5 ms·

Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is w

by dendory 13y ago

Yes, especially when they saw the rescuers come and try to save the injured, they just had to kill those as well. How dare rescuers try to save lives! This is war, which clearly means shooting anything that moves is the best policy. </sarcasm>

rayiner 13y ago
It's not just "war" in the abstract. The context of the video is that there is literally a firefight going on nearby in which U.S. soldiers are under attack. The helicopters shot at what appeared to be a group of armed men ("appeared" because some of the men actually were armed) and then shot at a van that appeared to be trying to pick up "bodies and weapons" (according to the soldier who radioed in for permission to engage the van). In the context of a firefight, that means the van is a potential threat--those wounded and the weapons could go back to fighting U.S soldiers. This is not a "shoot anything that moves situation." It's a "if you're called in to the middle of a firefight you resolve doubts in favor of whatever protects other U.S. soldiers." """ Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:. It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. """ Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's never appropriate to second-guess a soldier's conduct in war. But "war crimes" are purposefully malicious actions in the absence of a threat. Not bad judgment calls in response to what you can make out from hundreds of meters away in the middle of a firefight. This is a war crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.
- monsterix 13y ago
  Thank you for linking up these dots. I hadn't seen this side of the story, but I still think there have been too many deaths of civilians [1]. And you might want to read up exact transcript of the conversation in the chopper [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251512
- subsystem 13y ago
  You need to check your facts and your baises. There were never any weapons being picked up by the van nor did they ever "appear" to do so. The talk of weapons where wishful thinking because they were so set on engaging: 06:33 Come on, buddy. 06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon. 06:44 Crazyhorse this is Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Four break. We are right below you right time now can you walk us onto that location over. 06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares]. We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage. 07:07 Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies. 07:14 Where's that van at? 07:15 Right down there by the bodies. 07:16 Okay, yeah. 07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like *possibly* uh picking up bodies and weapons. 07:25 Let me engage. 07:28 Can I shoot? 07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage. 07:36 Picking up the wounded? 07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage. 07:41 Come on, let us shoot! 07:44 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. 07:49 They're taking him. 07:51 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. 07:56 This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead. 07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage. 08:02 Fuck. 08:06 This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage. The official report also comes to the conclusion that they were engaging the van because it was picking up wounded insurgents. Of course the wounded man wasn't an insurgent but one of the journalists. http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You need to not judge the actions in the video based on soldiers talking like soldiers do. He clearly says on 07:18 that he thinks that the van is picking up weapons. An army report found, and Assange conceded that in the first group: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG." Sure, the guy is eager to engage, but remember the whole context of this is that the Apaches were called in to protect American soldiers under fire in that area.
sp332 13y ago
That decision was made when the rules of engagement were drawn up, by higher-ranking people and long before this incident. In fact I believe at the time, they were supposed to shoot anyone who picked up the weapon of an injured combatant, even if they weren't threatening anyone with it. Not sure what the logic was on that one, but it wasn't like the gunner was just making up rules as he went along.

by dendory 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

It's not just "war" in the abstract. The context of the video is that there is literally a firefight going on nearby in which U.S. soldiers are under attack. The helicopters shot at what appeared to be a group of armed men ("appeared" because some of the men actually were armed) and then shot at a van that appeared to be trying to pick up "bodies and weapons" (according to the soldier who radioed in for permission to engage the van). In the context of a firefight, that means the van is a potential threat--those wounded and the weapons could go back to fighting U.S soldiers. This is not a "shoot anything that moves situation." It's a "if you're called in to the middle of a firefight you resolve doubts in favor of whatever protects other U.S. soldiers." """ Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute said of the airstrike:. It is precisely the presence of weapons, including RPGs, that goes a long distance toward explaining why cameramen for Reuters—pointing television cameras around corners in a battle zone—were readily mistaken by our gunships for insurgents. The video makes plain that in this incident, as in almost all military encounters in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are up against forces that do not wear uniforms—a violation of international law precisely because it places innocent civilians in jeopardy. """ Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's never appropriate to second-guess a soldier's conduct in war. But "war crimes" are purposefully malicious actions in the absence of a threat. Not bad judgment calls in response to what you can make out from hundreds of meters away in the middle of a firefight. This is a war crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.

monsterix 13y ago
Thank you for linking up these dots. I hadn't seen this side of the story, but I still think there have been too many deaths of civilians [1]. And you might want to read up exact transcript of the conversation in the chopper [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6251512
subsystem 13y ago
You need to check your facts and your baises. There were never any weapons being picked up by the van nor did they ever "appear" to do so. The talk of weapons where wishful thinking because they were so set on engaging: 06:33 Come on, buddy. 06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon. 06:44 Crazyhorse this is Bushmaster Five, Bushmaster Four break. We are right below you right time now can you walk us onto that location over. 06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares]. We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage. 07:07 Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies. 07:14 Where's that van at? 07:15 Right down there by the bodies. 07:16 Okay, yeah. 07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like *possibly* uh picking up bodies and weapons. 07:25 Let me engage. 07:28 Can I shoot? 07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage. 07:36 Picking up the wounded? 07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage. 07:41 Come on, let us shoot! 07:44 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. 07:49 They're taking him. 07:51 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. 07:56 This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead. 07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage. 08:02 Fuck. 08:06 This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage. The official report also comes to the conclusion that they were engaging the van because it was picking up wounded insurgents. Of course the wounded man wasn't an insurgent but one of the journalists. http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/6--2nd%20Brigade%20Combat%20Team%2015-6%20Investigation.pdf https://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%...
- rayiner 13y ago
  You need to not judge the actions in the video based on soldiers talking like soldiers do. He clearly says on 07:18 that he thinks that the van is picking up weapons. An army report found, and Assange conceded that in the first group: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG." Sure, the guy is eager to engage, but remember the whole context of this is that the Apaches were called in to protect American soldiers under fire in that area.

sp332 13y ago

That decision was made when the rules of engagement were drawn up, by higher-ranking people and long before this incident. In fact I believe at the time, they were supposed to shoot anyone who picked up the weapon of an injured combatant, even if they weren't threatening anyone with it. Not sure what the logic was on that one, but it wasn't like the gunner was just making up rules as he went along.