WikiLeaks releases footage believed to show civilian deaths in Iraq in 2007.

[The Dark Lord]

 

Isn't that little bit racist?

 

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

 

Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term.

[magekillr]

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

It's nationalist, but not racist. As a civilian and anti-nationalist, I value all lives equally. However, as a nation's leader, you cannot have the same viewpoint. Your nation's soldiers will always have a higher value than the "others." It's just how it is. These are legitimate debates that are had in human right's courses, and eventually you have to start treating people as numbers; how many of their men is one of your men worth? etc.

 

Oh, and I agree with everything that tortilliachp said in his last post. I believe that as a world power, a super world power, and as citizens of the world, it is imperative that we help other countries. However, that goes too far with "bringing democracy" to a country that clearly cannot function with one; democracy isn't just about elections, that's only one facet. It was obvious from the beginning that this would be the result. Even [bleep] Cheney knew this would happen as a result, as he argued back in the 1990's:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD9kYK9I

 

The winners of this occupation have been Iran and al Qaeda. The biggest losers have been the Iraqi people, especially Iraqi women.

[Faux]

 

Isn't that little bit racist?

 

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

 

Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term.

 

It's obvious he meant xenophobic. Not like it matters, you're just playing semantics.

[mcneilp]

[hide]

 

Technology is way ahead these days, and I know its hard for most of you to believe, but we've decreased casualties with it.

 

And I disagree. One civilian killed is ok, as long as I take 2+ targets with them. Say 10 Taliban fighters/leaders were hold up in a house in Afghanistan, with 1 maybe 2 civilians. Would you take the chance and hit the house? Or wait until that civilian leaves and probably miss your chance for those 10 other targets? It'd be insane to wait. You hit the house.

 

 

looking at this overview, citing all it's sources, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War, it's closer to 20 to 1 civillians to combatants dead. That shows a clear lack of restraint before fireing.

 

compared to WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties, the ratio of civillian deaths is much much lower, 22-25 million soldiers to 43-46 million civillians.

 

compared to the first gulf war, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Casualties, the ratio of civillan deaths is similar: ca. 100 000 civillians to ca. 11-12000 combatants.

 

It seems technology saves the soldiers, not the civillians, huh? America, saving its own, just as britain saves its own, and norway saves its own. we westeners have it good, don't we?

 

This movie has (at least in Europe) been condemed by all millitary personell (who have given commentary presented in the media) and the media, and been clearly labelled as a clear war crime. I don't know how radical you guys are, but claiming this is okay, is pretty far out there...

 

 

Did you miss that huge key word on the end of those numbers for WWII? MILLIONS. HUGE difference. And exactly THE MEDIA. The media finds the people that hate it, they find the stuff that will stir arguments up, and they will twist the truth.

 

People need to wake up. Sign up, go there yourself....please. See what happens there first hand. Walk the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan for a tour and i'm sure you'll change your tune. I love how most kids on this board that pretend to know politics and world issues because they watch one sided news reports, read bogus blogs, and play MW2 want to weigh in on this and call it wrong. PLEASE live it for yourself. You never hear about, or choose to pay attention to the good going on over there. Thats whats sick and disturbing, WAKE UP.

 

Sign up, and go see for yourselves. No balls.

 

Keep living in your fantasy world. Keep believing that no one can do no harm in the world and every "civilian" is innocent. While we continue to have harm done to us. You can let that guy go one day and the next day he'll kill one of our guys. Then what.

[hide]

[/hide]

 

Your other option is to go join the west burrough baptist church.

 

I think you missed the key point of my argument the RATIO. not absolute numbers, but RATIOS. Today, more civillians are killed than combatants. The combatants are killing too many civillians.

 

I also think you didn't read the other parts of my post either: i have friends who have been, and are currently in Iraq. They're norwegian soldiers, they'd get jailed and a dishonorable discharge for this type of event. I think you need to look outside of your nations obviously flawed army, and examine the rest of the world before you comment. Just as you need to examine foreign media before you label it all similar to your sensationalist entertainment media. Heck, even my tv network labels CNN as an "entertainment" channel, not a news channel.

 

keep demanding "balls" when brains are what are required to see that you SHOULDN'T be going in there to fight when those are the rules of engagement and common practice.

 

What's the good thing going on over there? 100 000 civillians dead? Afghanistan sure worked out well: much stronger opium production and opium market, guess how the american "war on terror" relates to the "war on drugs?" The removal of a dictator, only to have civil war? The removal of a dictator to have over-reaching suicide bombings daily? the removal of a dictator to have warlords control the country? the removal of a dictator to institute democracy that can never work, just look at history: how often has forced democracy been stable? I certainly cannot find any examples? If you wanted to help others, you'd never go into iraq, you could save more lives and people by taking down north korea, i've never seen a rationale leading to any other conclusion.

 

assert yourself as the role of a victim, while as an american your aggressive foreign policy of the last 50 years has asserted your position as a global target, because you've trodden down so many peoples all over the world, faught so many wars on foreign soil, moved so far from isolationism. Being the "world police" often makes you a target, when the policing isn't just and fair. war, just and fair you say? how about getting it approved by the UN?

 

I believe in the human rights. I believe a "civillian" is innocent, and has the right to be seen as innocent untill proven guilty. apprehended only with meritable reason. Aren't those the rules you also give your own citizens? why deny other peoples the rights you find "self-evident?"

 

You also divide us into two groops: WBC or agreeing with you, leaving no middle ground. A common fallacy to ensure your position.

 

sorry, bigotry, hypocricy and victimization are the only ways you can justify your position. Is that the american way?

[/hide]

Tortillachp summed it up nicely.

Every civilian killed, through no fault of their own, has a family, a wife/kids, who will blame (rightly so) the occupying forces for the death of their relative. Think how you would feel if you were in their position. One of your parents killed just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It would be mental to not realize this is going to leave people bitter against the occupying forces. Of course people are picking up arms and attacking coalition forces when incidents like this are happening.

[noble_aloof]

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

[Guest Mrmegakirby]

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

 

Thank you for the elaborate post. You sure opened my eyes.

[The Dark Lord]

9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

 

Thank you for the elaborate post. You sure opened my eyes.

 

There are other types of "inside jobs". One particular type is typically referred to as "pulling a Lewinsky".

[fakeitormakeit2]

 

Isn't that little bit racist?

 

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

 

Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term.

Please learn what a race is, it has nothing to do with genetic similarities. Example: Many Lebanese and Syrian people are extremely genetically similar, two distinct races. Race is a social construct that has an ideology, cultural pattern or common descent as its core. For Americans their core is an ideology consisting of "Americaness", the American Dream, land of opportunity idea, etc. Although I would say the "American race" core has diminished since after WW2, things like the Social Register defined the finest of the American race, but with the infusion of more non-Anglo-Saxon races, the mesh of American culture is different and the idea of Social Darwinism has almost vanished (I like how American textbooks normally forget to mention Hitler's declarations of what was superior were often similar to America's and if you know of the Battle of Dunkirk you would know Hitler wanted to compromise with the other Anglo-Saxons. Again, Americans censor war to romanticize their heroism or lack thereof)

[The Dark Lord]

 

Isn't that little bit racist?

 

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

 

Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term.

Please learn what a race is, it has nothing to do with genetic similarities. Example: Many Lebanese and Syrian people are extremely genetically similar, two distinct races. Race is a social construct that has an ideology, cultural pattern or common descent as its core. For Americans their core is an ideology consisting of "Americaness", the American Dream, land of opportunity idea, etc. Although I would say the "American race" core has diminished since after WW2, things like the Social Register defined the finest of the American race, but with the infusion of more non-Anglo-Saxon races, the mesh of American culture is different and the idea of Social Darwinism has almost vanished (I like how American textbooks normally forget to mention Hitler's declarations of what was superior were often similar to America's and if you know of the Battle of Dunkirk you would know Hitler wanted to compromise with the other Anglo-Saxons. Again, Americans censor war to romanticize their heroism or lack thereof)

 

I sort of agree with that, but I feel like the term "racist" is used too broadly. I could make a gay slur, and someone, somewhere would call me a racist.

 

As for the Americanism, I view it more as the creation of an autonomous cultural identity and thus forsaking one's native identity (Anglo-Saxon culture became "less English" after the American Revolution, especially with the diffusion of Germans and Irishmen throughout American society. However, most groups have basically given up their true cultures and adopted the "American way of life".

 

However, many people strongly correlate ethnicity with race. For example, I'm Anglo-Saxon. Some people would like to refer to this ethnic group as belonging to the great Germanic Race. However, many more people will claim that there is a "White Race", which includes all Indo-European peoples. However, there are people who only view Slavics, Celts, and Germanic peoples as members of the "White Race" while others include Iranians and some Indians (from the Aryan invasion of India). Race is too subjective and hotly debated.

 

Personally, I think it's more accurate to categorize someone by their ethnic identity, but there are far too many ethnic groups for any sort of efficiency. Likewise, many people, especially Anglo-Saxons have a mixed ethnicity. Most Anglo-Saxons have Celtic blood due either in part with the interbreeding of Celts and Anglos following the Germanic invasion of Britain or Celtic immigration to these regions (including colonies such as America, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand).

[Nero]

 

Isn't that little bit racist?

 

No.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

 

Never ONCE did he imply that he believed that he was racially superior. Likewise, I'm assuming that you believe that he believes that he is superior because he is American. For your information, 'American' is not a race, nor is it even an ethnicity. Therefore, he is not racist; you misused the term.

Please learn what a race is, it has nothing to do with genetic similarities. Example: Many Lebanese and Syrian people are extremely genetically similar, two distinct races. Race is a social construct that has an ideology, cultural pattern or common descent as its core. For Americans their core is an ideology consisting of "Americaness", the American Dream, land of opportunity idea, etc. Although I would say the "American race" core has diminished since after WW2, things like the Social Register defined the finest of the American race, but with the infusion of more non-Anglo-Saxon races, the mesh of American culture is different and the idea of Social Darwinism has almost vanished (I like how American textbooks normally forget to mention Hitler's declarations of what was superior were often similar to America's and if you know of the Battle of Dunkirk you would know Hitler wanted to compromise with the other Anglo-Saxons. Again, Americans censor war to romanticize their heroism or lack thereof)

 

I sort of agree with that, but I feel like the term "racist" is used too broadly. I could make a gay slur, and someone, somewhere would call me a racist.

 

As for the Americanism, I view it more as the creation of an autonomous cultural identity and thus forsaking one's native identity (Anglo-Saxon culture became "less English" after the American Revolution, especially with the diffusion of Germans and Irishmen throughout American society. However, most groups have basically given up their true cultures and adopted the "American way of life".

 

However, many people strongly correlate ethnicity with race. For example, I'm Anglo-Saxon. Some people would like to refer to this ethnic group as belonging to the great Germanic Race. However, many more people will claim that there is a "White Race", which includes all Indo-European peoples. However, there are people who only view Slavics, Celts, and Germanic peoples as members of the "White Race" while others include Iranians and some Indians (from the Aryan invasion of India). Race is too subjective and hotly debated.

 

Personally, I think it's more accurate to categorize someone by their ethnic identity, but there are far too many ethnic groups for any sort of efficiency. Likewise, many people, especially Anglo-Saxons have a mixed ethnicity. Most Anglo-Saxons have Celtic blood due either in part with the interbreeding of Celts and Anglos following the Germanic invasion of Britain or Celtic immigration to these regions (including colonies such as America, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand).

 

But at least everyone is in unanimous agreement when they say [bleep] the French!

[Skeptical]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

[Pirate_Felix]

Those men were dangerous people, they could've shot

 

some nice pictures with their camera's.

 

[fakeitormakeit2]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

The terrorists shot down Santa's sleigh in South Park with an RPG so it must be true that one can use an RPG as an AAW.

[Pirate_Felix]

I've always wondered what your signature says.

[Pirate_Felix]

Twas in baghdad, something like Al Amin.

[Furah]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

Certainly, and which military would you like to join to see this feat occur over in Iraq?

[Kriegsmier]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

 

LMAO really? Ok, read Black Hawk Down then. Or just read this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) 3rd paragraph down if you can't find it. Also read the Engagement section. Thats not just one aircraft, thats TWO aircraft shot down by RPGs. But I didn't expect you to know that, you were probably close to 1-2 years old at that point.

[Zilla]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

 

LMAO really? Ok, read Black Hawk Down then. Or just read this... http://en.wikipedia....ogadishu_(1993) 3rd paragraph down if you can't find it. Also read the Engagement section. Thats not just one aircraft, thats TWO aircraft shot down by RPGs. But I didn't expect you to know that, you were probably close to 1-2 years old at that point.

 

If somebody somehow shot at an aircraft with a rifle of a sort, damaged the vehicle, and caused it to crash in some odd way, would that count as an AAW? It seems with your ideology it would.

 

(Apologies if what is said doesn't make sense, I am half asleep at the moment.)

[Bloodstain]

I see weapons in that video. An RPG to be specific. Which is not legal to own. Each man can own 1 AK47, but no RPG. An RPG in a group of individuals...accessories? Its just like you being there if you friend committed a felony, even if you are standing away from him watching. You have to remember, 2007 was a big year in the war. One of the most deadliest for US troops, and a major troop surge. A lot of stuff was going on and the rules of engagement were still very open unlike they are now. One RPG can take down an Apache, one guy with the camera can put out a lot of propaganda.

 

I would like to see an RPG employed as an anti-aircraft weapon....

 

 

And what's really sad, is that the day this breaks, all anyone was talking about (at least not here) was Tiger Woods.

 

LMAO really? Ok, read Black Hawk Down then. Or just read this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) 3rd paragraph down if you can't find it. Also read the Engagement section. Thats not just one aircraft, thats TWO aircraft shot down by RPGs. But I didn't expect you to know that, you were probably close to 1-2 years old at that point.

 

Except that the choppers were low enough for the soldiers to rope down to the street, where as in the video the apache is so high up that no one on the ground even notices it. Chances of hitting the apache with an RPG: Zero. But please tell me more

 

edit: PS: the guys didn't even have weapons, they were long lens cameras

[Faux]

edit: PS: the guys didn't even have weapons, they were long lens cameras

Umm sorry what? You obviously haven't seen the weapon identification http://i.imgur.com/1EQV3.jpg

[Bloodstain]

 

[Zilla]

 

 

While we fight those evil communist terrorist with those deadly foreign devices, our peaceful troops will be extra careful not to harm those farmers as they are innocent civilians, less casualties the better.

[sohkmj1]

I can't believe how many people are like "OMG they shoot people the arses".

Look at the camera. The feed is fuzzy and black and white.

 

However, I do have one gripe. Making jokes is one thing, but they should have realised that they smacked a civllian vehicle when they saw the ground troops scurrying away with the children. Their response was like "They shouldn't have brought their kids to war". Who brings their children to fight with them?

[Bloodstain]

I can't believe how many people are like "OMG they shoot people the arses".

Look at the camera. The feed is fuzzy and black and white.

 

So having a fuzzy feed from however far up in the air of people calmly standing around in a residential neighborhood is reason enough to light it up?

[Bloodstain]

Iraq War Vet: "We Were Told to Just Shoot People, and the Officers Would Take Care of Us"

Wednesday 07 April 2010

 

by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t

 

On Monday, April 5, Wikileaks.org posted video footage from Iraq, taken from a US military Apache helicopter in July 2007 as soldiers aboard it killed 12 people and wounded two children. The dead included two employees of the Reuters news agency: photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh.

 

The US military confirmed the authenticity of the video.

 

The footage clearly shows an unprovoked slaughter, and is shocking to watch whilst listening to the casual conversation of the soldiers in the background.

 

As disturbing as the video is, this type of behavior by US soldiers in Iraq is not uncommon.

 

Truthout has spoken with several soldiers who shared equally horrific stories of the slaughtering of innocent Iraqis by US occupation forces.

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

The hearings provided a platform for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan to share the reality of their occupation experiences with the media in the US.

Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement (ROE) in Iraq, and how lax they were, to the point of being virtually nonexistent.

 

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continued, "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond. Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent."

Hart Viges, a member of the 82nd Airborne Division of the Army who served one year in Iraq, told of taking orders over the radio.

 

"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."

 

Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take "trophy" photos of bodies.

 

"An act that took place quite often in Iraq was taking pot shots at cars that drove by," he said, "This was not an isolated incident, and it took place for most of our eight-month deployment."

 

Kelly Dougherty - then executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War - blamed the behavior of soldiers in Iraq on policies of the US government.

 

"The abuses committed in the occupations, far from being the result of a 'few bad apples' misbehaving, are the result of our government's Middle East policy, which is crafted in the highest spheres of US power," she said.

Michael Leduc, a corporal in the Marines who was part of the US attack on Fallujah in November 2004, said orders he received from his battalion JAG officer before entering the city were as follows: "You see an individual with a white flag and he does anything but approach you slowly and obey commands, assume it's a trick and kill him."

Brian Casler, a corporal in the Marines, spoke of witnessing the prevalent dehumanizing outlook soldiers took toward Iraqis during the invasion of Iraq.

"... on these convoys, I saw Marines defecate into MRE bags or urinate in bottles and throw them at children on the side of the road," he stated.

Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.

 

"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."

 

In response to the WikiLeaks video, the Pentagon, while not officially commenting on the video, announced that two Pentagon investigations cleared the air crew of any wrongdoing.

 

A statement from the two probes said the air crew had acted appropriately and followed the ROE.

 

Adam Kokesh served in Fallujah beginning in February 2004 for roughly one year.

 

Speaking on a panel at the aforementioned hearings about the ROE, he held up the ROE card soldiers are issued in Iraq and said, "This card says, 'Nothing on this card prevents you from using deadly force to defend yourself'."

 

Kokesh pointed out that "reasonable certainty" was the condition for using deadly force under the ROE, and this led to rampant civilian deaths. He discussed taking part in the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. During that attack, doctors at Fallujah General Hospital told Truthout there were 736 deaths, over 60 percent of which were civilians.

"We changed the ROE more often than we changed our underwear," Kokesh said, "At one point, we imposed a curfew on the city, and were told to fire at anything that moved in the dark."

 

Kokesh also testified that during two cease-fires in the midst of the siege, the military decided to let out as many women and children from the embattled city as possible, but this did not include most men.

 

"For males, they had to be under 14 years of age," he said, "So I had to go over there and turn men back, who had just been separated from their women and children. We thought we were being gracious."

 

Steve Casey served in Iraq for over a year starting in mid-2003.

 

"We were scheduled to go home in April 2004, but due to rising violence we stayed in with Operation Blackjack," Casey said, "I watched soldiers firing into the radiators and windows of oncoming vehicles. Those who didn't turn around were unfortunately neutralized one way or another - well over 20 times I personally witnessed this. There was a lot of collateral damage."

 

Jason Hurd served in central Baghdad from November 2004 until November 2005. He told of how, after his unit took "stray rounds" from a nearby firefight, a machine gunner responded by firing over 200 rounds into a nearby building.

 

"We fired indiscriminately at this building," he said. "Things like that happened every day in Iraq. We reacted out of fear for our lives, and we reacted with total destruction."

 

Hurd said the situation deteriorated rapidly while he was in Iraq. "Over time, as the absurdity of war set in, individuals from my unit indiscriminately opened fire at vehicles driving down the wrong side of the road. People in my unit would later brag about it. I remember thinking how appalled I was that we were laughing at this, but that was the reality."

 

Other soldiers Truthout has interviewed have often laughed when asked about their ROE in Iraq.

 

Garret Reppenhagen served in Iraq from February 2004-2005 in the city of Baquba, 40 kilometers (about 25 miles) northeast of Baghdad. He said his first experience in Iraq was being on a patrol that killed two Iraqi farmers as they worked in their field at night.

 

"I was told they were out in the fields farming because their pumps only operated with electricity, which meant they had to go out in the dark when there was electricity," he explained, "I asked the sergeant, if he knew this, why did he fire on the men. He told me because the men were out after curfew. I was never given another ROE during my time in Iraq."

Emmanuel added: "We took fire while trying to blow up a bridge. Many of the attackers were part of the general population. This led to our squad shooting at everything and anything in order to push through the town. I remember myself emptying magazines into the town, never identifying a target."

 

Emmanuel spoke of abusing prisoners he knew were innocent, adding, "We took it upon ourselves to harass them, and took them to the desert to throw them out of our Humvees, while kicking and punching them when we threw them out."

Jason Wayne Lemue is a Marine who served three tours in Iraq.

"My commander told me, 'Kill those who need to be killed, and save those who need to be saved'; that was our mission on our first tour," he said of his first deployment during the invasion.

 

"After that the ROE changed, and carrying a shovel, or standing on a rooftop talking on a cell phone, or being out after curfew [meant those people] were to be killed. I can't tell you how many people died because of this. By my third tour, we were told to just shoot people, and the officers would take care of us."

When this Truthout reporter was in Baghdad in November 2004, my Iraqi interpreter was in the Abu Hanifa mosque that was raided by US and Iraqi soldiers during Friday prayers.

 

"Everyone was there for Friday prayers, when five Humvees and several trucks carrying [uS soldiers and] Iraqi National Guards entered," Abu Talat told Truthout on the phone from within the mosque while the raid was in progress. "Everyone starting yelling 'Allahu Akbar' (God is the greatest) because they were frightened. Then the soldiers started shooting the people praying!"

"They have just shot and killed at least four of the people praying," he said in a panicked voice, "At least 10 other people are wounded now. We are on our bellies and in a very bad situation."

 

Iraqi Red Crescent later confirmed to Truthout that at least four people were killed, and nine wounded. Truthout later witnessed pieces of brain splattered on one of the walls inside the mosque while large blood stains covered carpets at several places.

 

This type of indiscriminate killing has been typical from the initial invasion of Iraq.

 

Truthout spoke with Iraq war veteran and former National Guard and Army Reserve member Jason Moon, who was there for the invasion.

"While on our initial convoy into Iraq in early June 2003, we were given a direct order that if any children or civilians got in front of the vehicles in our convoy, we were not to stop, we were not to slow down, we were to keep driving. In the event an insurgent attacked us from behind human shields, we were supposed to count. If there were thirty or less civilians we were allowed to fire into the area. If there were over thirty, we were supposed to take fire and send it up the chain of command. These were the rules of engagement. I don't know about you, but if you are getting shot at from a crowd of people, how fast are you going to count, and how accurately?"

 

Moon brought back a video that shows his sergeant declaring, "The difference between an insurgent and an Iraqi civilian is whether they are dead or alive."

 

Moon explains the thinking: "If you kill a civilian he becomes an insurgent because you retroactively make that person a threat."

According to the Pentagon probes of the killings shown in the WikiLeaks video, the air crew had "reason to believe" the people seen in the video were fighters before opening fire.

 

Article 48 of the Geneva Conventions speaks to the "basic rule" regarding the protection of civilians:

 

"In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

 

What is happening in Iraq seems to reflect what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton calls "atrocity-producing situations." He used this term first in his book "The Nazi Doctors." In 2004, he wrote an article for The Nation, applying his insights to the Iraq War and occupation.

 

"Atrocity-producing situations," Lifton wrote, occur when a power structure sets up an environment where "ordinary people, men or women no better or worse than you or I, can regularly commit atrocities.... This kind of atrocity-producing situation ... surely occurs to some degrees in all wars, including World War II, our last 'good war.' But a counterinsurgency war in a hostile setting, especially when driven by profound ideological distortions, is particularly prone to sustained atrocity - all the more so when it becomes an occupation."

 

Cliff Hicks served in Iraq from October 2003 to August 2004.

"There was a tall apartment complex, the only spot from where people could see over our perimeter," Hicks told Truthout, "There would be laundry hanging off the balconies, and people hanging out on the roof for fresh air. The place was full of kids and families. On rare occasions, a fighter would get atop the building and shoot at our passing vehicles. They never really hit anybody. We just knew to be careful when we were over by that part of the wall, and nobody did [cabbage] about it until one day a lieutenant colonel was driving down and they shot at his vehicle and he got scared. So he jumped through a bunch of hoops and cut through some red tape and got a C-130 to come out the next night and all but leveled the place. Earlier that evening when I was returning from a patrol the apartment had been packed full of people."

 

 

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

 

God damn