Real Modern Warfare

[Little Whiskey]

so what do you think of video's like this being released to the public? .....or leaked to the public.

http://www.wikileaks.com/

[Scott Campbell]

Fuck.

[red]

i don't care if you're killing innocent children or hitler, you gotta be a pretty sick fuck to take pleasure in killing people like these guys were IMO

[SkinBasket]

I think the video is stupid. It was edited then released by a totally biased entity, which failed to provide all the facts, such as the weapons carried by those who were with the journalists, and the fact that that group of people matched the description of opposition forces that our troops had been fighting in that area that day. It also ignores the fact that all the other, non-combatant Iraqis were off the street at the time because they knew there was a war being fought on the streets.

As far as the soldiers "taking pleasure" in the killings, we are in no position to judge the presumably private interactions between men trained to kill other men doing their job, especially on a video that provides such a slanted and narrow focus of what was happening in that area, on that day, in the context of a fucking WAR.

What the fuck do you people expect them to do over the radio? Ask for God's forgiveness every time they shoot a person? Lament their task as a soldier? Grow the fuck up. These are, for the most part, young adults who are dealing with their extremely difficult task the best way they know how. If that means emotionally disconnecting from the fact they are killing people, then so be it.

[Freak Out]

I saw the video a few days ago......as basket says it's war. If you don't like it or it upsets you do more to stop it. That's nothing.......

[hoosier]

I saw the video a few days ago......as basket says it's war. If you don't like it or it upsets you do more to stop it. That's nothing.......

Absolutely agree with these two points. Criticizing the shooters is misguided because it ignores the greater process that creates situations like these. The disgust that many of us feel when watching something like this is a product of our being relatively insulated from this kind of violence, no matter how informed we try to be. Reading about it in the paper is nothing compared to watching the body of a reporter getting blown into pieces by a machine gun because somebody up there in a helicopter fucked up. The only problem with your main point--if we don't like what we're seeing here, do more to stop the situation that produces moments like these--is that it is not clear that there is anything constructive that can be done about it. What are we supposed to do, stand on the street corner with yet another "War is Not the Answer" poster? Nor can we say that a US pull-out would put a stop to it. Things might well get much worse. So I agree completely with your sentiment, but I am not sure that the solution is a viable one.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I agree with SkinBasket.

War is hell. Once turned on our country's war machine becomes an efficient killing machine where moral values are turned upside down. In war there are no "innocent bystanders," only the dead and those that survive being killed. There are only two sides in a war: us and them -- us and those trying to kill us. And when a country becomes a battlefield every individual in the country becomes either an us or a them.

This is why our country should go to war on Constitutional grounds only, after a Congressional declaration of war. But it should not stop there. The idea that free individuals can be "drafted" to "fight for their country" is an unconstitutional travesty -- even after a proper declarations of war. If the cause is just, free men will fight. The military draft is dead and should remain so.

Moreover, any American expeditionary army should be financed totally by means of war bonds or voluntary contributions. The idea that an American expeditionary war can be financied by monies from the general tax fund or by inflation is a tragedy we pay for in blood. If a war is worth fighting, free men will not only fight it but finance it as well.

[Zool]

I think Kiwon's point is, should we even have access to this sort of video footage ever? I don't think we need to view this shit. I realize these things happen but I'm definitely not morbid enough to need to watch it happen.

[hoosier]

I think Kiwon's point is, should we even have access to this sort of video footage ever? I don't think we need to view this shit. I realize these things happen but I'm definitely not morbid enough to need to watch it happen.

You mean Little Whiskey?

To my mind there is a big difference between saying "I don't need to see this" (a personal choice that noone can argue with) and "I don't think anyone else should be able to see this" or "We should not allow this." You say morbid, and that implies that the only possible purpose for something like this is that somebody gets off on it. I am sure there are plenty of people who do, but (a) I have no desire to police other people's enjoyment no matter how sick it is, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and (b) censorship--which is what you are calling for--does much more than just limiting the sick pleasure of a few.

[Maxie the Taxi]

I think Kiwon's point is, should we even have access to this sort of video footage ever? I don't think we need to view this shit. I realize these things happen but I'm definitely not morbid enough to need to watch it happen.

The larger point is: Who gets to decide whether or not we "should" have access to this?

If such video exists in the public domain, individuals are free to watch it or not, and they are smart enough to draw their own conclusions.

If access is to be denied, by whom and why? The government? The very entity that has the power to wage war?

It's pretty much a known and accepted fact that the first project a power-lusting government or individual takes on is control of the media and free public information.

Why do you suppose that is?

[SkinBasket]

a reporter getting blown into pieces by a machine gun because somebody up there in a helicopter fucked up.

No one in the helicopter "fucked up." The rules of engagement were clearly followed and the gunner refrained from firing on the journalist as he crawled away.

If anything the journalists "fucked up." Not a great idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPGs and AK47s during a firefight.

[Freak Out]

I think the public should be able so see combat footage....but it should be filtered by a military/civilian board of some makeup to protect the privacy of our soldiers. These things are done in our name and the citizens need to be more aware of whats going on. It's pretty easy for the average citizen to become completely unaware of the conflicts we are engaged in.

To Maxi's point about the draft.....I've said before that I believe all US citizens should serve their country in some capacity for two-four years after high school....be it a branch of the military or some sort of civil service.

[Freak Out]

a reporter getting blown into pieces by a machine gun because somebody up there in a helicopter fucked up.

No one in the helicopter "fucked up." The rules of engagement were clearly followed and the gunner refrained from firing on the journalist as he crawled away.

If anything the journalists "fucked up." Not a great idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPGs and AK47s during a firefight.

The one thing I have a problem with is when they fired on the van that came to try and take the casualties away. There is a time to let off the trigger....we were all taught that.

The journalists were treading on dangerous ground and they knew it.....it comes with the job.

[Maxie the Taxi]

To Maxi's point about the draft.....I've said before that I believe all US citizens should serve their country in some capacity for two-four years after high school....be it a branch of the military or some sort of civil service.

What purpose would such mandatory "service" have other than to provide the government with a virtually unlimited supply of young, stupid and strong canon fodder?

The norm in this country is parents control the child pretty much exclusively from birth to 7 years old. From 7 to 18 our young people are "educated" in government schools by government-employed teachers. And now you seem ready to demand that they serve their government masters by doing whatever the government wants them to do for another two to four years.

From the kid's point of view, I don't see a whole lot of difference between growing up in your new world vs growing up in N. Korea, China, Cuba or Venezuela.

Where in the Constitution does it say what you suggest can be done?

[Zool]

I think Kiwon's point is, should we even have access to this sort of video footage ever? I don't think we need to view this shit. I realize these things happen but I'm definitely not morbid enough to need to watch it happen.

You mean Little Whiskey?

Yes....damn

Anyways no I don't think its censorship. It clearly states its classified materials. It might be semantics but where do we draw the line with military information? Should we publish the UAV shots that are being taken daily to YouTube?

Is it censorship because human life was lost or because of the situation? Should there be a camera crew present at all possible military actions so that we aren't censored from seeing whats going on? For that matter lets start having access to all surgical video from every hospital just in case a patient dies.

People are murdered daily in our country by other people. Maybe we need video footage of that too? The world is becoming too small for its own good IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

a reporter getting blown into pieces by a machine gun because somebody up there in a helicopter fucked up.

No one in the helicopter "fucked up." The rules of engagement were clearly followed and the gunner refrained from firing on the journalist as he crawled away.

If anything the journalists "fucked up." Not a great idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPGs and AK47s during a firefight.

The one thing I have a problem with is when they fired on the van that came to try and take the casualties away. There is a time to let off the trigger....we were all taught that.

The journalists were treading on dangerous ground and they knew it.....it comes with the job.


I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

But war is ugly. Really ugly that day.

The shooting of the guys carrying off bodies........I'm no military expert, but I just don't comprehend how that is in the best interests of the United States of America.

If a military engagement can't stand up to the scrutiny of the American public, then who's fault is that?

[swede]

World War Two was a way better war.

Lot's of fair play and Queen's rules.

Incendiary bombing of entire cities was much more sporting.

i say, time for a quinine and gin, eh?

[Freak Out]

World War Two was a way better war.

Lot's of fair play and Queen's rules.

Incendiary bombing of entire cities was much more sporting.

i say, time for a quinine and gin, eh?

There was a certain allied leader that was even calling for chemical weapons (bombing) use in Europe on civilian populations.

[SkinBasket]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.


All the more reason for the military to release the unedited version, rather than letting some other source spin it and have them look like they were attempting a cover-up.

Think about how useful Bin Laden will find that tape for recruiting suicide bombers.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.


A big part of winning a war is maintaining public support for the military. Look at the massive military efforts at raising money to fund WWII, and the use of "hero's" to sell war bonds. You can't win wars without public support. When military rules of engagement erode public support, those actions are not in the best interests of the USA.

I don't think we should be blasting defenseless guys retrieving bodies. Or if there is a valid military reason for doing so, then they better damned well explain themselves.

In my opinion the PR threat to this country far outweighed the threat of the guy with AK.

Having said all that, it's obviously a helluva lot easier being a Monday Morning QB. I don't envy their jobs one bit.

[Freak Out]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.


All the more reason for the military to release the unedited version, rather than letting some other source spin it and have them look like they were attempting a cover-up.

Think about how useful Bin Laden will find that tape for recruiting suicide bombers.

There is an unedited video out there and it was released by the same group I believe.....40 minutes in length. I still don't know how they broke the encryption on the video though......I heard at one point they were asking for help on twitter.

[Freak Out]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.


There weren't any of our soldiers near those guys. A car barreling through a security checkpoint poses a clear threat. If you're going to call a bunch of dudes with cameras loitering in a courtyard or retrieving dead bodies a threat, you might as well make genocide part of our rules of engagement. Just fuck it, and kill them all.

[Freak Out]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.


There weren't any of our soldiers near those guys. A car barreling through a security checkpoint poses a clear threat. If you're going to call a bunch of dudes with cameras loitering in a courtyard or retrieving dead bodies a threat, you might as well make genocide part of our rules of engagement. Just fuck it, and kill them all.

None of those people in the Video were a threat to the gunship.....but they were perceived to be to any coalition forces in the area. I'm not defending them I'm just stating facts. They were working under some pretty open rules of engagement.

[Scott Campbell]

The whole thing smells really fish to me. If they were really enemy combatants, would they really stand around shooting the breeze in an open courtyard with an enemy gunship capable of cutting them to shreds in an instant circling ominously over them? I've seen nuns more ominous looking than those guys.

[Little Whiskey]

i don't care if you're killing innocent children or hitler, you gotta be a pretty sick fuck to take pleasure in killing people like these guys were IMO

can you imagine what its like to have to kill someone? you job is to end the life of someone who is trying to end yours? you've got to be able to make it just another job, otherwise your dead.

what frustrates me about these video's being leaked is that it makes the soldiers look like the "bad guys" when infact they followed all the procedures. if you notice, they think a guy is about to launch and RPG and they still wait for the order to engage. these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.

[Scott Campbell]

these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.


That's why I think the military should take control of the story and tell their side. I think all of us want their to be a reasonable explanation here.

[Little Whiskey]

these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.


That's why I think the military should take control of the story and tell their side. I think all of us want their to be a reasonable explanation here.

I think they did, but no one wants to believe the gov't. there is always a conspiracy. then video's like this get released and edited and our soilders look like cold blooded killers just looking for their next victim.

[Scott Campbell]

I think they did,.......


The story I heard is that the undecrypted video was leaked by a government whistleblower.

[SkinBasket]

The whole thing smells really fish to me. If they were really enemy combatants, would they really stand around shooting the breeze in an open courtyard with an enemy gunship capable of cutting them to shreds in an instant circling ominously over them? I've seen nuns more ominous looking than those guys.

If they weren't combatants then why were they totting weapons near combat operations instead of staying inside?

As far as their proximity to the helicopter, I'm not sure what the range is on those things. They certainly must have seen it, but maybe assumed (having never been shot by an Apache before) that it would dramatically swoop in and gun them down individually like in Airwolf. They aren't any smarter than anyone else when it comes to things like that.

Again, they were tasked with supporting and protecting ground troops. When the van shows up and trying to "save" what they perceived to be an opposition force, part of a group that was positively identified to be carrying weapons and matching the description of forces engaging American troops nearby, they can't know that there were children in there anymore than they can know there aren't a dozen more guys with RPGs in there. They did what they had to in an armed conflict to ensure the safety of their fellow soldiers to the best of their ability. Asking that they divine the intentions of any given person in a combat zone before pulling the trigger seems a little much to ask.

[Little Whiskey]

I think they did,.......


The story I heard is that the undecrypted video was leaked by a government whistleblower.

I believe the gov't/military explained what happened when these two journalists died. before the video was leaked. Let me look and see if i can find a link.

[Scott Campbell]

I think they did,.......


The story I heard is that the undecrypted video was leaked by a government whistleblower.

I believe the gov't/military explained what happened when these two journalists died. before the video was leaked. Let me look and see if i can find a link.


They did, but they suppressed the release of the video tape when it was requested by Reuters.

[Guiness]

The van was dodgy for sure. An unmarked black van of the type Harlan drives by elementary schools - no telling what's in it. And certainly 2 kids wouldn't have been my guess. The audio also seemed to indicate they thought bodies and weapons were being retrieved.

The Reuter's photogs was unfortunate, but if there were some RPG's being toted by that group, fuggetabouit

[Little Whiskey]

I think they did,.......


The story I heard is that the undecrypted video was leaked by a government whistleblower.

I believe the gov't/military explained what happened when these two journalists died. before the video was leaked. Let me look and see if i can find a link.


They did, but they suppressed the release of the video tape when it was requested by Reuters.

and when it was leaked out, you see what happened. so why would they want to release it?

[red]

The van was dodgy for sure. An unmarked black van of the type Harlan drives by elementary schools - no telling what's in it. And certainly 2 kids wouldn't have been my guess. The audio also seemed to indicate they thought bodies and weapons were being retrieved.

The Reuter's photogs was unfortunate, but if there were some RPG's being toted by that group, fuggetabouit

so you're saying its the same type of van that blue dog uses to cruise elementary schools,

and yet you're surprised that there were kids in it?

[twoseven]

The van was dodgy for sure. An unmarked black van of the type Harlan drives by elementary schools - no telling what's in it. And certainly 2 kids wouldn't have been my guess. The audio also seemed to indicate they thought bodies and weapons were being retrieved.

The Reuter's photogs was unfortunate, but if there were some RPG's being toted by that group, fuggetabouit

so you're saying its the same type of van that blue dog uses to cruise elementary schools,

and yet you're surprised that there were kids in it?that's not fair, harlan is above average intelligence...i say he cruises the schools in an ice cream truck. why bother stalking when you can have them chase you down the street.

[Scott Campbell]

and when it was leaked out, you see what happened. so why would they want to release it?


To take control of the story, and to ensure that it doesn't end up looking like a coverup.

I buy most of the explanations given for shooting. But then again, I'm not a real tough sell. I want to support our military.

[Freak Out]

There are no rules of engagement that say it's ok to fire on the unarmed.

[swede]

There are no rules of engagement that say it's ok to fire on the unarmed.

If they were going to hang around with guys shooting my guys... they should have armed themselves.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/av-15255.jpg