The Iraq Thread 2

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 14 2004,02:06)]and as far as these pilots knew, he was involved in an illegal (according to Geneva) insurgency. Had their been ground troops with the same intel and orders instead of helicopters, that man would have been executed without there being a contravention of the Geneva Accords. You know that.

Not true at all, since he wasn't carrying weapons he was a non-combatant as far as Geneva is concerned. He didn't pose a threat to the chopper; he did not engage. All he did was to hide under a truck when his friends were ripped apart by the 30 mm cannon.

This is really scary how all the Americans that have posted here so far are defending this. You would have been outraged beyond belief had there been a video of a wounded US soldier being executed. Really scary.

And informative. We can debate all we want who these people were and what they were or were not doing, but you can't deny the fact that the pilots executed a wounded man in cold blood.

"He's wounded. Hit him."

And you are defending that. I say informative becuase it's very interesting to see what rationalizations you make for a clearly depicable act by any standard. I think it's the same mechanisms at play that we could see in ww2 Germany and how people rationalized the atrocities of the nazis. It's really scary to see how people have no problem turning off their moral values because something does not fit the image of something that they idolize (in this case the behaviour of two US soldiers). And it has nothing to do with intelligence either - perhaps the best word for it is 'blind faith'.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Didn't see that reply coming. Condemn it out of hand, if you'd like. The sticking point is that wounded soldier, so for the sake of argumentation, I'll ask you this: placed in the position of the gunner of that Apache, would you have spared the wounded man's life? Your answer will obviously contain an emphatic "yes!" possibly accompanied by an "I would have refused to engage those people at all, no matter what intelligence or orders I had received beforehand." Someone else will propose the hypothetical that an actual heavy weapons transaction was taking place, and that had it been completed, American soldiers somewhere would be at risk. You would then reply that it didn't matter, the simple fact that the people were unarmed meant that under no conditions would you fire on them. I'd then once again raise the question of the pilot's orders, and the intelligence they had beforehand. And then you'd again say I was grasping at straws in order to justify an action, just like Germans did during the 40's to rationalize Nazi atrocities.

Am I close?

[Balschoiw 0]

What made me wonder also is that you can clearly see the traces of the tractors work. You also see the machine attached to tractor that is for bringing seed into grounds.

Another thing is that the big truck seems to be empty and the fire of the 30mm didnt ignite anything on the pickups back.

If there was RPG or AA on the back of pickup there would have been most likely an explosion or at least some firesparks coming from the rocketfuel.

Firearms are completely invisible, neither handguns, nor bigger ones.

You would see guns (except small firearms) if they walk because the walk is different and there would be some sign underneath clothes.

It leaves a bad taste, no matter what.

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 14 2004,02:42)]Am I close?

Not at all.

Quote[/b] ]I'll ask you this: placed in the position of the gunner of that Apache, would you have spared the wounded man's life? Your answer will obviously contain an emphatic "no!"

My answer would have been an emphatic "yes!". I would have used the radio to call in ground troops to secure the area. Not out of humanitarian reasons, but to secure the material (if any) on the site and to pick up prisoners that can be questioned. And I would have informed the ground unit that there was a man in need of medical attention (this part being a requirement by the Geneva Conventions).

Second, the pilots were not ordered to kill those men, they requested permission to do so.

Now as for if I would have followed an order to do such a thing - it depends. If it's what we have seen on the video is all there is, then no way in hell. That would have been an illegal order and I have a duty not to follow illegal orders. If I would have followed it, I would have probably been charged with war crimes. Fortunately I am fairly certain that none of my CO's would ask me to mow down unarmed men.

Quote[/b] ] And then you'd again say I was grasping at straws in order to justify an action

Your theory of 'mercy' killing the wounded is certainly a pretty nasty attempt at justification. Yeah, I'm sure the wounded guy really wanted to die.

But very well. As you sow so shall you reap. Just don't come whining about captured US soldiers being mistreated. Don't complain about suicide bombings. As a matter of fact, don't complain against terrorist acts at all. When you willingly walk down the moral slums, you have very little right to complain about how others act.

War is bad enough without violating the very modest requirements that the international rules of warfare set. You will be treated equally or worse by the enemy than the way you treat them.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Sorry about that, I meant that you would answer with an emphatic 'yes'. I had changed the phrasing of the question. My bad.

Love,

Your friendly neighborhood Nazi sympathizer

PS: Now that the error has been corrected, am I close?

[ralphwiggum 6]

behaviour one would not find in hardened guerilla warriors...

and what makes you think only veteran guerilla fighters are ones doing this? could it be that they are asked to transport the object? in that case it doesn't need much of training besides safety instruction to do so.

Quote[/b] ]Did you hear how calm the pilots were? No trace of any emotion or reflection of what they were doing..

And this video again raises the question for me. How can you detach yourself so much that you can kill an unarmed wounded man, dragging himself on the ground and act as it was "business as usual"? I don't get it.

and you should know as a soldier that killing enemy should not have any emotional attachment to it. it just makes it harder to do so. that's why there is that cold impersonal terminologies to describe enemies.

[toadlife 3]

Back to the story you guys jumped all over regarding former treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. It seems some people were a little quick to jump into the "Red Meat Frenzy".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."

The controversy started after the release of excerpts from a book on the administration published this week in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.

That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said. "Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."

The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force....

[denoir 0]

and you should know as a soldier that killing enemy should not have any emotional attachment to it. it just makes it harder to do so. that's why there is that cold impersonal terminologies to describe enemies.

Killing off defenceless people from a comfortable distance and executing the wounded isn't being a soldier. It's being a butcher, and AFIK butchers have no code of behaviour.

Yes, all forms of killing require an emotional detachment, but there is a limit to that too. Killing women, children, prisoners and wounded is not required by a civilized military and hence the need for detachment in those cases is non-existent. Even more, if you ruthlessly start killing non-combatants then you'll be court martialed or charged with war crimes (well, not if you are a US soldier as we have seen in so many instances).

[denoir 0]

@ Jan. 14 2004,03:20)]Love,

Your friendly neighborhood Nazi sympathizer

No and I know you're not that stupid to think that it was the observation I was making.

It should be:

"Love,

Your friendly neighborhood sheepish human being who rather than to realistically evaluate things he idolizes shuts of his brain and makes desperate rationalizations."

You are ready and willing to criticize Bush and his politics. You are ready to criticize your country's foregin policy. But you don't dare think critically about His Holyness The US Soldier.

Whith a bit of generalization, but not too much I'd say, Americans idolize their soldiers to the extreme. Now we've been through this before (remember - thanking veterans etc), and I'd like to point out that this rationalization is the effect of your inability to question the behaviour of US soldiers. After all, they're the guys you are thanking at thanksgiving.

It's a holy cow for you and most of your countrymen. The downside of it is that they can do a lot of nasty things without anybody acting to prevent it as His Holyness The US Soldier would never do anything wrong. WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! etc.. you get my drift..

War is nasty, inhumane business and a certain percentage of the people trusted to deal with it can't handle it. And you have to intercept them and get rid of them before they can do serious damage. USA on the other hand has a long lasting policy of sweeping war crimes under the rug. Do I need to explain to you why this is bad?

Quote[/b] ]

PS: Now that the error has been corrected, am I close?

I replied to you fully two posts back.

[ralphwiggum 6]

and you should know as a soldier that killing enemy should not have any emotional attachment to it. it just makes it harder to do so. that's why there is that cold impersonal terminologies to describe enemies.

Killing off defenceless people from a comfortable distance and executing the wounded isn't being a soldier. It's being a butcher, and AFIK butchers have no code of behaviour.

Yes, all forms of killing require an emotional detachment, but there is a limit to that too. Killing women, children, prisoners and wounded is not required by a civilized military and hence the need for detachment in those cases is non-existent. Even more, if you ruthlessly start killing non-combatants then you'll be court martialed or charged with war crimes (well, not if you are a US soldier as we have seen in so many instances).

so you are sure that their activity did not involve any weapons deleivery?

you'd be more familiar with Geneva convention, but wearing non-distinguishable uniform to operate does not set the convention off. If they were connected with insurgents and was in fact taking a part in delievery, it makes them unavailble to the convention.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You're right, at least on one level. There was just no good reason to kill that wounded man, and the more I think about it, the more it's disturbing me. As for the situation as a whole however, I still think the jury's out, and it will continue as such until we know what kind of intelligence the pilots had, and how they got to be in their position overlooking the men and vehicles in the first place.

[theavonlady 1]

@ Jan. 14 2004,07:32)]There was just no good reason to kill that wounded man

Sorry if this has been asked but might he not have been able to reach the points where the supposed weapon was dropped off and use it on the next passing chopper?

Note: I cannot view the video.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ Jan. 14 2004,07:32)]There was just no good reason to kill that wounded man

Sorry if this has been asked but might he not have been able to reach the points where the supposed weapon was dropped off and use it on the next passing chopper?

Note: I cannot view the video.

The guy was completely incapacitated- he can barely crawl a meter, much less fire a rocket.

[theavonlady 1]

@ Jan. 14 2004,07:47)]The guy was completely incapacitated- he can barely crawl a meter, much less fire a rocket.

As I said, I can't view the video.

So it's not like in the movies, where the mortally wounded soldier drags his body with the last strength he has, picks up the weapon, fires and kills his opponent?

I thought not.

[theavonlady 1]

OK, just saw the video.

After the truck was fired on, the person hiding behind it was defintely wounded but a few moments passed before he made some sort of leap from his hiding place behind the truck in what looked like an attempt to crawl to the smaller car to the right. Then he completely stopped.

Did he lie still just because he was wounded or because he wanted them to believe he was dead?

Were there possibly more weapons in the truck or the car?

These are split second decisions. I don't know how anyone here can call them unless there's a vast majority of battlefield experienced military personnel here that can comment.

[ran 0]

And where did you get the "hiding and transporting weapons" from? According to the US military the chopper spotted one of those three guys carrying a long cylindrical object. When the chopper appeared the guy dropped it.

you don't see combat choppers in the night, you hear them.

Gunships when on hunt generally fly all lights shut, you only hear the engines noise and still you can't determine the direction from which the sound comes

Who ever said that they saw the chopper? It's fairly clear from the video that they didn't know what was happening or where the shooting came from.

Quote[/b] ]

Which brings me to another point: I find it very questionable that these guys were soldiers or guerillas. Did you see how they reacted? The two guys visible first obviously had no idea of what was going on - not taking cover, not dopping to the ground, but walking in the open, running a bit and then walking again in the open again. And the third guy who was taking shelter under the truck? Why did he peak out? They were completely confused - behaviour one would not find in hardened guerilla warriors...

agreed here

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]This was not combat, this was cold blooded murder. And that I tell you as a former soldier. There are somet things you don't do - gunning down defenceless wounded people is one of those things.

I agree there, the only times i actually shot to kill were for my own defence and in (rare) offensive (assault) operations

Did you hear how calm the pilots were? No trace of any emotion or reflection of what they were doing..

I was really disturbed by this video.

they're pilots ... they don't get their noses stuck in human guts too often ..... and are trained to be emotionless, emotion is a factor that has no place in a gunship cockpit

Quote[/b] ]

I can't help by drawing parallels to an incident with a sniper in Kosovo. Long story, short - a local that I and another member of my team were talking to (in the town square of a village outside Prizren) was shot in the chest when standing less than 1 m from me. Fortunately for me, I was standing at an angle or I would have been hit too (high powered rifle). I did get half of the guy's lungs on me as the exit wound was the size of my fist. Anyhow, since then I've always wondered what goes through the mind of a psychotic killer who at a long range shoots somebody completely defenceless.

orders received, beliefs, "what am I going to eat tonight ?" ... when you're trained to, you just don't give a fuck

Quote[/b] ]And this video again raises the question for me. How can you detach yourself so much that you can kill an unarmed wounded man, dragging himself on the ground and act as it was "business as usual"? I don't get it.

You don't get it because you yet haven't faced a situation were you were behind the screen or the scope.

If i get orders, even if they are illegal, if there is nobody to denounce me, if i'm covered by my superior and if i feel what i am doing is right ..... i'll press the button or pull the trigger.

Now i now this is wrong, but your conscience simply takes a break at times, and you choose the "easy way".

I do not support in any way this kind of behavior, but it exists and such cases do happen

now in the case of this incident, the men didn't seem to pose any immediate threat, they didn't look like guerilleros, they didn't seem to be armed, they had absolutely no idea of what was going on as you pointed out before, but this has already been discussed

[denoir 0]

orders received, beliefs, "what am I going to eat tonight ?" ... when you're trained to, you just don't give a fuck

That's explanation did not work in the Nürnberg trials. "I was obeying orders." Is no excuse. And I'm sure that you've heard it as many times as I that as a soldier it is your duty to disobey illegal orders.

Quote[/b] ]You don't get it because you yet haven't faced a situation were you were behind the screen or the scope.

If you mean that I have never picked off defenceless people one by one from a distance, then you are right. If you mean followed orders and fired in combat, then you're wrong. This was not combat and they were not following orders, but they requested to shoot the people down there that posed no threat.

Quote[/b] ]If i get orders, even if they are illegal, if there is nobody to denounce me, if i'm covered by my superior and if i feel what i am doing is right ..... i'll press the button or pull the trigger.

Now i now this is wrong, but your conscience simply takes a break at times, and you choose the "easy way".

So you're saying that you would for instance execute POW:s? Of my now (2004-1997)= 7 years in the military (service,kfor,reserves) I have met very few soldiers who I think would be capable of comitting such war crimes under 'normal' (war) circumstances.

And I would 'normal' circumstances never ever give such an order to my men. (I can't guarantee 100% always that I would never ever give such an order because you can construct any number of radical and extreme situation. It is however extremely improbable)

[theavonlady 1]

If you mean that I have never picked off defenceless people one by one from a distance, then you are right.

But what if they assumed otherwise, whether correctly so or by mistake?

BTW, I don't understand how you definitely know that they were unarmed.

[denoir 0]

Were there possibly more weapons in the truck or the car?

Possibly more weapons? There was no evidence of any weapons in the first place. And as Bals pointed out, had there been rpgs in any of the tucks, we would have seen secondary explosions.

Quote[/b] ]These are split second decisions. I don't know how anyone here can call them unless there's a vast majority of battlefield experienced military personnel here that can comment.

Bals, ran and me. And these were not split second decisions. They were under no stress whatsoever. They sat in their chopper safely and without a rush executed the people down there, one by one. And killed the wounded.

[theavonlady 1]

Were there possibly more weapons in the truck or the car?

Possibly more weapons? There was no evidence of any weapons in the first place. And as Bals pointed out, had there been rpgs in any of the tucks, we would have seen secondary explosions.

So, you're saying they knew that there were no weapons and proceeded to kill these people?

I still don't see what you base your certainty on.

Looks like the front of the truck was hit. What if there were weapons in the back?

Is there a difference between RPGs, AA missiles and mortars going off if there were any and they would have been hit?

[denoir 0]

BTW, I don't understand how you definitely know that they were unarmed.

I don't know if they had any weapons in the cars, but they weren't carrying any. At least not the two killed first. You can see it in the video that when they run they are not carrying anything. Had there been AA rockets in the cars, we would have seen a sustained fire (from the LOX rocket fuel).

Needless to say, there was no threat to the Apache - I think we can all agree with that. Also remember that it was the pilots requested the killing, not HQ.

And I won't go into the killing of the wounded again. The things mentioned above can be called 'speculation', but this can't.

"He's wounded. Hit him."

[denoir 0]

So, you're saying they knew that there were no weapons and proceeded to kill these people?

I still don't see what you base your certainty on.

Looks like the front of the truck was hit. What if there were weapons in the back?

I'm not saying that I'm certain. According to the article the pilots requested to kill them because they saw one of the men carrying a tube-shaped object. All I can say is that on the video segment shown, when the shooting started, the men were unarmed and did not return fire in any way.

But that is not the issue. The issue is killing a wounded man and possibly the execution of three defenceless people.

Quote[/b] ]

Is there a difference between RPGs, AA missiles and mortars going off if there were any and they would have been hit?

Yes, I'd say so. AA missiles (russian at least) have in general liquid oxygen based fuel. It burns with a very bright flame. RPG's use solid rocket fuel wich burns much longer and produces a lot of smoke. Mortars won't burn, they'll just explode and spread shrapnel around the place.

Actually, I've only seen a weapons cache being burned once, but this is what I think. I may be wrong. Ask Ran, he's a former UXO engineer.

[m21man 0]

The pilots were probably under stress, have been under stress for a while, and overreacted when they saw what looked to be a missile.

[theavonlady 1]

The pilots were probably under stress, have been under stress for a while, and overreacted when they saw what looked to be a missile.

I still don't know whether there was a missile or not.

[m21man 0]

There was a tube of some sort.