The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

Yeah, retired. As I said, find me anything on CNN or BBC, Reuters, AP or AFP and I'll believe you.

HAHA! I have proof now. Watch the news reel in the bottom. it says "Next Ash Wednesday February 25 set as opening date". It clearly shows that the footage can't have been taken in April!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I posted a CNN link, see above

[denoir 0]

Ok, I stand corrected   or better to say  

Well, it was a bit cut anyway. The complete transcript for the segment goes like this:

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. Marines, Sergeant Riddle's team, searching an industrial area near Baghdad. Along the road they encounter Iraqis who point their AK-47s at the Marines.

RIDDLE: One of my guys got up on his hood and took the first guy out, shot him right in the heart. And he dropped instantly.

CROWLEY: Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground next to his gun. The Marines kill him -- then cheer.

RIDDLE: Like, man, you guys are dead now, you know. But it was a good feeling.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fire!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah!

CROWLEY: When the battle is over and you are still standing, the adrenalin rush is huge.

RIDDLE: I mean, afterwards you're like, hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let's do it again.

CROWLEY: Inexplicable to some, but not to generations of veterans.

Phil Piazza, lieutenant. World War II, 1944, the jungles of Burma.

PHIL PIAZZA, WORLD WAR II VETERAN: You know what'd be the first reaction? Oh, yeah, sir. At first there is a certain exhilaration, because you've killed an enemy who was trying to kill you.

CROWLEY: Bob MacGowan, a fictitious name he used for this interview. Private, Vietnam, 1967.

BOB MACGOWAN, VIETNAM WAR VETERAN: You certainly get a hunting thrill. I won't say kind of a sexual sense to -- it's a jazzy thing, you know.

The bolded parts have been cut away from the video. So I was partially right.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

As someone said to me in a PM: the context is crucial. I totally agree!

Oh I answered the PM in the same way. Adrenaline is a body own drug. questioning someone on drugs is not a good journalistic success

[denoir 0]

Overall, I find it very difficult to judge this. Ok from the transcript it seems that the Iraqis were preparing an ambush. The marines attacked and the footage show the very end of the engagement. From the video it looks like they were standing on a safe distance engaged in target practice. I'm not sure it gives an accurate picture.

Would it be nicer if they had captured him? Yes. Did they know how wounded he was and if he could reach for a gun? No.

War is so different from your standard rules of behaviour that it's very difficult to judge by normal rules. The Iraqis were trying to kill them. It's the military, not the police. You kill the enemy. You survive and have a huge adrenalin rush. Any thoughts of moral and ethical behaviour are far away.

The video is nasty, yes, but that's the nature of war. Thinking it could be something else is not realistic.

I think that the Apache footage was far far worse. There was no threat at all to the helicopter. The pilots knew it, they knew that the guy on the ground was wounded and specifically insisted on killing him. No adrenaline involved. A cold execution of a wounded man.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Hah there we disagree again!

The chopper gunner was smart. by targeting the truck and hitting the wounded at the same time he made himself unguilty to the Geneva Convention. He didnt shoot the wounded but his death was a side-effect of the shooting. It would have been easier for the soldiers on the ground to safe the wounded Iraqi (especially if TV is present) than for the Apache crew to land or to call an ambulance. Furthermore I may assume the man on Apache tape was hurt in a way he could NOT have been saved by an ambulance. The other man however...? I doubt the americans wouldnt have shouted for blood if it would have been iraqis shooting a wounded US soldier and cheering.

[denoir 0]

The chopper gunner was smart. by targeting the truck and hitting the wounded at the same time he made himself unguilty to the Geneva Convention. He didnt shoot the wounded but his death was a side-effect of the shooting.

On the contrary. The transcript goes like this:

"He's wounded, hit him again!"

"Go behind the truck and hit him"

Quote[/b] ]It would have been easier for the soldiers on the ground to safe the wounded Iraqi (especially if TV is present) than for the Apache crew to land or to call an ambulance. Furthermore I may assume the man on Apache tape was hurt in a way he could NOT have been saved by an ambulance.

That's completely irrelevant.

Quote[/b] ]The other man however...? I doubt the americans wouldnt have shouted for blood if it would have been iraqis shooting a wounded US soldier and cheering.

Indeed, but are you implying that the same standards go for Iraqi soldiers and US soldiers? I didn't think you were that naive. The discussion here is if the soldiers mishbehaved more than what is acceptable for US soldiers.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary. The transcript goes like this:

"He's wounded, hit him again!"

"Go behind the truck and hit him"

But why did he say, go behind the truck and hit him? Not to waste bullets? I realy dont know much about standard tacticts.

[denoir 0]

Actually, the second one was an approximate quote. It was "Something, something, truck, and hit him". You'll have to check the video...

Edit: Quote from the video.

Pilot 1: "He's wounded, hit him"

Pilot 2: "Target the truck."

Pilot 1: "Hit the truck and hit him. Go forward of it and hit him"

[Blake 0]

Seen that Apache video long ago, it really does feel like an execution is taking place. However it would also be interesting to hear what was the Apache's mission and what threats did they face during the mission and that was that truck servicing some kind of AA site etc? There's clearly large piece cut from the video before shooting starts. Why were they just monitoring their activities so long before firing? Still it looks like a murder though.

The infantry shootout seems so much out of context it's pretty hard to tell but in combat situations a moving wounded guy next to his gun still is a threat and I suspect most people would keep shooting until he's clearly dead or incapacitated.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office quit because she

Quote[/b] ]did not agree the use of force against Iraq was lawful.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3492910.stm

This is the info Tony Blair was tying to keep quiet when they dropped the case against the spy who blew the whistle on the NSA's request to GCHQ to spy on the UN for them.

TBA and TBA2 may not like it but in reporter speak this story has legs like a giraf.

Kind Regards Walker

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Seen that Apache video long ago, it really does feel like an execution is taking place. However it would also be interesting to hear what was the Apache's mission and what threats did they face during the mission and that was that truck servicing some kind of AA site etc? There's clearly large piece cut from the video before shooting starts. Why were they just monitoring their activities so long before firing? Still it looks like a murder though.

The infantry shootout seems so much out of context it's pretty hard to tell but in combat situations a moving wounded guy next to his gun still is a threat and I suspect most people would keep shooting until he's clearly dead or incapacitated.

I have seen the long version on TV. Actually those 3 were hiding something at the side of the road. It was very clear they were preparing a terorist attack, probably a road side bomb..or something. What they were throwing into the bush...maybe just an AA, maybe an AT, dont know!  

[denoir 0]

With a tractor? What are you smoking? It was in the middle of a field and the tractor was plowing. The only reason they attacked was because one of the men had somne form of long thin pipe-like object that they suspect could be a weapon. It could have equally been a spare part from the tractor. With the low FLIR, there is no way of telling.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

With a tractor? What are you smoking?   It was in the middle of a field and the tractor was plowing. The only reason they attacked was because one of the men had somne form of long thin pipe-like object that they suspect could be a weapon. It could have equally been a spare part from the tractor. With the low FLIR, there is no way of telling.

Quote[/b] ]„A big truck over here, he is having a little pow-wow.â€

“Yeah.“

“I got a guy running, throwing a weapon.â€

“Smoke him.“

„Hit him.“

“Got him.“

“Good.â€

â€Second one.

“Hit the other one.â€

“Hit the truck.â€

“Go to the right, see if anyone's moving by the truck.â€

“Take the trucks out?â€

“Is there anybody in the truck? Wait for movement.â€

“Have not seen any.â€

“ Store that - auto range store.â€

“There's another guy moving, right there.â€

„Good. Fire.â€

„Hit him.“

„Target 4.“

„We take the other truck out?â€

„Roger“

„Wait for movement by the truck.â€

„Movement right there.â€

“Roger.“

“He's wounded.â€

“Hit him.“

“He's in the truck.â€

“Hit the truck and him.â€

“Go forward of it and hit him.â€

„Roger.“

---------------------------------------------

This is from the long tape. The guy on the ground looks left, looks right and then runs to the left side of the road and throws something into the bushes. I have to admit that looked more than just a little suspicious.! I suppose the iraqis heard chopper noise and were afraid to get caught. So they threw suspicious things out of their cars.

this here is pretty interesting ABC comments on rules of engagement

[denoir 0]

Those are all very vague assumptions. Light years from being enough cause to tear their limbs of with a 30mm cannon. The fact is that you can't tell from the video what exactly they were doing and what we've seen is about what FLIR resolution can handle, so the pilots didn't have a better picture than we have on the video. Also, from the longer version, you can clearly see that they started tracking the truck by a mere coincidence.

As opposed to the CNN footage of the marines, this was cold-blooded murder. Nothing more, nothing less. And I can't understand why in the world you are trying to justify it.

Edit, from your link (which was posted by the way ages ago already)

Quote[/b] ]Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

Anthony Cordesman should get a new job. FLIR imagery is very low resolution.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am not trying to justify it          I try to understand.

I fly an apache, I see what I think is an enemy transporting weapons and I hit them. One could also argue they were unarmed. Of course it could also be that those people were transporting illegal french bread (since the US has banned french products) and when they hear chopper noise they threw the baguette into the fields. And there are so damn many civillians that possess trucks of this size in iraq. And of course these merchants are especially busy during the night, working in a very hostile environment. If you are that cautious who you shoot Denoir then you wouldnt even shoot an Iraqi pointing an AK at you, you never know, it might not be loaded!

To put it simple. During the tape on the ground I would have punched those soldiers into their faces, filled with rage and disgust. But in the chopper it shows professionality rather people driven by emotions

[denoir 0]

Again you go off making completely unfounded assumptions. You don't know what that object was, neither did the pilots. The tractor was PLOWING the field, which farmers often do in the region because of the intense heat of the day. Yeah, that's what terrorsts do, they roam around in the middle of nowhere and plow other people's fields.  

Why are you FSPiloting me?

Quote[/b] ]To put it simple. During the tape on the ground I would have punched those soldiers into their faces, filled with rage and disgust. But in the chopper it shows professionality rather people driven by emotions.

Ah, so a cold blooded killer is better than one who kills because he wants to stay alive?

[SpongeBob 0]

"intense heat" of the December sun?

[denoir 0]

"intense heat" of the December sun?

Try September. The tape was leaked in december, but the footage was (IIRC) shot in September.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

"in dubio pro reo" does not work in war. In case you are suspicious, and you must admit it looks quite suspicious, you must act. In case the chopper would have many other solutions available I wouldnt have mind but do you think it had many other options to chose from?

Quote[/b] ]again from late September through November; the shamal, a steady wind from the north and northwest, prevails from mid-June to mid-September. Very dry air which accompanies the shamal permits intensive sun heating of the land surface but also provides some cooling effect. Dust storms accompany these winds and may rise to height of several thousand meters, causing hazardous flying conditions and closing airports for brief periods of time.

[SpongeBob 0]

ABC news link to the story has the video, here's the text

Quote[/b] ]The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

[denoir 0]

"in dubio pro reo" does not work in war. In case you are suspicious, and you must admit it looks quite suspicious, you must act. In case the chopper would have many other solutions available I wouldnt have mind but do you think it had many other options to chose from?

ITS NOT WAR. It's not war, it's supposed to be peace keeping. Those were not enemy soldiers. Those were civilians.

[denoir 0]

ABC news link to the story has the video, here's the text

Quote[/b] ]The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

Ok, my mistake, but the fact remains as you can see from the video that the tractor was plowing the field. And it was not near any road, so that rules out the "planting explosives" option.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

short intel

Quote[/b] ]again from late September through November; the shamal, a steady wind from the north and northwest, prevails from mid-June to mid-September. Very dry air which accompanies the shamal permits intensive sun heating of the land surface but also provides some cooling effect. Dust storms accompany these winds and may rise to height of several thousand meters, causing hazardous flying conditions and closing airports for brief periods of time.

We can always learn something new. Shamal, nice, now I have a new term I can show off with.

Why didnt you say this from the beginning. Denoir you are saying that you think there is a greater chance that those are civillians instead of soldiers?

What probability do you think is there that these are indeed soldiers? And what did they throw into the fields when they hear the chopper noise?

[miles teg 1]

I agree with Denoir.  At a minimum some kind of disciplinary action should have been taken against that Apache crew.  However in Afghanistan, AC-130 gunship crews were doing the same thing by indiscriminantly shooting anyone on the streets of towns they had classified as "kill zones" designated by ground intelligence (and we all know how accurate that has been in Iraq and Afghanistan).  

They were just killing any person moving in the streets.  During that wedding were they killed 90 people, there were also reports that they flew on to a second nearbye village and shot the hell out of that village as well.  

The carelessness and complete disregard for human life that some of these aircrews have is to me absolutely sickening.  But I guess it comes down to a mentality that takes ahold of some soldiers where EVERYONE not from their country becomes "the enemy" and they are seen as mere animals.  In Vietnam this peception of Vietnamese as animals was very common place as was the dehumanizing done during WWII towards Japanese.  

Arabs are just the latest group to be dehumanized so that American soldiers won't feel so bad about killing Arabs.

Unfortunately this dehumanization applies to civilians as well hence the reason often war crimes are committed.  It becomes very easy to rationalize this when all the civilians are the enemy.    Fortunately not all soldiers think this way.  But it only takes a small number of soldiers and airmen (especially if they are officers ordering war crimes) to commit awful war time attrocities that seriously jeapordize and undermine a peacekeeping mission.

A good example was one Marine officer in a frontline documentary last night on the Iraq invasion where ON CAMERA in a briefing before the assault on Baghdad, he ordered to his men:  "Shoot ANYTHING that moves.  We're no concerned about colateral dammage.  If they're out on the streets they have nothing good in mind for you."

(Or words to that effect). This was a VERY VERY clear violation of the rules of war in which he was making incorrect assumptions based on previous battles in smaller cities where some Fedayeen were wearing civilian clothes. The result was that MANY civilians were killed by US troops who just opened up on any vehicle that got close to them even when those vehicles were trying to escape. This officer as well should have faced disciplinary action. I can understand why he gave that order, but it was still wrong and went against good fire discipline. But as far as I know, the military has not investigated these matters and nobody has been punished for this kind of highly unproffesional and illegal behavior.

Nevertheless the documentary also did a good job of showing that some units were trying very hard not to hit civilian targets. One commander said that 80% of the radio traffic during the assault on Baghdad was concerning which vehicles were targets and which were civilian.

But as I said, there are always a few idiots in the bunch that don't care.

I can look up the webcast if anyone wants to see the documentary.  It was VERY VERY well done and had extensive interviews with Republican Guard commanders, some of whom gave very interesting insights into the conflict that any military person should be interested in hearing.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>