# Wikileaks Releases Video of US Military War Crimes



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

www.wikileaks.com

Click on the link on the website, it is against the MT TOS to post the video link directly to the site because of its language and violent content.  Please watch this video with discretion.

Here is the blurb from wikileaks.



> WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting             the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New             Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.              Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom             of Information Act, without success since the time of the             attack.  The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site,             clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters             employee and his rescuers.  Two young children involved in the             rescue were also seriously wounded.  For further information             please visit the special project website www.collateralmurder.com.



What are your thoughts?


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2010)

The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.


----------



## Marginal (Apr 7, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.



The Reuters staff are bastards now? Ah well.


----------



## 72ronin (Apr 7, 2010)

Notice a patrol was pretty close by, meaning these at LEAST two armed insurgents were prob about to RPG then AK the patrol..  Is that what photo's they were hoping for?

     Everyone needs to realise that if the choppa didnt spot these guys then we may have lost men in the nearby patrol as it is highly likely that it was these peoples target.  

     So, some photographer that waits down the street for some action shots with prior knowledge gets no sympathy from me at all.  Prior knowledge meaning what did he think they were about to do?
Ofcourse he knew they planned to engage the nearby patrol, and was hoping for some great shots..
     Like i said, no sympathy at all.  

     The person who drove children to the scene, before the dust had even settled, words cannot exspress how stupid that man must be..


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2010)

Marginal said:


> The Reuters staff are bastards now? Ah well.


They made their bed when they embedded themselves with terrorists, so, yeah, pretty much. Terrorist sympathizing bastards.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

Like Don said: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Any reporter who apparently knew that a US patrol was going to be ambushed and instead of warning them, waited for a "good photograph" of it happening, got what they deserved IMO.


----------



## xJOHNx (Apr 7, 2010)

And whoooofff, we just threw independent, objective media out of the window.


We don't need it afterall. 

Related to the incident, 2 kids died because a van was coming over to help the wounded. The van got shot as well, with the kids inside.

[cynism]
Stupid terrorist kids and stupid terrorist healthcare workers.
[/cynism]


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 7, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> www.wikileaks.com
> 
> Click on the link on the website, it is against the MT TOS to post the video link directly to the site because of its language and violent content.  Please watch this video with discretion.
> 
> ...



I think there's a fine line between remaining journalistically neutral and being complicit in attacks on US soldiers.  Regardless of the Reuters people's nationality, if they were embedded with combatants, they can't cry foul if they come under fire from US forces.  Consider all those reporters that were embedded with US soldiers during the Iraq invasion.  A few of them died or were injured during attacks from the insurgents.  Do you think the insurgents worried even a little about those casualties?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

The more I read the more I think that this is a media smear job against the US military because some of their own got caught in the crossfire.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/video-collateral-murder-or-the-risks-of-war-zones/

Take a good look at what these "reporters" were doing. 

If you dont want to be whacked by an Apache don't buddy up with American killing Jhiadists in hopes of getting that Pulitzer wining shot. Play that game..take your chances.  

Welcome to War.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> And whoooofff, we just threw independent, objective media out of the window.
> 
> 
> We don't need it afterall.
> ...



WTF? If reporters are next to the enemy we cant machine gun their position? 
"Media Shields"?? Is that the way we fight wars now?
Come racing to the scene where RPG/AK wielding enemy were staging an ambush? Damn straight you will get lit-up. 
Did that van have a red cross/crescent on it??? Otherwise it looks like reinforcements arriving.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/05/video-collateral-murder-or-the-risks-of-war-zones/


> War correspondents take huge risks to bring news of a war to readers far away.  What this shows is just how risky it is to embed with terrorists, especially when their enemy controls the air.  War is not the same thing as law enforcement; the US forces had no responsibility for identifying each member of the group and determining their mens rea.  Legitimate rescue operations would have included markings on the vehicle and on uniforms to let hostile forces know to hold fire, and in the absence of that, the hostile forces have every reason to consider the second support group as a legitimate target as well.   It&#8217;s heartbreaking for the families of these journalists, but this isn&#8217;t &#8220;collateral murder&#8221; &#8212; it&#8217;s war.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Like Don said: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
> 
> Any reporter who apparently knew that a US patrol was going to be ambushed and instead of warning them, waited for a "good photograph" of it happening, got what they deserved IMO.


and are thus "Bastards"....


Your Brother
John


----------



## xJOHNx (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm actually more concerned with the ease and eagerness the pilots engage and kill peope. Yes it is a warzone, doesn't change a thing.

Same with the chuckles afterwards when a tank drives over a body. A little courtesy together with a better understanding of the country could make it a lot less bloody.

In case you didn't know, every family has an AK in their homes and carries it on the street. It was so before the war and probably will be after the war. It's sort of tradition.

Yes it's a warzone, so it means we can't have any reporting from it? We'll just take what our side says, blindly? No more objectivism needed?
If it were truelly "Jihaddists" (just using this term shows how much you really know about it) they would have kidnapped the journalists. They get more out of doing that.

And no it didn't have a red crescent on it. Picking up bodies isn't the same a aiming a RPG, or am I wrong? Too much fear and panic in those who go to war. 
So the statement about war reporters expecting to die can be modified. If you join the force, expect to eat lead one day. I'm not wishing anybody who is a soldier harm, but that statement was over the top.

Is there proof that the journalists were hanging out with terrorists? Or is that just a accepted fact to make the truth less ugly?


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 7, 2010)

Wow, this thread got predictable fast.

One thing is for certain, these incidents are unavoidable when wars are started.  When errors are made or crimes committed, all you can do is punish them after the fact.  Thus, our apparent eagerness to get into wars is what should be examined.  We should be asking ourselves whether the war is truly necessary knowing full well what we will unleash.  Especially with Iraq, one of the least necessary wars I can recall.

We Americans are great at waving the flag and wanting to bomb a few places, but we aren't so great at realizing the inevitable consequences of our actions.  That should change.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 7, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> I'm actually more concerned with the ease and eagerness the pilots engage and kill peope. Yes it is a warzone, doesn't change a thing.



That is what they are TRAINED to do.  The US cultivates an advantage in air power precisely so they can win engagements like these quickly and overwhelmingly.




> Yes it's a warzone, so it means we can't have any reporting from it? We'll just take what our side says, blindly? No more objectivism needed?
> If it were truelly "Jihaddists" (just using this term shows how much you really know about it) they would have kidnapped the journalists. They get more out of doing that.


Embed at your own peril.  It works on the opposite side too. If you are with US troops, you just might come under fire too.



> And no it didn't have a red crescent on it. Picking up bodies isn't the same a aiming a RPG, or am I wrong? Too much fear and panic in those who go to war.


There are specific rules of engagement for marked vehicles with symbols like the famous Red Cross.  These are followed internationally by all countries with armed forces that are signatories.  Follow the rules and one's chances of being blown up are much, much less.  



> So the statement about war reporters expecting to die can be modified. If you join the force, expect to eat lead one day. I'm not wishing anybody who is a soldier harm, but that statement was over the top.


??? Soldiers know that dying in a battle is an occupation hazard.  Seems like war journalists should understand they face some of the same risk.



> Is there proof that the journalists were hanging out with terrorists? Or is that just a accepted fact to make the truth less ugly?


The same could be asked on the opposite side.  There's been enough debunking stories on the web that argue these were terrorists and combatants.  If you choose to believe that they were innocent civilians, that's up to you and your own predispositions.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 7, 2010)

Armed man standing around when Obama delivers a speech: patriot defending his second amendment rights. He must be praised.

Armed man (carrying an ak-47 is apparently legal in Iraq) standing in a crowd in Iraq: he is automatically terrorist. His existence justifies having a gunship open fire on a crowd with heavy machine guns, and then obliterate the ambulance trying to get the wounded away while the gunners make crude jokes and laugh with the victims. Then lie about it when you find out you pulped a crew of reporters and try to cover it up.

Keep telling yourself that they hate you because of your freedom.

Whether they were terrorists or not: opening fire on a crowd is really something you cannot do if you claim to be the good guys, and not a brutal occupying force. Ditto for opening fire on an ambulance trying to get the wounded out.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Armed man standing around when Obama delivers a speech: patriot defending his second amendment rights. He must be praised.



A bad example don't you think, Bruno?  The only armed men around the US president are the Secret Service.  It would be very shocking if someone carrying a weapon, even a licensed handgun, was allowed to come anywhere near Obama.  



> Armed man (carrying an ak-47 is apparently legal in Iraq) standing in a crowd in Iraq: he is automatically terrorist. His existence justifies having a gunship open fire on a crowd with heavy machine guns, and then obliterate the ambulance trying to get the wounded away while the gunners make crude jokes and laugh with the victims.



It is a war zone.  Seems like local customs should be modified a bit as long as the US military forces continue to be present.  If only out of prudence regardless of your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of it.



> Keep telling yourself that they hate you because of your freedom.



Who are they?

There are many in the Middle East who hate the US and for a variety of reasons.  I am more sympathetic to some than to others.  Don't act like the Middle East is monolithic.  There are many different factions, even within Iraq, all with their own motivations and goals.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 7, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> It is a war zone.  Seems like local customs should be modified a bit as long as the US military forces continue to be present.  If only out of prudence regardless of your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of it.



Uh, while I agree with a lot of your points, current ROE doesn't allow shooting at people just because they're armed with AKs and similar weapons.  RPGs, yes, AKs, no.  This might have changed since the last time I was there, though.

(just addressing the ROE question)


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

Even if some of those guys were armed (that's hard to determine from the original footage), isn't it a crime to open fire on an "enemy" picking up wounded?  Children were clearly present and I couldn't see any weapons when they opened fire on them.


----------



## blink13 (Apr 7, 2010)

I just edited and it didn't "take."  Sorry.

I'm only addressing the ROE question of "does the presence of an AK-47 allow U.S. forces to engage."  No, it does not.  AKs are okay unless a HOSTILE ACT takes place or HOSTILE INTENT is shown.

Without HA/HI - can't (and shouldn't!) engage.

I'm not getting into the rest of the argument, who shot John, who's the mostest evilistist, who sucks, etc., because no one's going to "win" anyway.  I have my thoughts based on a few combat tours, countless ROE/escalation of force briefs, etc.

Not getting into, and please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 7, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> A bad example don't you think, Bruno?  The only armed men around the US president are the Secret Service.  It would be very shocking if someone carrying a weapon, even a licensed handgun, was allowed to come anywhere near Obama.



Check your facts.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-among-protesters-at-Barack-Obama-speech.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/armed-protesters-lurking-outside-obama-speech-locations.html

One such instance was even discussed here at MT. A guy openly carrying his side arm during a healthcare speech.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Check your facts.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-among-protesters-at-Barack-Obama-speech.html



Actually I interpreted your sentence as someone in a crowd with a gun within line of sight access to Obama.  This wasn't the case as I surmised.

I do agree having an assault weapon outside the convention center where the president is speaking is over the top, though.


----------



## dancingalone (Apr 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> One such instance was even discussed here at MT. A guy openly carrying his side arm during a healthcare speech.



If you're talking about this thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79578&highlight=gun+obama+speech, the story says the protester and his rifle was OUTSIDE the building in which Obama made his speech.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

Big Don said:


> The Reuters news staff CHOSE to embed themselves with VISIBLY (AK47/RPG) armed terrorists. The bastards got what they deserved. See here.



The more I look at that, the more convinced I am that the thing the guy is holding is a tripod.  These people aren't acting like insurgents surrounded by Apache helicopters.  No "enemy" is going to just swing a weapon around and walk casually in that situation.

It's a tripod.


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 7, 2010)

Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 7, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.


 
Very hard to tell at that distance. He should have just shot it out of his hand to be sure.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 7, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> Maybe it's a tripod, maybe it's an AK. I didn't see anyone that got shot carrying an RPG though. We also don't know how far the Apache was from the crowd.



AKs are legal in Iraq. And they're certainly not a threat to an Apache helicopter which one of the most awesome things I've ever seen.

I have followed a similar discussion on /. and several people thought that it was possible that the lens + camera has been mistaken for an RPG. There was no RPG in sight afaict.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm a bit taken aback by people calling the Reuteurs staff 'bastards.'

I agree that when they embed with a unit they should be aware that they're entering into a very dangerous situation. I think it's incredibly naieve to assume that they didn't realise the risks when they took the job. 

I gather a few people are angry with them for being complicit in an attack on US soldiers. I'd ask for a bit of objectivity. Their job is to report on the realities of war from the frontlines, and that&#8217;s what they do. They&#8217;ve been embedded with US patrols quite a lot, and have been &#8216;complicit&#8217; in the murdering of the enemy as well. They&#8217;re not on anyone&#8217;s side, they&#8217;re a neutral party just covering the war. Their job is not to tip off the U.S. army that there&#8217;s an ambush, it&#8217;s to look at it from the perspective of the enemy. If you expect them to provide intel you've no right to expect them not to supply intel to the enemy when embedded with your soldiers. Don't like it? Don't let them embed with your units.

I don't blame the US Army for their deaths; they were embedded with the enemy and knew the risks going in. But demonising them for covering both sides of the story objectively and neutrally, at great personal risk, is tasteless.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 7, 2010)

Malleus said:


> I'm a bit taken aback by people calling the Reuteurs staff 'bastards.'
> 
> I agree that when they embed with a unit they should be aware that they're entering into a very dangerous situation. I think it's incredibly naieve to assume that they didn't realise the risks when they took the job.
> 
> ...


 
Objectivity is a conceit for which journalists pat themselves on the back.  We, non-journalists, are not required to be objective.  Neutrality only comes when you don't give a ****.  I give a ****.  Maybe you don't, maybe the journalists don't.  About that, I am neutral.  

Regarding their complicity, I don't know if they are or are not.  But when their presence becomes a factor in whether our troops take the shot or not, they are no longer neutral.  Look, if they want to maintain their veneer of objectivity and inject themselves into a combat situation, let them.  But then don't expect us to grieve for them if they catch a bullet.  About _that_, I am also neutral.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 7, 2010)

Given that I have seen Apache gun-camera footage of them shooting up an American unit, complete with Bradeley's, I am not at all surprised to hear this news.

When a non-military Limey is better at recognising American kit it might be time to consider that there are shortfalls in training.

Given the tenet of some of the posts in this thread too ... well, I wish I could say I was surprised ... but I am not.  I was still disappointed enough to actually consider resigning my staff post and never coming back to the board as I didn't want to be associated with any people who could think that way and still look themselves in the eye in the mirror.

One day you fellows will have another war on your soil and you might then recall that those 'casualties' are ordinary people too.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> Objectivity is a conceit for which journalists pat themselves on the back. We, non-journalists, are not required to be objective. Neutrality only comes when you don't give a ****. I give a ****. Maybe you don't, maybe the journalists don't. About that, I am neutral.


 
Being objective is conceited? This doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, as it's self-evidently wrong.

No, you are not required to be objective. If your countrymen are fighting for your freedoms and lives, then it's obvious that objectivity will be hard. For the rest of us, it's evident that there's more than just the US perspective in this war. There are plenty of Iraqi families missing sons as well, and they are every bit as much humans as your soldiers. Objectivity isn't "not giving a ****." If the journalists didn't care, I doubt they'd be risking life and limb to cover the fighting.



> Look, if they want to maintain their veneer of objectivity and inject themselves into a combat situation, let them. But then don't expect us to grieve for them if they catch a bullet. About _that_, I am also neutral.


 
I agree with you 100%. They're there at their own risk, whether they embed with the US or enemy forces. In both situations they know they'll come under fire, and potentially lose their lives. To me that doesn't make them bastards, it makes them courageous.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 7, 2010)

Malleus said:


> Being objective is conceited? This doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, as it's self-evidently wrong.


 
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit
*con·ceit &#8211;noun *


1. an excessively favorable opinion of one's own ability, importance, wit, etc. 
2. something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: _He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours. _
3. imagination; fancy. 
4. a fancy; whim; fanciful notion. 



I'm not saying being objective is conceited. I'm saying that journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for.  Some people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their job is just that:  a job.  So, they have to establish a narrative that makes it so much more.  Thus, a reporter becomes a Minister of Truth Dedicated to Bringing the Light of Knowledge to The Unwashed Masses.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

Any American reporter who would film am ambush on American troops should be deemed a traitor.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

A pretty well balanced article on what the "real story" probably was:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/reaction-on-military-blogs-to-the-wikileaks-video/


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

As to the "they are allowed AK's" issue..fine. But what about RPG's? Anybody armed with an AK hanging around RPG carriers becomes a threat in my book.


----------



## Malleus (Apr 7, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit
> 
> I'm not saying being objective is conceited. I'm saying that journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for. Some people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that their job is just that: a job. So, they have to establish a narrative that makes it so much more. Thus, a reporter becomes a Minister of Truth Dedicated to Bringing the Light of Knowledge to The Unwashed Masses.


 
Sweeping generalisations are easy to make, aren't they? With a few changes to the above passage I could create a diatribe against any profession. All journalists are not as objective as they give themselves credit for? I'd imagine some of them are guilty as charged, and some of them aren't. Some of them undoubtably are as objective as they say. 

Even if we assume that your assumption is true and all journalists aren't objective, look at this event in isolation: The US army has had their side of the story covered, now the opfor is having their story told. That is objective. We now can examine the war from both sides, giving us an objective perspective. This can only be a good thing: one sided coverage is just a step from propaganda.



> Any American reporter who would film am ambush on American troops should be deemed a traitor.


 
I can appreciate where you're coming from. If it were Irish boys about to get ambushed I'd feel compelled to do something. But then I don't think I'd personally get embedded with the enemy, because I wouldn't be able to maintain objectivity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

Here's another point that I was thinking about.

These are hardened men.  No matter what you think happened, they shot up a couple of kids and just brushed it off and that is a fact.  Some of these guys have been on five (or more) tours.  They are going to come back and be our neighbors, our cops, our schoolteachers.  How do you feel about that?

I have a lot of family members who served in war zones and the toll it took on them was huge.  Some of them could hardly function in society (after Vietnam especially).  That's a hell of a price to pay for pointless wars based off lies.

This is one of the reasons why I am anti-war, why I am do not support professional standing armies, why I'm so sick of what my country has been doing for so long.  The general public doesn't get it.  Our media creates a collective fantasy for our minds and we glorify military service, forgetting how monstrous it really is.  

After the last ten years, I'm not so quick to clap a veteran on the back and thank them.  Thank them for what?  What have they really done?  I understand that they believe they are serving the country and protecting us, but I don't see it that way.  In my opinion, these people have served a system of multinational corporations/banks who have taken control of our country and use the military to further their own interests.  If you scratch the surface of our collective fantasy, you are going to find this out and it's why I will try to talk any young person out of serving that I can.  

IMO, you don't want to become that guy who can gun down a bunch of kids in a pointless, deceitful war, and laugh it off.  You don't want to sell yourself to the corporations and come home and have your ego stroked by a bunch of drooling TV zombies who will feed you all kinds of drugs to make the nightmares go away.  You don't want to get blown up, tucked into a corner, left to rot, and forgotten.  You don't want to make an oath to the Constitution and to the country and then be forced to break it serving at home and abroad.  

Societies that worship this crap are sick, twisted and wicked.  Historically, they collapse into a nest of depravity and destroy themselves.  We don't have any hope unless we can stop this and recognize it for what it really is.  I wish that my countrymen would wake up and find their collective conscience, but alas it is much like the Standford study in which people administered electric shocks to actors even to the point of thinking they were killing the other person. Very few refused to participate.  

Strangers in a strange land indeed.


----------



## grydth (Apr 7, 2010)

If it is the corporate perversion and infiltration of all aspects of our life that you deplore, why not take it out on the greedy top execs instead of common soldiers?

Nobody goes in the Army to save or to serve AIG. Your quarrel would be better placed with the (purchased) politicians, not veterans.

Our military humor was black as well; I don't expect those who weren't there to understand. You're at a murder scene and in the back of your mind you still cannot believe people can do this..... but you have to keep on, and you can laugh or you can cry.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

> After the last ten years, I'm not so quick to clap a veteran on the back and thank them.



We have all heard how you don't think service people are deserving of praise or honor before. We get it.

Last 10 years....right.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 7, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> Here's another point that I was thinking about.
> 
> These are hardened men.  No matter what you think happened, they shot up a couple of kids and just brushed it off and that is a fact.  Some of these guys have been on five (or more) tours.  They are going to come back and be our neighbors, our cops, our schoolteachers.  How do you feel about that?BLAH BLAH BLAH


Oh, the Crazed Veteran Meme? Again?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 7, 2010)

Like George Washington was??


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 7, 2010)

Really, gentlemen, that is your actual world-view and moral-compass and you are unwilling to see where such a path will inevitably lead for your county and the 'West' in general?

Thinking in purely practical terms, for now, the balance of military power lies in American hands (largely thanks to the British, the Germans and the Russians, weirdly).  History tells us the important lesson that "It will not always be so".  The damage may already be done and it might not be even remotely possible to undo it.  Blood calls for blood, as the old saying goes and in the media age things do not happen in 'secret' any more.  

Incidents like this one do not fade away from the 'front page' in our non-print era and will provide sparks for new flames for a long time to come.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

grydth said:


> If it is the corporate perversion and infiltration of all aspects of our life that you deplore, why not take it out on the greedy top execs instead of common soldiers?
> 
> Nobody goes in the Army to save or to serve AIG. Your quarrel would be better placed with the (purchased) politicians, not veterans.
> 
> Our military humor was black as well; I don't expect those who weren't there to understand. You're at a murder scene and in the back of your mind you still cannot believe people can do this..... but you have to keep on, and you can laugh or you can cry.



I understand where you are coming from.  None of us are perfect, and I am only expecting people to stop doing something wrong that they know is wrong.  My only beef with some veterans and most active soldiers is a seeming lack of personal accountability and a seeming lack of an honest assessment of what they are really doing.

I don't understand why people keep going back to these pointless, deceitful and rapacious wars.  I wouldn't do it.  I also feel like I've got legitimate questions about a guy who would blow away children, laugh, and then sign up for another tour, especially when it is a proven fact that government has been infiltrated by corporate monsters and the whole premise for the war is a lie.  

Maybe nobody every grabbed the guy by the shoulders and shook him saying, "what the hell are you doing?"  I am sure there are a lot of ways to justify it, but I don't buy any of them.

In the end, I don't "hate" the common soldier.  I see them as victims of a wicked and greedy society who have ultimately bought into a self serving fantasy.  People do that all of the time.  It is a bad decision, like serving a mafia boss and killing kids in a crossfire, while trying to take out your bosses rivals.  We've known that the government is a bunch of lying corrupt thieves and the wars have been pointless, rapacious, profiteering, crimes against humanity since the sixties and people still put that aside and buy the slick marketing.  

I don't think we should give people a pass on that anymore.  I don't think we should worship people who choose to serve a bunch of drug dealing, thieving, gangsters.  If we ever want to put a stop to it, we need to stop participating and we need to change how we think about people who choose to participate.  It is a matter of accepting the reality of what we are facing and making real decisions about what to do about it.  

We are all going to end up in the same boat, veteran and civilian.  The corporations/banks will use the government to grab our pension plans (and eventually all of our assets it seems) and throw them into the derivatives black hole, and the thieves will make off with it all.  

I don't want to see anyone spit on or disrespected.  I want some accountability.  I want to see people deal with reality and be honest with themselves.  I want people to have some empathy for what our soldiers are going through, what the people on the ground are going through, and to understand that we all own a piece of this tragedy and that we have a duty to stop it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> *We* have all heard how you don't think service people are deserving of praise or *honor* before. We *get* it.



We?  Get?  Honor?

That is all a twisted and mangled mess if you think what happened in that video is honorable.  

Much less serving a bunch of criminal psychopaths who will do anything for a buck.

There are no "high ideals" here.  

Just cold hard reality.


----------



## JDenver (Apr 7, 2010)

Indiscriminantly opening fire on a crowd from a gunship creates dozens of new terrorists.

Winning hearts and minds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maunakumu  
Here's another point that I was thinking about.

These are hardened men. No matter what you think happened, they shot up a couple of kids and just brushed it off and that is a fact. Some of these guys have been on five (or more) tours. They are going to come back and be our neighbors, our cops, our schoolteachers. How do you feel about that?*BLAH BLAH BLAH*



Big Don said:


> Oh, the Crazed Veteran Meme? Again?



You know what, I get it now.  This is Orwellian Crimestop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimestop



> Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e. thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.
> 
> In the novel, we hear about crimestop through the eyes of protagonist Winston Smith:
> 
> ...



The "blah, blah, blah" gives it away.


----------



## 72ronin (Apr 7, 2010)

-   The choppa was not aware of the children, the crew also mention weapons retrieval was possibly taking place.

 -   There was clearly a RPG and a AK being carried.

 -   As soon as ground troops are aware of injured young ones they sprint off with them to get them immediate care.

 -   Its completely possible that the vehicle did not see the body amongst rubble etc

-   Place yourself in the warzone for a moment, are you going to trot on down the road with a couple of heavily armed people and talk about the weather?  Knowing full well what could take place any second??
     Do you really think it would be a fine day for a walk with ya AK just cos its tradition? with a friend and his RPG!!  Just headin down the shops hey!!.

 -  What needs to be realised is that if the choppa did not engage, they very well may have lost the target and we would have lost more troops with the obvious planned attack on nearby patrol.

        Not an option, Right?


----------



## blink13 (Apr 7, 2010)

maunakumu said:


> ... but alas it is much like the *Standford *study in which people administered electric shocks to actors even to the point of thinking they were killing the other person. Very few refused to participate.



Not the point of the conversation, I know, but you're confusing the Stanford prison experiment with the Milgram experiment at Yale.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 8, 2010)

It's interesting.  I've gotten to know a lot of Marines living on this side of the island.  My neighbor is a retired captain, we have a ton of guys in the dojo, and I go on base to surf regularly.  They got the best surf spot on this side of the island on base and civilians need to be escorted on base in order to get there.

Inevitably, as we get to know each other, I ask about the WMD thing, Iraq, and the legality of the war.  Almost to a man, they can't stand it, they can't stand being there, and really hate having to go.  But they feel trapped by the law and by the pressure of trying to support their families and they hope it will end soon.

These are decent guys who are in a really bad situation.  I have a lot of empathy for this tragedy.  About all I can do is encourage them to get out as soon as they can.  I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a moral person and know deep down that you are serving some pretty wicked people and then to be forced to do that with threats of prison and stop/loss.  

You can look at this video and rationalize it, but this is what it comes down to IMO.  None of it was ever necessary.  All of the killing, all of the sacrifice, all of the degradation of humanity was pointless.  I can't imagine what it feels like to have done all of these monstrous things, to be responsible for so much destruction, and not have any of it be worth it in the end.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 8, 2010)

I found this story in the New York Times to be interesting and useful:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?scp=2&sq=psychology&st=cse



> Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human, said Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, who is a former Army Ranger.



Please take the time to read the entire article, I think it sheds a lot of light on the subject.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I found this story in the New York Times to be interesting and useful:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?scp=2&sq=psychology&st=cse
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting that, Bill.  It's another reminder of why I would never be fit for military service in the US.  I refuse to allow a government filled with seeming psychopaths to tell me who the enemy may be.

Another thing, no matter what you think of the MSM, when it comes right down to it, they will defend the government.  Even to the point of ignoring over a million dead caused by the war.

I've read Grossman On Killing, I understand the need to mentally prepare, but this is over the top and unnecessary.  We have a created a killing field approaching the worst of the Rwandan genocide and there was no fundamental reason to do this.

Worse then that, we have every reason expect that war profiteering, oil, and a broader corporate geopolitical strategy is totally responsible for the Iraq war.  It has nothing to do with "protecting America" or any of the so called "higher ideals" that soldiers reputedly serve.  

For me, this video and story has less to do with the realities of war on the ground and more to do with the ultimate political reality behind the whole enterprise.  It was corrupt for the very beginning and people are being needlessly killed, needlessly hurt and needlessly soiled because of that.  

All of my countrymen will pay a price for supporting this ridiculous fantasy.  We need to stop supporting people who want to join in on this bloodbath.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 8, 2010)

Grossmans research is questionable at best. A little goggling will present you some interesting counter theories to his well sold/well packaged stuff. An interesting theory but stretched WAAAYYY to far IMO. I've seen him in person and he makes good points but don't drink the kool-aide without looking around.


----------

