had no uniforms or indications of any kind probably facilitated the green light on opening fire. they specifically asked whether or not they should open fire and for whatever reason were told to do so.
not a sound parallel at all.
you really see moral equivalence in beheading known civilians/non-combatants on camera and a military engagement that results in the unintentional death of civilians? that’s ridiculous.
you are deliberately misrepresenting. in the soldier's view, the guy grabbing for a weapon doesn't mean he gets a technical justification to shoot at a civilian. it means that he will be allowed to shoot at an enemy fighter. any soldier in any military should want to attack armed enemy fighters. that is in a soldier's nature - and it should be. this being disturbing to you is a simple function of war and its mechanics being disturbing.
No, Im saying given the visible eagerness and salivating of the soldier at the prospect of getting to shoot one more person who is obviously completely incapacitated at that point, whether soldier or not, shows he wants to be allowed to shoot, and is therefore predisposed to see weapons. There is clearly no concern for human life, given that they laugh when one points out that the tank trampled over a victim, and all the other cavalier attitude in the video.
[quote]
you are not understanding a basic reality of the situation: it was a live engagement. a few of the guys clearly appeared to be carrying weapons and probably were. do you really think soldiers have time to do slow motion video analysis and figure out which one to shoot and which one not to shoot? they clearly made an effort to ensure that they did not breach the rules of engagement. imagine seeing an RPG when you're in a blackhawk. do you know what the implication of that is? it means if you don't eliminate the threat, you get blown up.
[/quote]
Firstly you completely dodged the question I asked of you. You said: war correspondents take on significantly higher risk to their lives when embedding whether its with US soldiers or iraqi insurgents. but what about the other 10? what about the guys with weapons?
What other ten, where in the video do you see guys with weapons? It is certainly not the case that all the other guys were armed, and it is far from clear that these reporters were 'embedded' with insurgents.
Secondly you wish to place it all on the camera that the idiots thought was an RPG. What about the van that had the children? Did they see any weapons on it?
[quote]
again, you use language like "wounded reporter" as if it was a known fact at the time.
[/quote]
Im describing the facts.
[quote]
i'm not sure about the discrepancies between their ROE and geneva conventions, but the fact that the van had no markings and the guys had no uniforms or indications of any kind probably facilitated the green light on opening fire. they specifically asked whether or not they should open fire and for whatever reason were told to do so.
[/quote]
And so they deserve criticism there. The particular article in question does not say the rescuers must wear uniforms. Not only do the laws protect the rescuers, they also protect the wounded.
Who gives a **** what basis their superiors gave them the green light on? The one carrying out the war crime and the one ordering it are both guilty.
[quote]
not a sound parallel at all.
you really see moral equivalence in beheading known civilians/non-combatants on camera and a military engagement that results in the unintentional death of civilians? that's ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
One can find excuses for anything. All beheading videos dont have civilians, and besides the beheaders dont know for sure whether the person they're beheading is a civilian (they usually accuse him of being a spy or a soldier, sometimes they are spies or soldiers). Oh and they act according to their ROE and Im sure have the green light from their superiors.
The point of the example wasnt to draw an equivalence, though one clearly draw it if so disposed. The point is to show that the gruesomeness and visceral reaction and judgement on the killers happens in both cases, and pathetic rationalisations and comparisons to earlier wars dont affect that in either case
guyz pls stop spreading lie bout amreeka... thankoo...
Re: Collateral Murder
AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE
From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military
Peace be with you.
To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:
We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.
We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.
There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.
We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.
We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of “god and country”. The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn’t have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.
More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.
Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation’s leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won’t lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation’s importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.
We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation’s leaders, and to extend our hands to you.
With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.
Solemnly and Sincerely,
Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army
Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2724