4 ms·

The following comment was posted by Deviltry on Reddit. "That's the problem with the war in Iraq... It's insurgency based. They use vans to come up and pick up

by steve19 17y ago

The following comment was posted by Deviltry on Reddit. "That's the problem with the war in Iraq... It's insurgency based. They use vans to come up and pick up the bodies, but truth be told they don't care about the bodies, they come to get the weapons/rpg's. I know it's popular to hate America and our military action on reddit, but this particular engagement is necessary. Anyone who's ever spent time on the ground in country will tell you the same. If you are going to fight an insurgency war, you have to engage these individuals. We have made it VERY well known throughout the country that they cannot even make it look like they are going for weapons. The problem with this situation is one i've seen personally on multiple occasions... The Van pulls up, takes the bodies of the men, leaves any children/women, and takes all the weapons. Then they take pictures, and blast them across the airwaves saying Americans murdered unarmed women/children. Queue the downvotes, but i speak from experience. If you sent us over there to operate under the absolute "good guy" mantra that you all expect, we'd end up with 100x more losses than we already have... And the insurgents would know they could get away with doing virtually anything. Honestly, the only way to end this is to get the government to get us out of that country." http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_just_got_released_its_titled/c0nitc0 http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_j...

andreyf 17y ago
I watched both the short and long versions a couple of times, and there I see no justification for the claim that the truck or those in it were doing anything but trying to move the wounded man to safety. Considering (1) there were children in the front seat visible about as clearly as the weapons the men were supposedly carrying and (2) the dialogue on the radio, it seems clear that the gunman was a little too eager to engage without really considering the lethal gravity of his actions. While on one hand, it may very well be that troops are more effective (by some simple measure) when they fire first and ask questions later, on the other, if those apache gunmen were in the shoes of the marines on the ground who have to carry wounded kids out of the rubble, or worry about those same orphans throwing grenades into their humvee windows a week later, maybe they'd be as careful looking for children as they are for RPG's.
- steve19 17y ago
  I would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle. Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating.
  - rdtsc 17y ago
    > Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating. The shooting has stopped by then. There was a long pause after the shooting and before the van arrived. Their fatal "mistake" was to assume Americans wouldn't shoot at a van that picked up an injured journalist to be taken to the hospital. > would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle. Just to clarify things. Americans here are the invaders that _created_ the battle (both on a micro and macro scale). The children in the van were just going to school and their father wanted to save a man's life. Shells exploding around them is just business as usual. That is their country, their backyard. They didn't want it, they didn't drive "into" it. It came _to them_ on their way to school.
greendestiny 17y ago
Insurgents might do all those things, but the people in van made no moves to go for any weapons. Considering they are happy to watch the injured guy to see if he goes for a weapon, there is no reason they couldn't have waited to see if the van people went for weapons. They misreported the situation on the radio, making it seem like the people in van were picking up bodies and weapons - but they are just surmising that's what the people in van's intentions were. I think that ought to incur some kind of disciplinary response.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  I don't think you understood why the gunner was watching the injured guy. At 8:29 of the 17:47 video he says "Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." From his tone and inflection it seems pretty clear to me he wants to engage the guy because he's severely hurt, certainly going to die, and probably suffering. He can't engage him because he's unarmed, so he wants him to go for some kind of a weapon because he wants to put the guy out of his misery.
  - illumin8 17y ago
    That's not even what I got. What I got was that the gunner had his adrenaline pumping and wanted to kill. He was clearly wanting to kill the remaining survivor, and just waiting for the opportunity. Putting him out of his misery? Please...
    - jcnnghm 17y ago
      Maybe you're seeing something that isn't there because you've got a political agenda, kind of like Wikileaks.

by steve19 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago

I watched both the short and long versions a couple of times, and there I see no justification for the claim that the truck or those in it were doing anything but trying to move the wounded man to safety. Considering (1) there were children in the front seat visible about as clearly as the weapons the men were supposedly carrying and (2) the dialogue on the radio, it seems clear that the gunman was a little too eager to engage without really considering the lethal gravity of his actions. While on one hand, it may very well be that troops are more effective (by some simple measure) when they fire first and ask questions later, on the other, if those apache gunmen were in the shoes of the marines on the ground who have to carry wounded kids out of the rubble, or worry about those same orphans throwing grenades into their humvee windows a week later, maybe they'd be as careful looking for children as they are for RPG's.

steve19 17y ago
I would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle. Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating.
- rdtsc 17y ago
  > Everyone within a couple of miles must have heard the 30mm High Explosive shells detonating. The shooting has stopped by then. There was a long pause after the shooting and before the van arrived. Their fatal "mistake" was to assume Americans wouldn't shoot at a van that picked up an injured journalist to be taken to the hospital. > would guess that what made the van suspect was that it drove into the middle of a battle. Just to clarify things. Americans here are the invaders that _created_ the battle (both on a micro and macro scale). The children in the van were just going to school and their father wanted to save a man's life. Shells exploding around them is just business as usual. That is their country, their backyard. They didn't want it, they didn't drive "into" it. It came _to them_ on their way to school.

greendestiny 17y ago

Insurgents might do all those things, but the people in van made no moves to go for any weapons. Considering they are happy to watch the injured guy to see if he goes for a weapon, there is no reason they couldn't have waited to see if the van people went for weapons. They misreported the situation on the radio, making it seem like the people in van were picking up bodies and weapons - but they are just surmising that's what the people in van's intentions were. I think that ought to incur some kind of disciplinary response.

jcnnghm 17y ago
I don't think you understood why the gunner was watching the injured guy. At 8:29 of the 17:47 video he says "Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." From his tone and inflection it seems pretty clear to me he wants to engage the guy because he's severely hurt, certainly going to die, and probably suffering. He can't engage him because he's unarmed, so he wants him to go for some kind of a weapon because he wants to put the guy out of his misery.
- illumin8 17y ago
  That's not even what I got. What I got was that the gunner had his adrenaline pumping and wanted to kill. He was clearly wanting to kill the remaining survivor, and just waiting for the opportunity. Putting him out of his misery? Please...
  - jcnnghm 17y ago
    Maybe you're seeing something that isn't there because you've got a political agenda, kind of like Wikileaks.