14 ms·

Whatever happens in the first five minutes of the video, killing unarmed people helping wounded is murder, it is out of moral and military code of any legal com

Whatever happens in the first five minutes of the video, killing unarmed people helping wounded is murder, it is out of moral and military code of any legal combat group. The sad and disgusting part is this video was in the hands of the us military all along and they knew, what happened and how it happened, and they also tried to stop the video from leaking out actively to cover their malformed policy. This video is proof of murder, disresctpectful combat, imcompetent ranking officers and blind trigger happy pilots. Calling this video anything other than above is political bullshit.

cookiecaper 17y ago
Who ever thinks that these atrocities won't occur in war? The mindsets of the people who commit these actions are not a far leap from the mindset that a soldier has to maintain in order to kill enemy combatants day in and day out. Every war there's big civilian massacres and other major moral abridgments no matter what the combatants' PR department spews out. We should be realistic about that. It's not an excuse for those that committed or knew about this, but it shouldn't be unexpected.
- sophacles 17y ago
  Whether or not it is expected is irrelevant to the discussion of hiding the fact it happens. It also is irrelevant to the reprimand/punishment of those who do cross the line.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    I agree. My post explicitly says that.
    - sophacles 17y ago
      Yeah, it does, I either misread or missed it.
- youngian 17y ago
  I think that's part of the reason it's so important that things like this become public. I think every American of voting age should have to watch this video, because this is the reality of war and we need to come to terms with what we're inflicting. People need to realize that there are real people dying horrific, needless deaths, because war is always horrific and no amount of euphemisms changes that fact. If we are going to support a war, we should be forced to reckon with the real face of it, and accept that some of the blood is on our hands. It's easy to pretend otherwise when you've always lived with an ocean between you and the conflicts.
oconnore 17y ago
You suggest that there exists some "moral code" which justifies killing each other in certain circumstances. Combat is never respectful, nor is it ever moral. To make honorable rules of engagement is to obscure the horrific violation of humanity that war is. In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others. If we aren't willing to carpet bomb a school, we should not be willing to destroy the family that depends on it. And yes, the video is horrific.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  idk, I've always felt killing someone in self-defense is moral. Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. minor nitpick with your overall salient point. I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.
  - oconnore 17y ago
    True, I wasn't all that clear about self defense. I think self-defense is really the one instance where you would be willing to wage total war (whether as a country, or as a person). In that case, the country (or person) would do whatever it takes to survive. Good point.
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      Not the only one. It's a little hard for many of us in the modern world to imagine being that dedicated for something other than self-defense, but conquest also has history of summoning total war. However, self-defense is definitely the most reliable for bringing public opinion to bear. Probably a lot easier to find a war dissenter in Germany in 1944 than in Britain. (This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)
  - 17y ago
run4yourlives 17y ago
Same assessment here as a former soldier. The first piece is debatable. I clearly saw an RPG and a personal weapon, and to be honest, unless the cameraman was ID'd, I would be 50/50 on that. I don't know the tactical situation, but it looks like they were providing aerial cover for a convoy of some sort, since that's who they keep chatting with. This was quite possibly an ambush in it's very early stages. While disturbing (welcome to war) I don't think that the actions of the crew where unbecoming at that point. I did however have an issue with the destruction of the van. There were no weapons visible, it was clear that they were collecting bodies for transport/medical attention. Any perceived or real threat to the convoy was at that time neutralized, and there was no need to fire. Doing so clearly violated the Geneva conventions and the US Army's ROE. Both apache crews should be charged with murder, and the authorizing officer should be charged with some lesser charge for not confirming the intended target.
- Alex3917 17y ago
  At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though clearly no one is shooting at the time. What's up with that?
  - Nwallins 17y ago
    > At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though _clearly no one is shooting_ at the time. What's up with that? It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
    - Alex3917 17y ago
      Right after this when someone says "Uh, negative" and the other guys ignore him, is that not about the alleged shooting?
      - krschultz 17y ago
        There are seemingly two conversations happening at once, I took the "negative" as referring to location not shooting. Read it as Guy 1 saying "we had a guy shoot, now he's behind the building" and Guy 2 saying "negative, he is not behind the building he was in front of the bradley and I haven't seen him since" rather than Guy 1 saying "We had a guy shoot" and Guy 2 saying "Negative" and you get a completely different picture. 02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around. 02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't... 02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building. 02:26 God damn it. 02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. 02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.
clammer 17y ago
>killing unarmed people helping wounded is murder, it is out of moral and military code of any legal combat group I'm not so sure that's true. According to the Hague and Geneva Conventions medical personal are off limits, but are supposed to be identified as such. If the people who jumped out of the van had medical personnel markings, they wouldn't have been attacked. Instead they were presumed to be members of the same un-uniformed militia which is common in Iraq (as I understand it). That's not political BS, that's just how war works. War is terrible and should be reserved for the defense of our nation, not these pseudo war escapades across the world that we have now.
- mindcreek 17y ago
  So killing unarmed people helping wounded is perfectly fine huh? This is not an active war zone this area is a Country which us claims to be helping to rebuild order and infrastructure, after us destroyed both. War is an active engagement between military forces, not randomly killing civillians in a country you are trying to help.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    The pilot was operating on the assumption that the people he fired upon were militants. Think about it; you shoot at armed militants. Minutes later an unmarked van with some unmarked men pulls up, and they jump out and start loading the wounded. Does the van hold civilians? Y/N.
    - gort 17y ago
      Some unarmed unmarked men. You must assume Y. You can't just start shooting on the balance of probabilities. It might be forgivable if there was some imminent danger to... somebody. But I'm not seeing that.
    - Jeema3000 17y ago
      Doesn't matter. You aren't allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the action.
    - 17y ago
grannyg00se 17y ago
I agree with your post but I'd like to point out that calling this "disrespectful combat" implies that most combat is respectful. I would like to see a change in people's attitudes so that ALL combat is considered disrespectufl and as offensive as what happens in this video.
eagleal 17y ago
So what are Americans doing from stopping their Army? (I'm not saying it's Americans fault, just govt administration, as everywhere) For me this video it's just a tool for journalists to play with, and the media to make some money with. Nothing more. Has the army retired from war? No. The administration could be punished only once it finishes its goal.
- dkarl 17y ago
  So what are Americans doing from stopping their Army? Choosing between the candidate who supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the candidate who only supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
  - eagleal 17y ago
    I think you missed my point: > The administration could be punished only once it finishes its goal.
    - dkarl 17y ago
      I think you missed my point. Concern about killing innocent Iraqis is far, far off from the American political center. I suspect the army is actually held to higher moral standards than the average American citizen would choose to enforce. Americans are strongly biased to empathize with our own troops' fears and frustrations and to blame Iraqis for any encounters that end badly. For instance, in the case of shooting up the van and the people who tried to help the wounded man, we would say that they didn't do anything to identify themselves as not being insurgents. Plus, they were clearly scared and in a hurry, so they knew they were putting themselves in danger and were therefore responsible for the consequences. There are all kinds of ways to make excuses and avoid siding with savage foreigners against our poor scared boys. Should Americans stand up to their government and demand what they want? Between the opinions expressed by Americans on this page and the opinions expressed by the soldiers in the video, the (mythical and/or aggregate) will of the American people is closer to the latter, so mass democratic action would not help anything.
lionhearted 17y ago
> This video is proof of murder, disresctpectful combat, imcompetent ranking officers and blind trigger happy pilots. Calling this video anything other than above is political bullshit. Proof of murder, huh? I'd point out some things worth thinking about, but it sounds like you've completely made your mind up already. Would it be worth spending a few minutes trying to look at why it happened, and all the elements of the situation, and the thinking patterns of people involved - or would that just be "political bullshit"? It's easy to apply black and white thinking to a battlefield after the fact, but it seems to miss a lot of the nuance of the situation - the helicopter had been radioed in by ground troops who were under small arms fire. The fight might or might not have still been going. It's not clear where the van came from, and what the positions of the engaged ground forces were relative to the van. Who knows if that style of van had been used recently for combat purposes by the insurgency. This was at the height of the surge - was there a curfew or some ban on vehicles in the area? I don't know. I'd ask and think about things like that, but is that just "political bullshit"? Battlefields seem to rarely give way to black and white morality. It seems like after something like this comes out, you could get more answers by thinking and asking smart questions than you would by rushing to moral judgment.
- xilun666 17y ago
  yeah, war is a mess, context exists on a battlefield, let's destroy more medevacs, YEAH fire in the hole.
- GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
  There was a bunch of guys casually wandering around the middle of street. They weren't running, hiding or shooting and they were obviously not participating in this supposed firefight.
mo34 17y ago
Seems like a few are trying to apply civilian rules and laws to military situations. As Joseph Campbell said these soldiers are just playing out a role - the role of a soldier in war.How can these boys be judged by peacetime rules and mores that weren't present in the situation? Campbell believed, as do I, that these soldiers cannot be held to un-applicable, un-available standards that didn't exist in the moment. They needed to kill without feeling, without giving the benefit of the doubt, to fulfill their combat role. They did so; its nothing to be proud of, and it the light of civilian rules and mores, seems somewhat uncomfortable. If a day had passed and a van pulled up, it might very well be murder. But two minutes later... the lads are still in the wartime role; they can't be blamed.

cookiecaper 17y ago

Who ever thinks that these atrocities won't occur in war? The mindsets of the people who commit these actions are not a far leap from the mindset that a soldier has to maintain in order to kill enemy combatants day in and day out. Every war there's big civilian massacres and other major moral abridgments no matter what the combatants' PR department spews out. We should be realistic about that. It's not an excuse for those that committed or knew about this, but it shouldn't be unexpected.

sophacles 17y ago
Whether or not it is expected is irrelevant to the discussion of hiding the fact it happens. It also is irrelevant to the reprimand/punishment of those who do cross the line.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I agree. My post explicitly says that.
  - sophacles 17y ago
    Yeah, it does, I either misread or missed it.
youngian 17y ago
I think that's part of the reason it's so important that things like this become public. I think every American of voting age should have to watch this video, because this is the reality of war and we need to come to terms with what we're inflicting. People need to realize that there are real people dying horrific, needless deaths, because war is always horrific and no amount of euphemisms changes that fact. If we are going to support a war, we should be forced to reckon with the real face of it, and accept that some of the blood is on our hands. It's easy to pretend otherwise when you've always lived with an ocean between you and the conflicts.

oconnore 17y ago

You suggest that there exists some "moral code" which justifies killing each other in certain circumstances. Combat is never respectful, nor is it ever moral. To make honorable rules of engagement is to obscure the horrific violation of humanity that war is. In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others. If we aren't willing to carpet bomb a school, we should not be willing to destroy the family that depends on it. And yes, the video is horrific.

sliverstorm 17y ago
idk, I've always felt killing someone in self-defense is moral. Not that it's right and good, but wholly fair and justifiable and moral. minor nitpick with your overall salient point. I really agree with you here. In my opinion, total war is how war should be waged. If we're in, we're in for the long haul and we take it serious. Plus, it forces our citizens to constantly acknowledge and renew their commitment every day, which means no shaky 'oh I'm not sure' wars.
- oconnore 17y ago
  True, I wasn't all that clear about self defense. I think self-defense is really the one instance where you would be willing to wage total war (whether as a country, or as a person). In that case, the country (or person) would do whatever it takes to survive. Good point.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    Not the only one. It's a little hard for many of us in the modern world to imagine being that dedicated for something other than self-defense, but conquest also has history of summoning total war. However, self-defense is definitely the most reliable for bringing public opinion to bear. Probably a lot easier to find a war dissenter in Germany in 1944 than in Britain. (This is not me saying conquest is moral or justifiable, merely pointing out that people have been willing (your word) to wage total war for the sake of conquest)
- 17y ago

run4yourlives 17y ago

Same assessment here as a former soldier. The first piece is debatable. I clearly saw an RPG and a personal weapon, and to be honest, unless the cameraman was ID'd, I would be 50/50 on that. I don't know the tactical situation, but it looks like they were providing aerial cover for a convoy of some sort, since that's who they keep chatting with. This was quite possibly an ambush in it's very early stages. While disturbing (welcome to war) I don't think that the actions of the crew where unbecoming at that point. I did however have an issue with the destruction of the van. There were no weapons visible, it was clear that they were collecting bodies for transport/medical attention. Any perceived or real threat to the convoy was at that time neutralized, and there was no need to fire. Doing so clearly violated the Geneva conventions and the US Army's ROE. Both apache crews should be charged with murder, and the authorizing officer should be charged with some lesser charge for not confirming the intended target.

Alex3917 17y ago
At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though clearly no one is shooting at the time. What's up with that?
- Nwallins 17y ago
  > At 4:20 one of them says, "We had a guy shooting" even though _clearly no one is shooting_ at the time. What's up with that? It's not clear that no one is shooting, though. It's only clear that the available and very limited perspective did not capture such activity.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    Right after this when someone says "Uh, negative" and the other guys ignore him, is that not about the alleged shooting?
    - krschultz 17y ago
      There are seemingly two conversations happening at once, I took the "negative" as referring to location not shooting. Read it as Guy 1 saying "we had a guy shoot, now he's behind the building" and Guy 2 saying "negative, he is not behind the building he was in front of the bradley and I haven't seen him since" rather than Guy 1 saying "We had a guy shoot" and Guy 2 saying "Negative" and you get a completely different picture. 02:15 No hold on. Lets come around. Behind buildings right now from our point of view. ... Okay, we're gonna come around. 02:19 Hotel Two-Six; have eyes on individual with RPG. Getting ready to fire. We won't... 02:23 Yeah, we had a guy shoot---and now he's behind the building. 02:26 God damn it. 02:28 Uh, negative, he was, uh, right in front of the Brad Uh, 'bout, there, one o'clock. 02:34 Haven't seen anything since then.

clammer 17y ago

>killing unarmed people helping wounded is murder, it is out of moral and military code of any legal combat group I'm not so sure that's true. According to the Hague and Geneva Conventions medical personal are off limits, but are supposed to be identified as such. If the people who jumped out of the van had medical personnel markings, they wouldn't have been attacked. Instead they were presumed to be members of the same un-uniformed militia which is common in Iraq (as I understand it). That's not political BS, that's just how war works. War is terrible and should be reserved for the defense of our nation, not these pseudo war escapades across the world that we have now.

mindcreek 17y ago
So killing unarmed people helping wounded is perfectly fine huh? This is not an active war zone this area is a Country which us claims to be helping to rebuild order and infrastructure, after us destroyed both. War is an active engagement between military forces, not randomly killing civillians in a country you are trying to help.
- sliverstorm 17y ago
  The pilot was operating on the assumption that the people he fired upon were militants. Think about it; you shoot at armed militants. Minutes later an unmarked van with some unmarked men pulls up, and they jump out and start loading the wounded. Does the van hold civilians? Y/N.
  - gort 17y ago
    Some unarmed unmarked men. You must assume Y. You can't just start shooting on the balance of probabilities. It might be forgivable if there was some imminent danger to... somebody. But I'm not seeing that.
  - Jeema3000 17y ago
    Doesn't matter. You aren't allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the action.
  - 17y ago

grannyg00se 17y ago

I agree with your post but I'd like to point out that calling this "disrespectful combat" implies that most combat is respectful. I would like to see a change in people's attitudes so that ALL combat is considered disrespectufl and as offensive as what happens in this video.

eagleal 17y ago

So what are Americans doing from stopping their Army? (I'm not saying it's Americans fault, just govt administration, as everywhere) For me this video it's just a tool for journalists to play with, and the media to make some money with. Nothing more. Has the army retired from war? No. The administration could be punished only once it finishes its goal.

dkarl 17y ago
So what are Americans doing from stopping their Army? Choosing between the candidate who supported the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and the candidate who only supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
- eagleal 17y ago
  I think you missed my point: > The administration could be punished only once it finishes its goal.
  - dkarl 17y ago
    I think you missed my point. Concern about killing innocent Iraqis is far, far off from the American political center. I suspect the army is actually held to higher moral standards than the average American citizen would choose to enforce. Americans are strongly biased to empathize with our own troops' fears and frustrations and to blame Iraqis for any encounters that end badly. For instance, in the case of shooting up the van and the people who tried to help the wounded man, we would say that they didn't do anything to identify themselves as not being insurgents. Plus, they were clearly scared and in a hurry, so they knew they were putting themselves in danger and were therefore responsible for the consequences. There are all kinds of ways to make excuses and avoid siding with savage foreigners against our poor scared boys. Should Americans stand up to their government and demand what they want? Between the opinions expressed by Americans on this page and the opinions expressed by the soldiers in the video, the (mythical and/or aggregate) will of the American people is closer to the latter, so mass democratic action would not help anything.

lionhearted 17y ago

> This video is proof of murder, disresctpectful combat, imcompetent ranking officers and blind trigger happy pilots. Calling this video anything other than above is political bullshit. Proof of murder, huh? I'd point out some things worth thinking about, but it sounds like you've completely made your mind up already. Would it be worth spending a few minutes trying to look at why it happened, and all the elements of the situation, and the thinking patterns of people involved - or would that just be "political bullshit"? It's easy to apply black and white thinking to a battlefield after the fact, but it seems to miss a lot of the nuance of the situation - the helicopter had been radioed in by ground troops who were under small arms fire. The fight might or might not have still been going. It's not clear where the van came from, and what the positions of the engaged ground forces were relative to the van. Who knows if that style of van had been used recently for combat purposes by the insurgency. This was at the height of the surge - was there a curfew or some ban on vehicles in the area? I don't know. I'd ask and think about things like that, but is that just "political bullshit"? Battlefields seem to rarely give way to black and white morality. It seems like after something like this comes out, you could get more answers by thinking and asking smart questions than you would by rushing to moral judgment.

xilun666 17y ago
yeah, war is a mess, context exists on a battlefield, let's destroy more medevacs, YEAH fire in the hole.
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
There was a bunch of guys casually wandering around the middle of street. They weren't running, hiding or shooting and they were obviously not participating in this supposed firefight.

mo34 17y ago

Seems like a few are trying to apply civilian rules and laws to military situations. As Joseph Campbell said these soldiers are just playing out a role - the role of a soldier in war.How can these boys be judged by peacetime rules and mores that weren't present in the situation? Campbell believed, as do I, that these soldiers cannot be held to un-applicable, un-available standards that didn't exist in the moment. They needed to kill without feeling, without giving the benefit of the doubt, to fulfill their combat role. They did so; its nothing to be proud of, and it the light of civilian rules and mores, seems somewhat uncomfortable. If a day had passed and a van pulled up, it might very well be murder. But two minutes later... the lads are still in the wartime role; they can't be blamed.