Lot of ignorance in this thread.

 

A ) You can't take chances in a situation like this. If it looks like a weapon, you have to take them down.

B ) Of course they're eager to kill. Would you put your faith into an army of people that is afraid to hurt someone?

C ) Accidents like these are GOING to happen.

 

Does that mean they did the right thing? Does that mean they didn't make a mistake? Absolutely not. I just don't think the entire U.S. armed forces should be condemned for it. And I agree with what Azvareth said, seems like people are more concerned with who the most popular celebrity is banging than what's going on in the world.

 

So your agreeing with this killing when its obviously a camera on a tripod? MAybe you should actually watch the video. Heck, those could have been my relatives or something. Guess I'll never know. Also, why did they have to shoot at that van? Please tell me that cause I'm dieing to know.

 

Did you even read my post? I never said I agreed with it, but in the vid you can see how they could EASILY be mistaken for weapons. We know now the real story, but at first glance it looks like they're armed to the teeth, and stopping for a second glance can be the difference between life and death for someone on the ground. You really seem to think that these guys said "hey look dem civvies lets smoke em' LOL".

 

I never said that you were agreeing to the situation, I was asking if you did. I understand what you mean that they do look alot like RPG's, but take in the factor of how many laps that helicopter took around the people and also of how many times he zoomed in on them. He should have been paying more attention instead of just killing for the fun of it.

 

Well, like I said, they made a mistake, and this sort of thing should not happen with precision technology. They really weren't paying close enough attention and I agree with you. I just don't think these are evil barbarians that just love to kill people.

This is a war crime, and nothing less.

 

So why are you in iraq again?

 

I was against the war but it's not about oil. Talk to petroleum experts and engineers, and they'll tell you the same story. It hasn't helped their business any, that's for sure.

 

That said, I think the war was more about a hot-headed cowboy who had a personal vendetta to finish where his daddy left off. That, mixed with the arrogance that the US could be successful in establishing a democracy there for all of the ME to see how much we love the Muslims by rooting out a brutal dictator.

This is a war crime, and nothing less.

 

or is it just war? Can war ever not be a crime, or ever be humane?

This is a war crime, and nothing less.

 

or is it just war? Can war ever not be a crime, or ever be humane?

 

While there is human suffering, there will be war. Can war ever be humane? I don't think so, which is why soldiers have to be broken down and prepared before they set off to fight; it's also why PSTD is so prominent among veterans. However, while there is war and while it is a reality, jus in bello and the Geneva Conventions must be followed. This is a clear violation of just war theory, and clearly a war crime.

 

It also shows why I don't trust a word out of the mouths of our military leaders, the Pentagon, or the CIA.

Lot of ignorance in this thread.

 

A ) You can't take chances in a situation like this. If it looks like a weapon, you have to take them down.

B ) Of course they're eager to kill. Would you put your faith into an army of people that is afraid to hurt someone?

C ) Accidents like these are GOING to happen.

 

Does that mean they did the right thing? Does that mean they didn't make a mistake? Absolutely not. I just don't think the entire U.S. armed forces should be condemned for it. And I agree with what Azvareth said, seems like people are more concerned with who the most popular celebrity is banging than what's going on in the world.

 

Eh, Krieg explained it better than I did.

 

In the first group only two of the men are even carrying anything, yet the gunner says he sees 4-5 people wearing AKs and RPGs. He also says they are being shot at. As for the "you can't take chances in a situation like this": they're in the middle of one of the biggest cities in the world... so wouldn't it be safe to assume that there will be people walking around... holding things? Killing people indiscriminately on a hunch is just not how I imagined the military to work.

 

Also, lying to command and falsifying ROE are all war crimes at least in the U.S. Army aren't they?

Pretty messed up.

I can understand why they fired upon them but i don't agree with it.

Btw, for all of those arguing that this was justified, let's assume that it was.

 

How do you explain to their families that this is happening? Here in the US, you are all sheltered from what this war actually looks like; perhaps if this was shown here more often, Americans wouldn't be such a war mongering people. This is what people in these countries see on a daily basis, and pardon my French, but they don't give a flying [bleep] how you try and justify it. They want their families back, who were killed innocently, when your/our country shouldn't have invaded in the first place. This is far from uncommon. This is the fog of war, these kinds of things happen; even well intentioned soldiers are going to commit acts like this. The point is that we should think about why we continue to invade other countries and occupy them, knowing that these things that we see here are the things that we're going to be doing. This is counterproductive, and has only created more terrorists than we've defeated, and indoctrinated a whole slew of Western haters among the youth. The women in Iraq are less safe now than they were before because rather than a brutal secular dictator, they have a corrupt brutal theocratic government...but they have elections! It's revolting.

 

The key takeaway from this is this: they hate us for our freedom.

Perhaps they should get better cameras and whatnot. The soldiers did seem a little too keen on the trigger though.

 

And, clearly, ShadowFaxPZ, knows what he's talking about. We should all listen to him, he's got his facts set straight.

So... what exactly is going to these soldiers?

 

Well, judging by the opening text, nothing.

 

 

 

 

"Reuters demanded an investigation into the killings. U.S. military authorities concluded that the actions of the soldiers and pilots involved were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and their Rules of Engagement."

Thanks for the reply even though part of my sentence didn't come out correctly. :mad:

 

I don't get how U.S. military authorities can be allowed conclude such actions... Obviously they're gonna say that the soldiers' actions were justified and that nothing wrong happened. That seems completely biased, though I'm not sure if you're allowed to have another country handle such business.

I might possibly understand why they shot at the group, even through it was a camera on a tripod, it could look a little suspicious, especially with those body guards with AK-47s. Still, these soldiers were corrupt; I heard them laughing and talking like it was a game at one point, and I did not understand why they shot at the van either. Just thinking about it, I wonder how often unrecorded incidents of things similar to this happen, its just horrible. I understand why much of the world dislikes us, 90% of the general population blatantly [developmentally delayed]ed, corrupted leaders (every country has it, I just feel we have more corrupt politicians.), many in our military are part of that idiotic general population and blood thirsty, and our complete ignorance that "we be da bestest!"

 

I hope one day we achieve world piece, educate our masses, and have major control on violence before we do long term damage to the planet.

Lot of ignorance in this thread.

 

A ) You can't take chances in a situation like this. If it looks like a weapon, you have to take them down.

B ) Of course they're eager to kill. Would you put your faith into an army of people that is afraid to hurt someone?

C ) Accidents like these are GOING to happen.

 

Does that mean they did the right thing? Does that mean they didn't make a mistake? Absolutely not. I just don't think the entire U.S. armed forces should be condemned for it. And I agree with what Azvareth said, seems like people are more concerned with who the most popular celebrity is banging than what's going on in the world.

 

So your agreeing with this killing when its obviously a camera on a tripod? MAybe you should actually watch the video. Heck, those could have been my relatives or something. Guess I'll never know. Also, why did they have to shoot at that van? Please tell me that cause I'm dieing to know.

 

Did you even read my post? I never said I agreed with it, but in the vid you can see how they could EASILY be mistaken for weapons. We know now the real story, but at first glance it looks like they're armed to the teeth, and stopping for a second glance can be the difference between life and death for someone on the ground. You really seem to think that these guys said "hey look dem civvies lets smoke em' LOL".

 

I never said that you were agreeing to the situation, I was asking if you did. I understand what you mean that they do look alot like RPG's, but take in the factor of how many laps that helicopter took around the people and also of how many times he zoomed in on them. He should have been paying more attention instead of just killing for the fun of it.

 

Well, like I said, they made a mistake, and this sort of thing should not happen with precision technology. They really weren't paying close enough attention and I agree with you. I just don't think these are evil barbarians that just love to kill people.

 

I totally agree with you on your first statement with the technology and them not paying attention, but I have a slightly different opinion on your other statement. In the video you hear the soldier pleading to Hotel Two-Six to let him shoot the civilians, which led me to my belief that they were/are trigger happy soldiers.

I am an Arab and I find the change of American thought about the war in Iraq to be about the most humorous thing I have ever encountered.

 

1. Okay, so first you have the people who are like ya, bomb them dumb towel heads they're evil they blew up our towers (please keep in mind Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11). So then all the ignorant Americans, which I would say is at least 25% of the population was like oh ya I think they're right, let's bomb Iran. I mean Iraq. Whatever same different. Yay, killing dumb muslims durga druga.

 

2. Ya, we caught that crazy bad man super evil Saddam. He caused 9/11 so now all our problems will go away. (Little did the ignorant fools know that the deposing of Saddam caused political unrest for the Christian in Lebanon as well as persecution of Iraqi Christians and Jews).

 

3. Let's give them our noble and grand democracy! Yay democracy, its the best and only system of government that is good <33333333333 (Ok, so now they install mock elections and really the people in power are theocratic imams with underground power who use their followers to bully around everyone since there isn't an iron fist such as Saddam pinning them. It is also a great chance to get ride of Christians because no one will stop them. Radicalism worsens.)

 

4. Oh noez, war is soooo bad. America is sooo evil, oh nooooo! What have we done! Oh noooo! President Bush, you're a bad person. Boohoo people died. (What the hell do you expect, when you invade another country there will be bloodshed, or were you expecting a delightful picnic?)

 

5. The only logical answer for Bush being so evil is that the oil companies bribed him to invade to lower oil prices (Now it is true Saddam had sealed off Iraq's oil sources which in turn raised oil prices, but it is highly illogical to assume the war was based on the acquisition of oil. It was a beneficial byproduct, yes, but not a major objective. The main objective was to spread our wonderful democracy to other people.)

 

Those are the 5 steps through the evolution of emotion of the War in Iraq. Completely stupid, wish-washy and spineless and generally controlled by the mainstream media, but that is like every other American political issue. Personally I was never a fan of the war in Iraq and I feel the "authority" America has to invade a country illegally against international regulation, depose its leader and give it its twisted sense of democracy is more arrogant when the Pope issued the statement in the Investiture Controversy that all princes should kiss his feet and that he had the ability to depose kings, because at least those who followed the Pope did so with an adherence to the religion in contrast to the Iraqis who were subject to unwanted American judgment. The invasion was so popular at first because some Americans were such semite-phobic people were proclaiming carpet bomb the entire middle east, and yet they couldn't find it on a map or explain why it should be bombed other then it had crazy sand n-word towel heads terrorists.

 

This is just like Obama, it truly portrays the pattern of American politics and the mass ignorance of its populace. I didn't like him from the start everyone was like you're a racist. Change, wooo. Now I'm 1 in like >200 million.

This is a war crime, and nothing less.

 

So why are you in iraq again?

 

I was against the war but it's not about oil. Talk to petroleum experts and engineers, and they'll tell you the same story. It hasn't helped their business any, that's for sure.

 

That said, I think the war was more about a hot-headed cowboy who had a personal vendetta to finish where his daddy left off. That, mixed with the arrogance that the US could be successful in establishing a democracy there for all of the ME to see how much we love the Muslims by rooting out a brutal dictator.

 

If you're talking about Bush, his administration had strong ties to the oil industry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm

 

Iraq is the second largest (confirmed) oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi who already plays nice (most of the time) with the US. Why would the US want these oil reserves if they can already buy them? Because they want to control the output in production - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7404040.stm

 

So basically what happened with this invasion? The four UK/US oil giants who were banned from Iraq during Saddam's reign is back - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

Perhaps they should get better cameras and whatnot. The soldiers did seem a little too keen on the trigger though.

 

And, clearly, ShadowFaxPZ, knows what he's talking about. We should all listen to him, he's got his facts set straight.

So why don't you counter my statements instead of taking potshots? Put up or shut up

This is a war crime, and nothing less.

 

So why are you in iraq again?

 

I was against the war but it's not about oil. Talk to petroleum experts and engineers, and they'll tell you the same story. It hasn't helped their business any, that's for sure.

 

That said, I think the war was more about a hot-headed cowboy who had a personal vendetta to finish where his daddy left off. That, mixed with the arrogance that the US could be successful in establishing a democracy there for all of the ME to see how much we love the Muslims by rooting out a brutal dictator.

 

If you're talking about Bush, his administration had strong ties to the oil industry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1138009.stm

 

Iraq is the second largest (confirmed) oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi who already plays nice (most of the time) with the US. Why would the US want these oil reserves if they can already buy them? Because they want to control the output in production - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7404040.stm

 

So basically what happened with this invasion? The four UK/US oil giants who were banned from Iraq during Saddam's reign is back - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/world/middleeast/19iraq.html

 

This is completely ignoring the fact that:

 

a.) Many oil companies operated under Saddam.

b.) Those oil companies lost a lot of infrastructure, and had their contracts dissolved after he was toppled.

c.) The contracts the US oil companies just recently snagged are pretty awful.

d.) The winners were China and Russia, not western oil producers.

e.) Totale was also a big winner, and they're French.

f.) Shell had operations there under Saddam, and BP indirectly had operations there through Shell.

g.) Exxon and Chevron were banned under law from trading with Iraq due to the sanctions, not because of Saddam's iron fist.

h.) I'm sure one could argue that with the toppling of Saddam those sanctions would be dropped, but this opens it up for other corporations which leads to renegotiation of all contracts--that's exactly what happened.

i.) Reason h.) always results in a large monetary loss in the long run, which is something these companies try to avoid.

j.) Exxon walked away from the lucrative fields because the Iraqi government was only going to give them $10/barrel.

k.) Once again, for repetition, the infrastructure and logistics were totally destroyed.

 

If it were about oil, the US would have been involved in a bloodless coup, and retained the Iraq national army...or simply thawed relations with Saddam. This would have been an overall win for them, and kept competing Russian and Chinese interests out. Instead, China and Russia are the biggest winners, the Western companies stand to make barely anything, and all of the oil infrastructure was destroyed.

 

Hardly about oil, mate.

I gave you links to actually prove my arguments, I'd like to see yours. A lot of what you said are subjective as hell

Seriously? You must not be looking at the same person as me. That is definitely an RPG, he props it on the ground at one point. Its way to long and skinny to be a camera or an AK. And whats with him kneeling and peeking around the corner?

 

Likely because something was going on down the street. Cameras generally need to be pointed at the location you want to record for them to record properly. Just sayin'.

 

There has to be some sort of [bleep]-up here with the soldiers not knowing exactly what their ROE is. And justification for shooting the first group can be brought up, but not for shooting the van. That's like shooting a bloody medic.

 

And, clearly, ShadowFaxPZ, knows what he's talking about. We should all listen to him, he's got his facts set straight.

Lol.

What facts don't I have set straight? When I said americans killing civilians is horrendous?

Lot of ignorance in this thread.

 

A ) You can't take chances in a situation like this. If it looks like a weapon, you have to take them down.

B ) Of course they're eager to kill. Would you put your faith into an army of people that is afraid to hurt someone?

C ) Accidents like these are GOING to happen.

 

Does that mean they did the right thing? Does that mean they didn't make a mistake? Absolutely not. I just don't think the entire U.S. armed forces should be condemned for it. And I agree with what Azvareth said, seems like people are more concerned with who the most popular celebrity is banging than what's going on in the world.

 

So your agreeing with this killing when its obviously a camera on a tripod? MAybe you should actually watch the video. Heck, those could have been my relatives or something. Guess I'll never know. Also, why did they have to shoot at that van? Please tell me that cause I'm dieing to know.

 

Sorry its not "obvious"

 

 

 

Another ignorant statement. Oil? Really? Be real. Where is it then?

So why are you in iraq again?

 

Because I'm told to? lol Do you seriously think anyone in their right mind wants to go to that crappy piece of earth? Its not a vacation. I don't care if you are from there, its terrible there. Its depressing almost.

 

I might possibly understand why they shot at the group, even through it was a camera on a tripod, it could look a little suspicious, especially with those body guards with AK-47s. Still, these soldiers were corrupt; I heard them laughing and talking like it was a game at one point, and I did not understand why they shot at the van either. Just thinking about it, I wonder how often unrecorded incidents of things similar to this happen, its just horrible. I understand why much of the world dislikes us, 90% of the general population blatantly [developmentally delayed]ed, corrupted leaders (every country has it, I just feel we have more corrupt politicians.), many in our military are part of that idiotic general population and blood thirsty, and our complete ignorance that "we be da bestest!"

 

I hope one day we achieve world piece, educate our masses, and have major control on violence before we do long term damage to the planet.

 

Ever thought this is how they deal with this stuff? Regardless of if its right or wrong, its tough. They laugh about it. Been there done that. You make it a joke to take your mind off of the situation. The reality of it is, is you people are stringing these guys up as poster boys for terrible examples of humans when really they have no choice of going over there and just do what they have to do to get back. That doesn't have to be only self defense. Every job over there, you just do it so you can go home.

I might possibly understand why they shot at the group, even through it was a camera on a tripod, it could look a little suspicious, especially with those body guards with AK-47s. Still, these soldiers were corrupt; I heard them laughing and talking like it was a game at one point, and I did not understand why they shot at the van either. Just thinking about it, I wonder how often unrecorded incidents of things similar to this happen, its just horrible. I understand why much of the world dislikes us, 90% of the general population blatantly [developmentally delayed]ed, corrupted leaders (every country has it, I just feel we have more corrupt politicians.), many in our military are part of that idiotic general population and blood thirsty, and our complete ignorance that "we be da bestest!"

 

I hope one day we achieve world piece, educate our masses, and have major control on violence before we do long term damage to the planet.

 

Ever thought this is how they deal with this stuff? Regardless of if its right or wrong, its tough. They laugh about it. Been there done that. You make it a joke to take your mind off of the situation. The reality of it is, is you people are stringing these guys up as poster boys for terrible examples of humans when really they have no choice of going over there and just do what they have to do to get back. That doesn't have to be only self defense. Every job over there, you just do it so you can go home.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought you had to sign up for it? It's not like there's a draft, don't you have to elect to go there?

 

I thought that was the case as well.

I knew that no one would go to the middle ground on this. Oh well, just another topic for me to avoid from now on I guess.

What? No. You sign up for the military but you are told to go somewhere like that. Its a deployment, you have no choice.

What? No. You sign up for the military but you are told to go somewhere like that. Its a deployment, you have no choice.

 

When you sign up for the military, a variety of things can happen. Sometimes they send you to military bases around the world (the US has its own bases on virtually every western country, among others) or you could be sent to Iran, Afghanistan, or Iraq. You have no choice. Once you sign up, you effectively sell your soul to the US military --- for a certain amount of time.

 

I hope one day we achieve world piece, educate our masses, and have major control on violence before we do long term damage to the planet.

 

To be honest, "world peace" is nothing other than wishful thinking. Violence is critical to human evolution and is an innate trait of every human being; it's survival of the fittest. It's unfortunate, but violence will always exist so long as violence can solve our problems.

 

However, with that said, this does not mean that countries should not practice peace and goodwill to all nations; Blessed are the Peacemakers, after all.

I'll admit the camera on the tripod could be mistaken for an RPG at range, but at no time did it ever appear that the chopper was being targeted, shot at or anything like that. The guys on the ground showed zero interest in it at all until it started shooting at them. And gunning down the van when the people were clearly unarmed is just [developmentally delayed]ed. They could've been civilians (and they were) going "oh [bleep] these people need medical attention" - not some low like scum collecting their dead insurgent buddies.

 

Some people in the army need to be on the receiving end of this is these [rooster] in hand decisions for one before they get their itchy trigger finder working and killing a dozen people for kicks.

So just out of curiosity does anyone agree/disagree with my statements made on pg. 2? I would find a response interesting.

 

And by the way people criticize soldiers when they get trigger happy, isn't it a human response to violence to get carried away and when you become [even temporarily] unstable you go on a rampage?