9 ms·

>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 th

by 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.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    According to the relevant parts of international law, it doesn't matter if they're uniformed military--if they're unarmed and loading wounded into a vehicle for medevac, you let them go.
    - sliverstorm 17y ago
      My point is not that the killing was just. I was just objecting to where the parent suggests the pilot opened fire on civilians knowingly.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        You're correct in that, but civilian or not is a technicality, not the issue.
  - patrickk 17y ago
    There was a little girl in the van. I guess shes an insurgent too
- clammer 17y ago
  Well, at least we seem to agree that war is bad. ;) From the pilots eyes, he just got the drop on a bunch of bomb laying insurgents trying to help their friends. Of course if it worked out that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would have been perfectly fine. >War is an active engagement between military forces If only that were true beyond some ideal. You realize that the alies dropped incendiary bombs on German cities in WWII that killed women and children at a pace of thousands per bombing run. Not to mention what we did to Japan, or what Japan did to China or Korea, or what the North did to the South (slash and burn) in the war of northern aggression.
  - pyre 17y ago
    > You realize that the alies dropped incendiary bombs on German cities in WWII that killed women and children at a pace of thousands per bombing run. Not to say that this is acceptable, but Hitler started the bombing of civilians. Apparently, one of the bombing runs on England at night got too close to the city (London?) and killed a bunch of civilians. Instead of admitting that it was a mistake, Hitler pushed out propaganda saying that this was the intention from the start. After that both sides bombed each other's civilian populations.
    - run4yourlives 17y ago
      Actually, many historians argue that the practice of moving from bombing military targets to bombing cities caused Germany to lose the Battle of Britain.
      - patrickk 17y ago
        That is definitely true, if the Luftwaffe continuted bombing RAF airfields exclusively, much of Europe could be speaking German today. However, the point being made was that Allied forces weren't exactly blameless in their conduct in the war, despite the amount of attention given to German war crimes in Nuremberg etc. The bombing of Dresden was referred to as 'terror bombing', in that very little tactical military advantage was gained by conducting the bombing, but civilian casualties were horrendous. Apparently so much incendiary bombs were dropped that the intensity of the flames created sudden 'draughts' of air that were powerful enough to suck someone off their feet into the flames. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War... Also, a side of the war the Golden Generation would rather sweep under the carpet: http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Force-American-Europe-during/dp/023050647X http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Force-American-Europe-during/dp/...
Zak 17y ago
Based on their behavior, it seems reasonable to presume that they are medical personnel. That may not satisfy the legal requirements, but there's a reason we have people deciding whether to pull a trigger rather than computers. It may have been legal to fire on the van, but anyone in a position to make that call should have the sense not to.
- mbreese 17y ago
  I'm not defending anyone here... Hell, I haven't watched the video. And based upon comments from others above regarding the included commentary, I won't. But the definition of "reasonable" can be different things to different people, especially under these circumstances. What is reasonable to presume from behind our monitors means nothing. When you're in the middle of a firefight, your definition of reasonable can be a little more flexible. One problem that we have here is a lack of context. Perhaps these solders were just in a fight the day before with a very similar van. Perhaps instead of presumed medical personnel it was more enemy fighters. If they didn't have clear markings, then it could be very hard to make quick decisions. This is the type of stuff that you just aren't going to be able to tell from a single video.
  - JanezStupar 17y ago
    Should you view the video, you'd have seen (and heard) that gunner is trigger happy, sadistic and would kill you in the middle of the street on a sunny day - if he had a reason to believe nobody is gonna get him. That is the "missing" context for you... I believe that this video sets a very powerful context. Don't be ignorant!
papachito 17y ago
Many hospitals in Iraq don't have money for equipment, let alone uniforms for their staff.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  If someone wore a medical uniform in order to not get shot at during that time period in Iraq, they might actually be more likely to be a militant than hospital staff.
  - clammer 17y ago
    Damned if you do, damned if you don't then, huh?
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
Jeema3000 17y ago
According to the Geneva Conventions, you are not allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the battle... period. End of story. It also specifically provides protections for civilians who are trying to assist wounded soldiers, so it's immaterial whether or not they were official responders or not. Either way this is a war crime and needs to be prosecuted as such. Those who conspired to suppress it should also be charged as co-conspirators.
- clammer 17y ago
  I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to target only unwounded combatants? And in Iraq what is the difference between a civilian and a combatant as far a dress goes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you. In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.
    - clammer 17y ago
      That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.

by clammer 17y ago

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.
- philwelch 17y ago
  According to the relevant parts of international law, it doesn't matter if they're uniformed military--if they're unarmed and loading wounded into a vehicle for medevac, you let them go.
  - sliverstorm 17y ago
    My point is not that the killing was just. I was just objecting to where the parent suggests the pilot opened fire on civilians knowingly.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      You're correct in that, but civilian or not is a technicality, not the issue.
- patrickk 17y ago
  There was a little girl in the van. I guess shes an insurgent too
clammer 17y ago
Well, at least we seem to agree that war is bad. ;) From the pilots eyes, he just got the drop on a bunch of bomb laying insurgents trying to help their friends. Of course if it worked out that way, we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would have been perfectly fine. >War is an active engagement between military forces If only that were true beyond some ideal. You realize that the alies dropped incendiary bombs on German cities in WWII that killed women and children at a pace of thousands per bombing run. Not to mention what we did to Japan, or what Japan did to China or Korea, or what the North did to the South (slash and burn) in the war of northern aggression.
- pyre 17y ago
  > You realize that the alies dropped incendiary bombs on German cities in WWII that killed women and children at a pace of thousands per bombing run. Not to say that this is acceptable, but Hitler started the bombing of civilians. Apparently, one of the bombing runs on England at night got too close to the city (London?) and killed a bunch of civilians. Instead of admitting that it was a mistake, Hitler pushed out propaganda saying that this was the intention from the start. After that both sides bombed each other's civilian populations.
  - run4yourlives 17y ago
    Actually, many historians argue that the practice of moving from bombing military targets to bombing cities caused Germany to lose the Battle of Britain.
    - patrickk 17y ago
      That is definitely true, if the Luftwaffe continuted bombing RAF airfields exclusively, much of Europe could be speaking German today. However, the point being made was that Allied forces weren't exactly blameless in their conduct in the war, despite the amount of attention given to German war crimes in Nuremberg etc. The bombing of Dresden was referred to as 'terror bombing', in that very little tactical military advantage was gained by conducting the bombing, but civilian casualties were horrendous. Apparently so much incendiary bombs were dropped that the intensity of the flames created sudden 'draughts' of air that were powerful enough to suck someone off their feet into the flames. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War... Also, a side of the war the Golden Generation would rather sweep under the carpet: http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Force-American-Europe-during/dp/023050647X http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Force-American-Europe-during/dp/...

Zak 17y ago

Based on their behavior, it seems reasonable to presume that they are medical personnel. That may not satisfy the legal requirements, but there's a reason we have people deciding whether to pull a trigger rather than computers. It may have been legal to fire on the van, but anyone in a position to make that call should have the sense not to.

mbreese 17y ago
I'm not defending anyone here... Hell, I haven't watched the video. And based upon comments from others above regarding the included commentary, I won't. But the definition of "reasonable" can be different things to different people, especially under these circumstances. What is reasonable to presume from behind our monitors means nothing. When you're in the middle of a firefight, your definition of reasonable can be a little more flexible. One problem that we have here is a lack of context. Perhaps these solders were just in a fight the day before with a very similar van. Perhaps instead of presumed medical personnel it was more enemy fighters. If they didn't have clear markings, then it could be very hard to make quick decisions. This is the type of stuff that you just aren't going to be able to tell from a single video.
- JanezStupar 17y ago
  Should you view the video, you'd have seen (and heard) that gunner is trigger happy, sadistic and would kill you in the middle of the street on a sunny day - if he had a reason to believe nobody is gonna get him. That is the "missing" context for you... I believe that this video sets a very powerful context. Don't be ignorant!

papachito 17y ago

Many hospitals in Iraq don't have money for equipment, let alone uniforms for their staff.

mattmaroon 17y ago
If someone wore a medical uniform in order to not get shot at during that time period in Iraq, they might actually be more likely to be a militant than hospital staff.
- clammer 17y ago
  Damned if you do, damned if you don't then, huh?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

Jeema3000 17y ago

According to the Geneva Conventions, you are not allowed to shoot wounded combatants who are out of the battle... period. End of story. It also specifically provides protections for civilians who are trying to assist wounded soldiers, so it's immaterial whether or not they were official responders or not. Either way this is a war crime and needs to be prosecuted as such. Those who conspired to suppress it should also be charged as co-conspirators.

clammer 17y ago
I think that means you're not supposed to go walk up to them an shoot them while they're wounded. But, how do you aim a 30MM cannon from a moving platform to target only unwounded combatants? And in Iraq what is the difference between a civilian and a combatant as far a dress goes? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you. In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I debated voting this down, but since it was already at -2 I didn't. And only the last sentence saved it. It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there. If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.
  - clammer 17y ago
    That's fair. >If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain. >It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense. >If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable. That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen? The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.