U.S. helicopter pilots kill a dozen civilians. [Archive]

markabilly

7th April 2010, 14:19

I worry that this sort of attitude is or at least was endemic in the American armed forces. The cheering that they've destroyed the target for example. It's not something to be celebrated.

Could you imagine someone from the RAF doing that? It'd be more like "Target destroyed" and that's it.
Yeah sure....I can see them doing worse. Right after the war stopped in Basara there was a video of British troops doing worse, as in face to face. And after Dresden's fire bombing by the RAF, you have the nerve to say that???? :rolleyes:

Blunt truth is that things get kind of crazy in a war.

Even worse, when people are dressing up their young girls with latest fashion in plastic explosives to add a little sparkle to the tune of "praise God" or "bless the prophet", those are people who need a good killing as quickly as possible.
Good riddance to them and those stupid butts with the camera.

I always enjoy seeing journos get killed when they go off to a war to see others get killed. :up:

Makes my day :up:

Unfortunately, too many inncocents get caught in the fire.

Sad thing is that there are people doing nothing but minding their own business as in a subway, and nobody pays all that much attention to them when they are blown apart. Very funny when it is shown on a more personal level, rather than targets getting blasted, how upset some folks get, esp. when they are American doing it as opposed to other nationalities

MrJan

7th April 2010, 14:27

I always enjoy seeing journos get killed when they go off to a war to see others get killed. :up:

Makes my day :up:

Are you being serious?!!! If you are then you're a sick f**k, any respect I may have had for you just disappeared out the window.

markabilly

7th April 2010, 14:47

Are you being serious?!!! If you are then you're a sick f**k, any respect I may have had for you just disappeared out the window.
Very.

In Nam, I had the opportunity to see some sick f**ks up close, with the look of excitement on their faces that is hard to describe as those two sick f**ks went around taking photos of dead and mangled, like a bunch of excited spectators at a race or a rock concert.....

My only regret is that for some reason, I did not add them journalists to the pile of dead....too busy worrying about my own ass and taking care of others who were still breathing. :(
But if i had it to do over....

If you ain't been there, you have no idea as to what happens. None.

MrJan

7th April 2010, 15:27

My only regret is that for some reason, I did not add them journalists to the pile of dead...

That makes you as sick as them TBH.

markabilly

7th April 2010, 16:05

Not quite. I did not go there to get some photos of peole getting killed (which is what they really wanted, and were having to be satisfied with the cold dead--probably too chicken**** to go where it was really hot, since the Cong tended to kill everything when possible that had a face of an American) and run around trying to look cool, while sprewing off at the mouth. I went because of the draft made me go, allegedly to save some people from something most did not want to be saved from and now seem to far happier that they were not saved.

Meanwhile saw too many good people hurting for nothing.

Had more respect for the enemy, then I did for those f**kers. None of the rest of us, including the enemy were there for sightseeing purposes.

Meanwhile people sat around home and whine about stuff that they have no idea about. No different than Iraq now.

I can understand those British troops and I can understand those guys in the chopper. What I can not understand is some generals in a warm cozy, safe headquarters deciding to firebomb civilians.......

Dave B

7th April 2010, 17:15

Very.

In Nam, I had the opportunity to see some sick f**ks up close, with the look of excitement on their faces that is hard to describe as those two sick f**ks went around taking photos of dead and mangled, like a bunch of excited spectators at a race or a rock concert.....

My only regret is that for some reason, I did not add them journalists to the pile of dead....too busy worrying about my own ass and taking care of others who were still breathing. :(
But if i had it to do over....

If you ain't been there, you have no idea as to what happens. None.
I can only assume that your experiences there affected you deeply, and you have my pity. Not respect, obviously, but sympathy and pity. :dozey:

markabilly

7th April 2010, 18:50

I can only assume that your experiences there affected you deeply, and you have my pity. Not respect, obviously, but sympathy and pity. :dozey:
don't want and don't need none of your respect, sympathy or pity. My experiences were nothing compared to many many others

I remember one guy saying something to the effect that he hated Charlie, never figured out why he wanted to kill them so badly or why he hated them.

But i think i knew why and it was simple-they wanted to kill us, so kill or be killed. Sometimes I think that with some soldiers it gets to be a relief to be killing. Sort of like gallows humor.

So like I said, I know why some people, otherwise normal, could go through a village or a town and kill everything that moves, and even get a weird sense of accomplishment or advance payback of some sort of kill as many as you can before they kill you.

It becomes a game rather than real, because if you think it is real, most would flip out permanently at the age of 18

It ain't nothing like sitting here on the internet or being some dumass reporter "live at the scene", sprewing on, and there because he wants to be. Or reading some book.

or some general at headquarters killing refugees through written orders, doing body counts and sitting down to a hot meal.

as to the reporters, at least there was a concrete reason beyond some sort of hazy, just doing my duty, here take another bullet, crazy rationale that all soldiers in combat try to use to rationalize the justification for their actions...and my official job was suppose to be saving lives, not taking them..... if someone in authority had said, need volunteers to put them down where they really deserved to be, the line would have been very long and i would have probably been close to the end, if at all. But at the time, just had better things to do.

Reminds me of the end of Natural Born Killers, where they decide to kill the reporter who had been filming their lengthy adventure of murder, and the poor reporter just can not beleive it.

After all he is supposed to be reporting the news, not be the news, so he should have reporter immunity . :rotflmao:

Shifter

7th April 2010, 19:15

Man, I have a ten foot pole here, I should probably follow through on my threat not to touch this with it...

But here goes, just a couple small things...

TBH the first time I watched, I saw the length of the vid so I skipped ahead to where they were beside the building. When the guy was kneeling by the corner and the chopper guys yelled about him having an RPG, it really, really looked like the reporter was a hostile scoping out the chopper and the lens of the camera did look like the back end of an RPG and the tip would have been behind the corner. Aren't reporters supposed to be wearing blue vests with the word PRESS clearly written on them? If so, it would have given the gunner pause when the chopper circled around, and there would have probably not been an engagement. I'm assuming that's what everyone is upset about? Otherwise, a bunch of dudes walking around with AK47s with their enemy circling above in choppers are just asking for it...it IS war isn't it?

Too bad about the kids, but honestly who drives into a hot warzone with their kids in the seat? Kids or no kids, I still would have hung a left and stayed the hell away from that area. Wikileaks is really approaching this from a biased view, so they go back and go megazoom to show the kids, which looked like a white blob in the passenger seat in the realtime view.

And yeah, to wrap up, on the war itself I think we acted too soon. We should have just let radical Islam fester until more nations grew weary of their exploits. We should have just stuck to Afghanistan and the clear goals we had there. However, from the viewpoint of the soldier, they have an enemy, one which has filled military hospitals full of young men with their limbs blown off and plenty of dead. If I was stuck in the region, looking at my dismembered and dead fellow soldiers, I'd probably take some joy in exacting some revenge myself. You simply cannot blame them for that.

Eki

7th April 2010, 19:28

Too bad about the kids, but honestly who drives into a hot warzone with their kids in the seat?
Those who live there?

Isn't that kind of like asking "Who works in a skyscraper that's going to be hit by a passenger jet"?

Shifter

7th April 2010, 19:35

Those who live there?

I'm talking about the specific block here!

So a helicopter shoots a bunch of dudes and bodies are on your front lawn when you pull up. The heli is still there and it's obviously just happened because one dude is crawling away. Do you pull into your driveway and run over to the guy, who was a target of the heli?

I'd probably go somewhere else for awhile until things calmed down, and use the time contemplate moving out of my neighborhood.

Malbec

7th April 2010, 19:39

I always enjoy seeing journos get killed when they go off to a war to see others get killed. :up:

Except that these were local journalists. They didn't go off to war, the war came to them.

Hardly the same as American journalists choosing to go off to Vietnam.

Eki

7th April 2010, 19:40

I'm talking about the specific block here!

So a helicopter shoots a bunch of dudes and bodies are on your front lawn when you pull up. The heli is still there and it's obviously just happened because one dude is crawling away. Do you pull into your driveway and run over to the guy, who was a target of the heli?

People live in specific blocks, I know I do. If that guy on my driveway was my son, brother or father, I might run and try to help him. Maybe even for a neighbor or a friend if I were heroic.

Shifter

7th April 2010, 19:52

People live in specific blocks, I know I do. If that guy on my driveway was my son, brother or father, I might run and try to help him. Maybe even for a neighbor or a friend if I were heroic.

Ok, we will have to agree to disagree. We have different ways of thinking. My life and my kid's lives would not have been worth it in this case to try to be a hero.

MrJan

7th April 2010, 19:54

I'm talking about the specific block here!

I'm fairly sure that Eki was talking about a specific skyscraper too.

donKey jote

7th April 2010, 19:56

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 01:19

The thing is, that no matter what the guys in the Chopper say afterwards, the fact is they killed innocents in cold blood. It is easy to say there were no friendlies in the area, but it is then again another leap of faith to say "those guys are trying to kill us". The problem is, I can still see why someone might shoot first and ask questions later. I can also see why that someone should be up on charges for an abuse of power or firing on non-combatants. If the Pentagon had the balls to put this in a courtmartial, they would have credability.

The true crime here is the coverup, not the murder. Mistakes in combat happen all the time, and this is a tragedy, but the normal investigations and procedures would have looked after these trigger happy cretins. The fact is, this was COVERED up, and I don't think it was a political decision so much as it was the decision of some officer trying to have his ticket punched to climb up the ladder of ranks. Criminal.

As for Markabilly's thoughts about camera/journalists running about in Nam, While I can understand his dislike of these guys, he obviously didn't hate them as much as the enemy because he DIDN'T kill any of them. Cant blame him for not liking them, but as someone who has a lot of friends and possible business contacts in the 5th Estate, I would hate to see the day the press should be considered fair game....

Roamy

8th April 2010, 02:42

Brockman what were you doing in "Nam"

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 03:47

I'm fairly sure that Eki was talking about a specific skyscraper too.
There is no analogy and the attempt silly, unless one wants to say: the goons who flew into the buildings fully intended to commit murder; therefore the those in the chopper's fire zone may have also.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 03:49

The thing is, that no matter what the guys in the Chopper say afterwards, the fact is they killed innocents in cold blood.
How do you know they were innocent of anything.
Give your proof beyond your opinion.

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 06:27

How do you know they were innocent of anything.
Give your proof beyond your opinion.

Lets see Bob, the van had kids in it and the photographer and reporter were with Reuters. Since no weapons were found on scene, one might just assume (dangerous at times I know) they were innocent. Where is your moral outrage for the fact the Pentagon swept this little gem of an incident under the carpet?

Don't confuse me with all the euro libreals on here pal, I have always given the US military a lot more benefit of the doubt than some of the critics on this thread, but if these guys were so damn innocent, then put the information out there and let the trial be held in a public fashion. They had no problem with the prison abuse scandal that was one of the public turning points of the Iraq war, and THAT made them look bad. If you think these guys in the chopper were well within their rights, then the courtmartial or trial would reflect this and they would walk.

The fact is Bob there was no proof THEY had weapons. You cannot prove a negative but the tape speaks for itself, and the van full of kids sure as heck were not deserving of being on the receiving end of an Apache attack. I am sure there enough bad guys in Iraq they could have been shooting up that day. I don't doubt there were lots of people worthy of the bullets and I know mistakes happen. These guys got trigger happy. Pure and simple and it is a reputation that is reinforced OVER and OVER again by incidents like this that the US Military is a little free with the ammo. Does it mean more of them go home safe? Yes..probably does...but it does NOTHING to cultivate the image the Pentagon and the White House had at the time that you guys were in Iraq for the right reasons. I believe in those reasons, and I believe the US is there for a good reason, even if the execution of it was botched. Still doesn't excuse hiding this incident from scrutiny. Sorry...I aint buying it...

markabilly

8th April 2010, 07:54

Anyone who lives in Baghdad (or Gaza or ...) deserves to be taken out since they chose to live in a war zone :dozey:
The guys never even heard or saw let alone acted aggresively towards the choppers. Talk about sitting ducks. This time an evil journo or two, next time a wedding party...
Complete disregard for (in their eyes infra-)human life...
so what´s new? :dozey:

Markabilly you served closer to My Lai than to Dresden... would you also have blindly obeyed Calley´s orders?

Sitting here today?

No.

In the middle of being in Nam, after being shot at for 6 months and having friends and people I knew being shot dead, and not knowing if I would be the next random death--even though I was not in **** nearly as bad as many others-- there were times when I would not have needed any orders from some snot nosed Lt. to clean house.

And no one I knew who went through it or worse, would have been much different at times.

markabilly

8th April 2010, 08:10

[quote="Mark in Oshawa"] and the van full of kids sure as heck were not deserving of being on the receiving end of an Apache attack. [quote]

Deserving?

Deserving has nothing to do with it.

In their rights? Again that has nothing to do with it.

Nobody I knew deserved getting killed in Nam or Iraq. And not those children, not the American soldiers, nobody. Not even those young girls who blow themselves up.

But I will make an exception for reporters....and I am sure they (and any other little aholes reporters, then or now) would have been even more excited seeing me getting shot up if they could have filmed it.

so everytime one of those ****ers takes a bullet, I just grin.... :D :D

Eki

8th April 2010, 08:34

How do you know they were innocent of anything.
Give your proof beyond your opinion.
How do you know the people in WTC buildings were innocent of anything? Give your proof beyond your opinion. The Iraqis were innocent of having WMDs or aiding the 9/11 attacks, yet the US decided to give them death beyond proof.

The fact is that you don't know. That's why most legal systems have the principle "innocent until proven guilty".

BTW, none of us is innocent, some are just more guilty than others.

Roamy

8th April 2010, 08:47

the terrorists blow up innocent after innocent. we may have made a error and oh my god we are horrible. Screw all these assholes. War is horrible and people die. We have done far and away the best job of sparing innocents. All the innocents could be spared if the Islams would quit blowing sh!t up. We drag these wars on for years and years because we only go after targets. Maybe we should change our tactics

Malbec

8th April 2010, 08:48

How do you know they were innocent of anything.
Give your proof beyond your opinion.

What an excellent idea!

Taking your to statement to its logical conclusion you'd be in favour of giving your darling soldiers carte blanche to kill any civilian going, after all how do YOU know they were innocent of anything?

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 08:53

How do you know the people in WTC buildings were innocent of anything? Give your proof beyond your opinion. The Iraqis were innocent of having WMDs or aiding the 9/11 attacks, yet the US decided to give them death beyond proof.

The fact is that you don't know. That's why most legal systems have the principle "innocent until proven guilty".

BTW, none of us is innocent, some are just more guilty than others.

That's a bit more of the standard moral equivalance that is just a pointless waste of time Eki. Innocent means NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE COMBAT in my books. The kids in the van are innocent. The people going to work in the WTC on 9/11 are innocent.

Spare us all the moral equivlancency arguments I know you love.

I am thinking if you just kept to the argument in front of us here, you could actually win for once.

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 08:58

and the van full of kids sure as heck were not deserving of being on the receiving end of an Apache attack.

Deserving?

Deserving has nothing to do with it.

In their rights? Again that has nothing to do with it.

Nobody I knew deserved getting killed in Nam or Iraq. And not those children, not the American soldiers, nobody. Not even those young girls who blow themselves up.

But I will make an exception for reporters....and I am sure they (and any other little aholes reporters, then or now) would have been even more excited seeing me getting shot up if they could have filmed it.

so everytime one of those ****ers takes a bullet, I just grin.... :D :D

Well I know you HATE the press, but forgive me if I just point out that killing anyone unarmed is seen by most cultures as cowardice, if not a war crime. Now I am not as naive or stupid as some on here to believe that accidents are incapable of happening in combat. I know that they happen altogether too often. So I wont go to bed tonight thinking these guys flying the Apache woke up that morning deciding they were going to take out a van full of kids for kicks. The fact it tho, those kids were not the enemy, and killing them doesn't help America's image or goals.

What you and Fousto and a few other Americans don't seem to grasp is every time you go off on one of these "kill em all, god will sort them out rants" you look like the neanderthals the Euro's try to paint you as. The worst part is, I don't believe you guys for a second actually feel that way if you are soberly thinking about that.

It is a pain in the @ss trying to be on the side of the USA when too many of its citizens forget the principles they hold dear just to either make an argument, or to ignore something their country legitimately should look at in a critical eye. In this case, the Pentagon fell down on the job. Full stop. There should have been an investigation and a trial. Anything else you guys say is just silly bravado that takes away anything good that the USA did in Iraq (and unlike some of these guys, I believe some good WAS done.)

Eki

8th April 2010, 09:43

The people going to work in the WTC on 9/11 are innocent.

That's your way of looking at it. The other is the Churchill's way of looking at it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_September_11_attacks_essay_controve rsy

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 11:26

Lets see Bob, the van had kids in it and the photographer and reporter were with Reuters. Since no weapons were found on scene, one might just assume (dangerous at times I know) they were innocent. Where is your moral outrage for the fact the Pentagon swept this little gem of an incident under the carpet?

Don't confuse me with all the euro libreals on here pal, I have always given the US military a lot more benefit of the doubt than some of the critics on this thread, but if these guys were so damn innocent, then put the information out there and let the trial be held in a public fashion. They had no problem with the prison abuse scandal that was one of the public turning points of the Iraq war, and THAT made them look bad. If you think these guys in the chopper were well within their rights, then the courtmartial or trial would reflect this and they would walk.

The fact is Bob there was no proof THEY had weapons. You cannot prove a negative but the tape speaks for itself, and the van full of kids sure as heck were not deserving of being on the receiving end of an Apache attack. I am sure there enough bad guys in Iraq they could have been shooting up that day. I don't doubt there were lots of people worthy of the bullets and I know mistakes happen. These guys got trigger happy. Pure and simple and it is a reputation that is reinforced OVER and OVER again by incidents like this that the US Military is a little free with the ammo. Does it mean more of them go home safe? Yes..probably does...but it does NOTHING to cultivate the image the Pentagon and the White House had at the time that you guys were in Iraq for the right reasons. I believe in those reasons, and I believe the US is there for a good reason, even if the execution of it was botched. Still doesn't excuse hiding this incident from scrutiny. Sorry...I aint buying it...

Kids in the van, hmmm, terrorists have kids in their houses too.
Reporters, hmm, well Iraqis in police uniforms have executed "innocent" civilians. Reporter is a term, it does not mean they were not terrorists.
No weapons, hmmm, after a fire fight often no bodies are found even though allied soldiers have killed enemy soldiers.
Good lord you bring up that "prison abuse" BS up, good grief, it amounted to nothing worse than college hazing, and some college hazing would make that seem grade school level.
Van full of kids, where in the video did it show children?

No you are simply making accusation based on the same biased reporting that makes the death of a reporter nothing to really give a damn about.
They choose to be there, for reasons that may be far more nefarious than you know.
As you are making accusations on unconfirmed tertiary "reporting", all you are doing is making empty accusations that suit your politics.
You did not have your boots on the ground there, so your rhetoric is vacuous.

I really don't give a damn about the Pentagon's image. If it saves the lives of an allied soldiers, do it.
Oh yes, the terrorist human debris, was reported, by civilians, to use children for cover.
The civilians had to decide who stand against, ignoring the problem was often fatal.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 11:29

Eki

8th April 2010, 12:08

Kids in the van, hmmm, terrorists have kids in their houses too.
Reporters, hmm, well Iraqis in police uniforms have executed "innocent" civilians. Reporter is a term, it does not mean they were not terrorists.
No weapons, hmmm, after a fire fight often no bodies are found even though allied soldiers have killed enemy soldiers.
Good lord you bring up that "prison abuse" BS up, good grief, it amounted to nothing worse than college hazing, and some college hazing would make that seem grade school level.
Van full of kids, where in the video did it show children?

No you are simply making accusation based on the same biased reporting that makes the death of a reporter nothing to really give a damn about.
They choose to be there, for reasons that may be far more nefarious than you know.
As you are making accusations on unconfirmed tertiary "reporting", all you are doing is making empty accusations that suit your politics.
You did not have your boots on the ground there, so your rhetoric is vacuous.

I really don't give a damn about the Pentagon's image. If it saves the lives of an allied soldiers, do it.
Oh yes, the terrorist human debris, was reported, by civilians, to use children for cover.
The civilians had to decide who stand against, ignoring the problem was often fatal.
And why should lives of allied soldiers be saved and lives of reporters and civilian residents are nothing to really give a damn about? The allied soldiers are voluntary professional soldiers who chose to be there. It's not like they're conscripts fighting on their home soil or something.

markabilly

8th April 2010, 15:03

[quote="Mark in Oshawa":1ihyh2dc] and the van full of kids sure as heck were not deserving of being on the receiving end of an Apache attack.

Well I know you HATE the press, but forgive me if I just point out that killing anyone unarmed is seen by most cultures as cowardice, if not a war crime. Now I am not as naive or stupid as some on here to believe that accidents are incapable of happening in combat. I know that they happen altogether too often. So I wont go to bed tonight thinking these guys flying the Apache woke up that morning deciding they were going to take out a van full of kids for kicks. The fact it tho, those kids were not the enemy, and killing them doesn't help America's image or goals.

What you and Fousto and a few other Americans don't seem to grasp is every time you go off on one of these "kill em all, god will sort them out rants" you look like the neanderthals the Euro's try to paint you as. The worst part is, I don't believe you guys for a second actually feel that way if you are soberly thinking about that.

It is a pain in the @ss trying to be on the side of the USA when too many of its citizens forget the principles they hold dear just to either make an argument, or to ignore something their country legitimately should look at in a critical eye. In this case, the Pentagon fell down on the job. Full stop. There should have been an investigation and a trial. Anything else you guys say is just silly bravado that takes away anything good that the USA did in Iraq (and unlike some of these guys, I believe some good WAS done.)[/quote:1ihyh2dc]

You make great sense in all your posts sitting here, safe and secure, as in no worries mate. Indeed, if I were never there, I would agree.

But when you start killing people on a personal level at the age of 18 or 20, and when those people are doing their best to kill you and anyone like you, and you are seeing the results of their efforts not on TV but on the guy who was next to you, and you know the chances are real good, you may well be next, it does not take long before things get real hazy, you stop worrying over right and wrong as it would be back home, and just start hoping to survive, and then even that hope is sort of quashed because you are no longer safe and secure, this kind of stuff should be expected as a product of war.

And it has been happening for thousands of years, we just do not get to see it on TV until "our modern age"

We are not talking about generals, old men who are safe and secure, but who are conducting genocide, dropping nukes on cities or mass fire bombings, who are not living in that kind of world.

So judge not, until you have walked in their shoes.

As to reporters, I do not hate them. Far from it, but I think it is more than fair and just that when they go off hoping to do their filming of you and people you know getting hurt and killing other people, that they get what they would wish on others. And that is why those reporters were there.

I thought it interesting that a pysch study done on college kids where they were acting as guards over their fellow students, and how after a few days, the "guards" became so brutal, the study had to be stopped. And that was in "the make beleive world".

Malbec

8th April 2010, 18:32

Mark in Oshawa

8th April 2010, 19:01

You make great sense in all your posts sitting here, safe and secure, as in no worries mate. Indeed, if I were never there, I would agree.

But when you start killing people on a personal level at the age of 18 or 20, and when those people are doing their best to kill you and anyone like you, and you are seeing the results of their efforts not on TV but on the guy who was next to you, and you know the chances are real good, you may well be next, it does not take long before things get real hazy, you stop worrying over right and wrong as it would be back home, and just start hoping to survive, and then even that hope is sort of quashed because you are no longer safe and secure, this kind of stuff should be expected as a product of war.

And it has been happening for thousands of years, we just do not get to see it on TV until "our modern age"

We are not talking about generals, old men who are safe and secure, but who are conducting genocide, dropping nukes on cities or mass fire bombings, who are not living in that kind of world.

So judge not, until you have walked in their shoes.

As to reporters, I do not hate them. Far from it, but I think it is more than fair and just that when they go off hoping to do their filming of you and people you know getting hurt and killing other people, that they get what they would wish on others. And that is why those reporters were there.

I thought it interesting that a pysch study done on college kids where they were acting as guards over their fellow students, and how after a few days, the "guards" became so brutal, the study had to be stopped. And that was in "the make beleive world".

Man, I get all of what you said in terms of; yes I have never been there. I get that it is EASY to sit in my arm chair and make the call. I can also say those guys screwed up. I wont even get into Riebe's ridiculous point that who cares, terrorists hide behind kids. Heck, using that logic, just nuke a few cities full of civilians on the basis there are civilians there?

If the USA wants to hold some sort of moral high ground as being better than the terrorists (and despite Eki's arguments, I do believe on principle, the USA is better) then you better be prepared to make SURE of whom you are killing for a "cause".

If the average joe on the street of Iraq can be wiped out with no repecussions just to keep an American serviceman safe, then you might as well hand the argument over to people like Eki who figure you Yanks are a bunch of gun happy loons.

You guys just don't get it do you? When you kill without remorse, or any apology towards what happened in THIS case (it is clear no threats were part of this attack, since none were found and the Pentagon swept it all under the rug); then you hand the argument right over to the idiots who don't grasp that the US Armed Forces are NOT a bunch of gun happy loons.

Markabilly, I regret your nation drafted your young soul and dumped it in a meaningless war that the politicians wouldn't let you win, but spare me this idea that somehow this is all justified. My Lai wasn't justified, no more than Kurt Meyer's SS killing a platoon of Canadian Soldiers in cold blood in 1944 in Normandy was justified; and so on. Unarmed civilians were killed. Full stop. Deal with it...

Malbec

8th April 2010, 19:19

You guys just don't get it do you? When you kill without remorse, or any apology towards what happened in THIS case (it is clear no threats were part of this attack, since none were found and the Pentagon swept it all under the rug); then you hand the argument right over to the idiots who don't grasp that the US Armed Forces are NOT a bunch of gun happy loons.

And perhaps more pertinently you increase the number of people perfectly prepared to die to get their revenge on those American troops or failing that, American civilians.

Well written post.

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 20:15

Righteous Kill

The problem, according to many who have viewed the video, is that WikiLeaks appears to have done selective editing that tells only half the story. For instance, the Web site takes special care to slow down the video and identify the two photographers and the cameras they are carrying.
related links

However, the Web site does not slow down the video to show that at least one man in that group was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body.

WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 21:01

Righteous Kill

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/07/military-raises-questions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/?test=latestnews

That fact, that the selective editing is simply to make intent of the leaker, truth be damned, is beyond those feel good people posting here with a Barney the Dinosaur view of what the allies are fighting.

A reporter, a female reporter, on Charlie Rose,(she was imbedded by CBS) I think kind of surprised him when she said, (paraphrase) that the only thing these people, and that is the whole populace, understand is force.
You kill your enemy till it hurts them and then kill some more, and they will respect you.
You show weakness, and back-off, especially for political reasons, and they will loathe you for being weak and inferior, to the ones you are fighting.

Malbec

8th April 2010, 21:55

That fact, that the selective editing is simply to make intent of the leaker, truth be damned, is beyond those feel good people posting here with a Barney the Dinosaur view of what the allies are fighting.

A reporter, a female reporter, on Charlie Rose,(she was imbedded by CBS) I think kind of surprised him when she said, (paraphrase) that the only thing these people, and that is the whole populace, understand is force.
You kill your enemy till it hurts them and then kill some more, and they will respect you.
You show weakness, and back-off, especially for political reasons, and they will loathe you for being weak and inferior, to the ones you are fighting.

So come on Bob, why don't you answer a simple question that you seem keen to avoid. According to your logic anyone who you think might possibly be a terrorist should be killed. Exactly where do you draw the line? What civilians are begging to be killed and which ones shouldn't be?

BTW with respect to your silly point about having to treat Iraqis with brute force, isn't it interesting that things in Iraq have improved significantly both for Iraqis and the Americans since the US forces have adopted a softer more understanding approach. Shouldn't you be keeping up with events on the ground?

Eki

8th April 2010, 21:56

And perhaps more pertinently you increase the number of people perfectly prepared to die to get their revenge on those American troops or failing that, American civilians.

Good point. In a similar manner, one of the recent suicide bombers in Moscow was a 17 year widow of some guy killed by Russians. Violence feeds violence, it will not end it.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 22:32

So come on Bob, why don't you answer a simple question that you seem keen to avoid. According to your logic anyone who you think might possibly be a terrorist should be killed. Exactly where do you draw the line? What civilians are begging to be killed and which ones shouldn't be?

BTW with respect to your silly point about having to treat Iraqis with brute force, isn't it interesting that things in Iraq have improved significantly both for Iraqis and the Americans since the US forces have adopted a softer more understanding approach. Shouldn't you be keeping up with events on the ground?

What question?

Your second paragraph: show where it says things improved with less force.
I think you created that one.

Yes, the bomber attacks killing a few hundred people since Obama took over is really a big improvement, compared to having dead U.S. soldiers doing what ever it takes to prevent those attacks.
I think you had better get a grip on reality.

The surge improved things; that Obama really wants to cut and run, is another story, of course since he took over deaths in Afghanistan have sky-rocketed.
Gee his soft approach really works well there.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 22:36

Good point. In a similar manner, one of the recent suicide bombers in Moscow was a 17 year widow of some guy killed by Russians. Violence feeds violence, it will not end it.
Ah a member of the Chamberlain "Peace in out time" group.

They will do what they will do without regard to this make-believe cause/effect farce.

Then again that would also be proof it is better to kill them before they kill you or yours.

Malbec

8th April 2010, 22:42

What question?

The question in my post were the sentences that ended with the question marks.

I'll repeat it for you. This'll be the fourth time I've asked with no response.

According to your logic anyone who you think MIGHT POSSIBLY be a terrorist should be killed. Exactly where do you draw the line? What civilians are begging to be killed and which ones shouldn't be?

Your second paragraph: show where it says things improved with less force.
I think you created that one.

Yes, the bomber attacks killing a few hundred people since Obama took over is really a big improvement, compared to having dead U.S. soldiers doing what ever it takes to prevent those attacks.
I think you had better get a grip on reality.

Parallel to the surge was the attempt to bring the Sunnis online, bringing them into the political process. Attacks on US forces dropped significantly as a result as those Sunnis then started to turn on Al-Qaeda groups within them. That move wasn't done by pure force now was it.

And if you don't think the surge itself was accompanied by a significant shift in US tactics particularly with respect to behaviour towards the locals I suggest you familiarise yourself with Petraeus' works. For someone who seems to only post on military matters you don't seem to be that knowledgable about some quite significant changes that have occurred over the latter half of the occupation.

Eki

8th April 2010, 22:59

Ah a member of the Chamberlain "Peace in out time" group.

They will do what they will do without regard to this make-believe cause/effect farce.

Then again that would also be proof it is better to kill them before they kill you or yours.
Yours aren't any better than mine or theirs.

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 23:09

Good point. In a similar manner, one of the recent suicide bombers in Moscow was a 17 year widow of some guy killed by Russians. Violence feeds violence, it will not end it.

Really?

You Finns have been pretty docile since the Russians spanked your butts.
The Germans haven't conquered France since 1945.
The Japanese haven't raped Nanking of any other Chinese city since then also.

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 23:11

Up yours. Yours aren't any better than mine or theirs.

You see that is the problem....As an American I value American lives above all other nationalities. As i expect a Finn to value the lives of their fellow Finns above others.

Eki

8th April 2010, 23:17

You see that is the problem....As an American I value American lives above all other nationalities. As i expect a Finn to value the lives of their fellow Finns above others.
I thought you were a Cuban.

Eki

8th April 2010, 23:27

Really?

You Finns have been pretty docile since the Russians spanked your butts.

That's because we were given a more or less honorable exit, unlike the Iraqis or the Afghans. The Soviets killed only about 2000 civilians compared to about 90000 soldiers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 23:28

I thought you were a Cuban.

Parents are Cuban and Spanish(With some Portuguese & Italian mixed in)

Born in the U.S.A.

Lived in South America, The Caribbean and Europe.

Always come back home!

Now back to the real topic.

The Video was a blatant attempt to embarrass the US when it fact it was a perfectly legal and justifiable action.

So apologies anyone? Eki....you go first.

anthonyvop

8th April 2010, 23:30

That's because we were given a more or less honorable exit, unlike the Iraqis or the Afghans. The Soviets killed only about 2000 civilians compared to about 90000 soldiers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_war

Whatever Mr. Wikipedia.

What about Germany and Japan? No honor in Unconditional Surrender!
Not that you have a clue what honor is.

Eki

8th April 2010, 23:35

What about Germany and Japan? No honor in Unconditional Surrender!
Not that you have a clue what honor is.
Well, I can't speak for them. Finland didn't have an unconditional surrender. It was a negotiated peace both times. The US has never settled for a negotiated peace, and I think it's a problem.

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 23:54

The question in my post were the sentences that ended with the question marks.

I'll repeat it for you. This'll be the fourth time I've asked with no response.

According to your logic anyone who you think MIGHT POSSIBLY be a terrorist should be killed. Exactly where do you draw the line? What civilians are begging to be killed and which ones shouldn't be?
That is your opinion and nothing more.
Speculation with no base.
Your entire rhetoric is based on speculation with nothing other than wishful thinking, or condemnation, as a base.
I do not play coulda, woulda, shoulda when my boots are not on the ground there.
I will not condemn anyone when I have no idea other than some back-stabbing idealog leaker as a source.

Parallel to the surge was the attempt to bring the Sunnis online, bringing them into the political process. Attacks on US forces dropped significantly as a result as those Sunnis then started to turn on Al-Qaeda groups within them. That move wasn't done by pure force now was it.

And if you don't think the surge itself was accompanied by a significant shift in US tactics particularly with respect to behaviour towards the locals I suggest you familiarise yourself with Petraeus' works. For someone who seems to only post on military matters you don't seem to be that knowledgable about some quite significant changes that have occurred over the latter half of the occupation.
Yes there was a shift, instead of backing off and taking casualties, as Bush had done for the first years, he took it to the enemy, while abandoning the asinine treatment the Sunnis recieved.
Bush had x amount of allied soldiers unnecessarily killed by a restricted kill zone and paranoid treatment of Sunnis in the early years. Absolutely.

You see what you want to see and nothing more.
Without the surge and increased killing zone, all the happy talk would have been nothing, but you only see what you want to see. Take the blinders off.
``

Bob Riebe

8th April 2010, 23:56

Up yours. Yours aren't any better than mine or theirs.
Your rhetoric reflects your intellect.

slorydn1

9th April 2010, 01:22

OK OK we get it....now will everyone please go back to arguing about the video or the need for the US to even be where its is to begin with without attacking each other....

I have edited a one post and deleted one.

:mark:

Easy Drifter

9th April 2010, 02:18

Wrong as usual Eki.
War of 1812 ended with a negotiated Peace.
The Spanish American War ended with a negotiated Peace.
WW1 ended with a negotiated Peace.
The Korean War ended with a negotiated ceasefire albeit not a Peace treaty.
Many US/Indian wars ended with negotiated Peace treaties (admittedly often broken).
The Mexican/US war ended with a negotiated treaty.
The US War Of Independence (the founding of the US) ended with a negotiated treaty.

anthonyvop

9th April 2010, 05:32

Well, I can't speak for them. Finland didn't have an unconditional surrender. It was a negotiated peace both times. The US has never settled for a negotiated peace, and I think it's a problem.

Eki,

You stated that "Violence feeds violence, it will not end it."

I pointed out that Violence worked quite well against Finland, Germany and Japan.
Negotiated or not a strong butt kicking has brought peace many times throughout history.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2010, 05:48

That fact, that the selective editing is simply to make intent of the leaker, truth be damned, is beyond those feel good people posting here with a Barney the Dinosaur view of what the allies are fighting.

A reporter, a female reporter, on Charlie Rose,(she was imbedded by CBS) I think kind of surprised him when she said, (paraphrase) that the only thing these people, and that is the whole populace, understand is force.
You kill your enemy till it hurts them and then kill some more, and they will respect you.
You show weakness, and back-off, especially for political reasons, and they will loathe you for being weak and inferior, to the ones you are fighting.

Bob, I agree you don't show weakness to an enemy. Again, who was in the van? Who was standing there with a camera, not a RPG. Force improperly applied does nothing except tick off the people you WANT on your side. The man on the street in Iraq who was very happy to see the GI's and USMC doesn't all the sudden need to be collateral damage because some guys with their Apaches one night subscribe to the "kill em all to be safe" school of targeting. I can guarntee you that will create more problems than it is worth.

You cannot go to Iraq to bring peace and democracy to the hell that was Saddam's regime, and then treat the people there just as shabbily. Lucky for the USA, someone like David Petreaus was in charge....who I am sure wouldn't condone this sort of crap.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2010, 05:54

Yes there was a shift, instead of backing off and taking casualties, as Bush had done for the first years, he took it to the enemy, while abandoning the asinine treatment the Sunnis recieved.
Bush had x amount of allied soldiers unnecessarily killed by a restricted kill zone and paranoid treatment of Sunnis in the early years. Absolutely.

You see what you want to see and nothing more.
Without the surge and increased killing zone, all the happy talk would have been nothing, but you only see what you want to see. Take the blinders off.
``

This incident was pre surge. Again, explain to me why it is swept under the rug if it was a righteous op? Guys, I am failing to see where anyone can justify just sweeping killing civilians in the street from Apaches when it was quite doubtful what they were doing that was a threat. If this mook was standing by the corner with an RPG, hey, go to town. He wasn't, and we all know he wasn't.

You cant justify it by saying "we are better off being safe than sorry." Sorry, I hold the military of the West to a higher standard than that. If it was Canadian soldiers or airmen doing that sort of thing in Afghanistan, there isn't one politician in this country who would defend it, and I doubt highly anyone in the Republican party would defend this sort of targeting either. You guys are getting patriotism and pride mixed into this and forget that if you break it down to what it is, it is a screw up. Pure and simple. These guys saw what wasn't there, and the argument that they were told there was no friendlies in the area is hollow. Just because there are no US Soldiers or Iraqi military partners there doesn't mean the rest of the people are automatically the enemy.

Eki

9th April 2010, 07:22

Eki,

You stated that "Violence feeds violence, it will not end it."

I pointed out that Violence worked quite well against Finland, Germany and Japan.
Negotiated or not a strong butt kicking has brought peace many times throughout history.
Actually, if you really think about it, there was peace before WW2, violence broke it. In 1939 the Soviet Union started to use violence against Finland and started the Winter War. In retaliation of that, in 1941 Finland started to use violence against the SU and started the Continuation War. See? Violence fed violence, the Continuation War was a direct consequence of the Winter War.

Rani

9th April 2010, 10:38

Easy Drifter

9th April 2010, 17:11

Planet Earth to Eki.
Peace before WW2?
Germany annexing parts of/or other countries.
The Spanish Civil war with many nations involved covertly.
Italy invading Ethiopia.
Japan invading China.

Eki

9th April 2010, 17:52

Planet Earth to Eki.
Peace before WW2?
Germany annexing parts of/or other countries.

They didn't annex anything by war before the WW2 started on September 1st 1939. And WW2 started because Germany used violence against Poland.

Mark in Oshawa

9th April 2010, 17:52

Not as clear cut as many here view it in my opinion. While I think the camera is clearly visible (and so the one carrying it shouldn't have been shot) the reporters are fools not to be wearing identifying vests or jerseys. The same can be said of the van. I must say that the lack of proffessionalism of the pilots striked me. They're talking like they're cowboys rounding up cattle (all the swearing and the laughing when they see the hmmwv run over a dead body), what are they, 16?
In my experience this can tell a lot about a soldier's judgement and behavior.
I am not judging the actions themselves (where I come from I know how complicated these things are) but I must say it doesn't look good.

What UN commity will grow out of this?
Probably none. When it's the big boys of world politics, the UN doesn't investigate.

Rani, you were in your nation's military I assume? I wouldn't want the UN investigating in this case, they are idiots with an agenda in 90% of the issues they "investigate" BUT shouldn't the Pentagon have investigated this in the open? Hey, if they found the guys innocent, I would love to see how they justify it. The cowboy attitude by the pilots sounds like something straight out of a movie.

I have no problem with the military erring to protect each other up to a point, but I like you didn't see the threat. Sure the press guys should have been wearing vests, and the van full of kids just happened to be a bad idea, but this is of course assuming you see the Apaches off in the distance as a threat. If the US Army is doing their jobs, the man on the street shouldn't be seeing the Apache helicopters as a threat and should feel safe to drive his kids down the street.

Rani

9th April 2010, 18:51

Rani, you were in your nation's military I assume? I wouldn't want the UN investigating in this case, they are idiots with an agenda in 90% of the issues they "investigate" BUT shouldn't the Pentagon have investigated this in the open? Hey, if they found the guys innocent, I would love to see how they justify it. The cowboy attitude by the pilots sounds like something straight out of a movie.

I have no problem with the military erring to protect each other up to a point, but I like you didn't see the threat. Sure the press guys should have been wearing vests, and the van full of kids just happened to be a bad idea, but this is of course assuming you see the Apaches off in the distance as a threat. If the US Army is doing their jobs, the man on the street shouldn't be seeing the Apache helicopters as a threat and should feel safe to drive his kids down the street.
I totally agree about the UN, my comment was directed against the Goldstone report which is very biased in my eyes but is another can of worms altogether and not the topic at hand. I also agree something like this calls for a Pentagon investigation. If this continues stirring this much of a storm it probably will.

Concerning the van, I don't see it as a 'man driving his kids in an innocent manner'. I realize the man's need to take the wounded to hospital, anyone would want to do the same in his shoes, but you have to understand that taking armed people to hospital is taking an active part in a fight. Just like a medic running to the aid of his friends is exposed to fire from the enemy, the van driver became that medic when he rushed to help them. I wouldn't have ran to help that fast had my children been in the van - you must understand you become a possible target when you help armed men in the midst of a firefight. While the van driver has a part in this, it doesn't change the fact that the pilots were very eager to fire at the van. They want to engage it the minute it arrives at the scene, without checking if it picks up armed men or weapons. Picking up wounded people who aren't armed doesn't justify them attacking it like they did, and nobody seems to (judged by the radio communication) see weapons being taken inside it clearly.

The segment with the van reminds me of that early Southpark episode where they cry out 'he's comin' right for us' every time they see a deer so they could have 'justification' to hunt it. The pilots pressure the higher command to authorize as if that van is about to vanish before they check it thoroughly enough in my opinion.

The fact that the pilots don't seem to be threatened themselves (they're flying and hovering at low altitude - the most vulnerable state for a helicopter) adds to the whole 'target practice' feel of the video. I could understand this kind of behavior from a machine gunner at street level, being frightened and firing at anything that moves for that reason, but it's as if these pilots are playing Call of Duty or something of the sort.

Bob Riebe

9th April 2010, 19:51

I could understand this kind of behavior from a machine gunner at street level, being frightened and firing at anything that moves for that reason, but it's as if these pilots are playing Call of Duty or something of the sort.
The pilots job is to stop the enemy before they close enough to the boots on the ground to cause a scenario where shooting anything that moves is the simply the only means to survive.

Too many here seem to live in the TV cowboy world, especially as they throw that term around to the point of asininity, where the good guys always let the killers draw first.
Wonderful for TV, it gets you killed in real life.

Bob Riebe

9th April 2010, 20:05

They didn't annex anything by war before the WW2 started on September 1st 1939. And WW2 started because Germany used violence against Poland.

Their sovereignty was violated and the difference between violence and violate is only the form used.

violence
Origin:
late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity,"
from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.

violate
Origin:
1400–50; late ME < L violātus, ptp. of violāre to treat with violence, violate, appar. deriv. of violentus violent (taking viol- as base); see -ate

anthonyvop

9th April 2010, 20:17

Eki

9th April 2010, 21:25

Easy Drifter

9th April 2010, 23:56

Iraq was in contravention of many UN Resolutions which gave the invasion legality.
You love to quote the UN when it suits your distorted viewpoint, Eki, and ignore it when it doesn't.

Rani

10th April 2010, 00:01

The pilots job is to stop the enemy before they close enough to the boots on the ground to cause a scenario where shooting anything that moves is the simply the only means to survive.

Too many here seem to live in the TV cowboy world, especially as they throw that term around to the point of asininity, where the good guys always let the killers draw first.
Wonderful for TV, it gets you killed in real life.
Weren't the boots on the ground outnumbering the enemy by about 20 tto 1 and armed with heavy machine guns and armor?

You have to draw the line somewhere, don't you?

I am all for killing the enemy but when you have the luxury of an Apache you can take the time to make a better judgement than that which the pilots made, IMHO anyway.

I do agree quite a few people here live in "the TV cowboy world". Trust me, I ain't one of them.

Ok

We have armed insurgents close to US troops.
We have an un-marked van loading weapons.
We have un-marked "reporters" fraternizing with the enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We had children in the van who when discovered were taken the the nearest hospital and given aid.

Please, somebody tell me how the US military is guilty of anything except doing the right thing

You have a point although it doesn't seem the van is loading weapons (I'd love to be wrong here). As I said earlier what disturbs me is
"Look at all those dead *******s"
"(laughter) he just ran that dead body over"
etc.

anthonyvop

10th April 2010, 00:23

Weren't the boots on the ground outnumbering the enemy by about 20 tto 1 and armed with heavy machine guns and armor?
So?

You have to draw the line somewhere, don't you?
In War? One can never have enough support and firepower....never.

I am all for killing the enemy but when you have the luxury of an Apache you can take the time to make a better judgement than that which the pilots made, IMHO anyway.

How much time? Enough time to allow them to kill some US soldiers? To escape? The were quite restrained in their actions.

I do agree quite a few people here live in "the TV cowboy world". Trust me, I ain't one of them.
Could have fooled me.

You have a point although it doesn't seem the van is loading weapons (I'd love to be wrong here). As I said earlier what disturbs me is
"Look at all those dead *******s"
"(laughter) he just ran that dead body over"
etc.
Gallows humor is common place in warfare. But of course you wouldn't know that.

anthonyvop

10th April 2010, 00:27

Easy, they were there. Illegal invasion.

How is it illegal?
I am curious. Which government agency do you go to to get your invasion permit? Is their a Dept. of invasions? Are their "Invasion" inspectors?

Jeez.......get a life!

markabilly

10th April 2010, 03:02

Ok

We have armed insurgents close to US troops.
We have an un-marked van loading weapons.
We have un-marked "reporters" fraternizing with the enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We had children in the van who when discovered were taken the the nearest hospital and given aid.

Please, somebody tell me how the US military is guilty of anything except doing the right thing.
There was no "right thing" done here by the chopper pilots.
It was just war.

As to the big brass sitting in the their comfy little world, that would be a different question, but it certainly would not be "right".

As to the stupid reporters, I already said what I think about that.

markabilly

10th April 2010, 03:46

[quote=markabilly][quote="Mark in Oshawa":13fe0bu7]

Man, I get all of what you said in terms of; yes I have never been there. I get that it is EASY to sit in my arm chair and make the call. I can also say those guys screwed up. I wont even get into Riebe's ridiculous point that who cares, terrorists hide behind kids. Heck, using that logic, just nuke a few cities full of civilians on the basis there are civilians there?[quote]

Never said that. Do not beleive in Nuking cities or doing what the RAF generals and Churchill did to cities such as Dresden

If the USA wants to hold some sort of moral high ground as being better than the terrorists (and despite Eki's arguments, I do believe on principle, the USA is better) then you better be prepared to make SURE of whom you are killing for a "cause".

Soldiers are there dealing with issues far beyond their control, and the concept of killing for a cause soon turns into killing to survive and do what everyone seems to expecte---kill as many as possible

[quote:13fe0bu7]
If the average joe on the street of Iraq can be wiped out with no repecussions just to keep an American serviceman safe, then you might as well hand the argument over to people like Eki who figure you Yanks are a bunch of gun happy loons.

You guys just don't get it do you? When you kill without remorse, or any apology towards what happened in THIS case (it is clear no threats were part of this attack, since none were found and the Pentagon swept it all under the rug); then you hand the argument right over to the idiots who don't grasp that the US Armed Forces are NOT a bunch of gun happy loons.
[/quote:13fe0bu7]

Another comment that you have no idea about what you are talking about. From the moment you show up in boot camp, the dehumanization process begins. What sane individual would charge up a hill where people with machine guns are doing their best to kill them? When I first stepped on the ground, there was no way I would have ever done what those guys in the chopper did or other things talked about here.

But soldiers learn very quickly "to kill without remorse or any apology" that would mean a damn, because otherwise you could not live with it. The horror is just too much.

The only reason I never did such things after being there for about six months is that it would be just too much of a hassle and the right situation never presented itself that might have lead me down those paths; had nothing to do with concepts of right or wrong as that had began to dissipate soon after arrival.

No different for any soldiers in any really tough war--they start with an idealistic feeling, but when the bullets start hitting the bones of guys you have known that could just as easily been you except for pure luck and you start seeing the results of your own actions....it is a whole different reality one comes to live in.

And true of every soldier...they learn to deal with it with a totally different mind set than what they had before they were involved in a war, or they no longer function, and do things like blow their brains out.

Markabilly, I regret your nation drafted your young soul and dumped it in a meaningless war that the politicians wouldn't let you win, but spare me this idea that somehow this is all justified. My Lai wasn't justified, no more than Kurt Meyer's SS killing a platoon of Canadian Soldiers in cold blood in 1944 in Normandy was justified; and so on. Unarmed civilians were killed. Full stop. Deal with it[/quote:13fe0bu7][/quote:13fe0bu7][/quote:13fe0bu7]...

Justified?? Hellbells, it is war, meaningful or not. You do what you do at that moment. In cold blood or in hot blood, one is just as dead. The "Rules of Engagement" have always been a hypocritical joke.

Can not shoot an unarmed soldier, a civilian or child, but massive bombs delivered deliberately to targets so populated is the proper way to kill, even if it kills civilians and children, is hypocrisy.

You and the rest need to learn to deal with your own hypocrisy before you start feelin sorry for me or being outraged over something like this

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2010, 06:58

[

Never said that. Do not beleive in Nuking cities or doing what the RAF generals and Churchill did to cities such as Dresden

Soldiers are there dealing with issues far beyond their control, and the concept of killing for a cause soon turns into killing to survive and do what everyone seems to expecte---kill as many as possible

Another comment that you have no idea about what you are talking about. From the moment you show up in boot camp, the dehumanization process begins. What sane individual would charge up a hill where people with machine guns are doing their best to kill them? When I first stepped on the ground, there was no way I would have ever done what those guys in the chopper did or other things talked about here.

But soldiers learn very quickly "to kill without remorse or any apology" that would mean a damn, because otherwise you could not live with it. The horror is just too much.

The only reason I never did such things after being there for about six months is that it would be just too much of a hassle and the right situation never presented itself that might have lead me down those paths; had nothing to do with concepts of right or wrong as that had began to dissipate soon after arrival.

No different for any soldiers in any really tough war--they start with an idealistic feeling, but when the bullets start hitting the bones of guys you have known that could just as easily been you except for pure luck and you start seeing the results of your own actions....it is a whole different reality one comes to live in.

And true of every soldier...they learn to deal with it with a totally different mind set than what they had before they were involved in a war, or they no longer function, and do things like blow their brains out.

...[/quote]

Justified?? Hellbells, it is war, meaningful or not. You do what you do at that moment. In cold blood or in hot blood, one is just as dead. The "Rules of Engagement" have always been a hypocritical joke.

Can not shoot an unarmed soldier, a civilian or child, but massive bombs delivered deliberately to targets so populated is the proper way to kill, even if it kills civilians and children, is hypocrisy.

You and the rest need to learn to deal with your own hypocrisy before you start feelin sorry for me or being outraged over something like this

You know, you make it really hard to have any sympathy for you. On one hand, I am a bad guy because I pointed out that while sympathetic to your stance that the soldier at the front line has to be in kill or be killed mode, in this case, these jokers were not. Hypocracy? Where am I the hypocrite. I am a big fan of force used for good. I don't have a problem with the military being used to accomplish a mission in support of foreign policy when the issue is ethically defendable. In Iraq's case, I have defended America being there in spite of the fact I do think they could have done a lot differently. This however makes the USA look like a bunch of trigger happy morons.

You Yanks are circling the wagons here, and you are doing it based on this attitude is that no one else understands. BS! Rani is an Israeli. Last time I looked, he did service time, and lives in a nation where terrorism and the possiblity of war is always around the corner. Yet he agree's with my stance that this deal stunk. I didn't have to serve in a military to understand in the fog of war, a lot gets tossed out the window, and you have to be conditioned to handle it. These jokers in the helicopters tho might as well hosed down anyone that moved.

This wasn't you and you buddies playing tag with M-16's with the VC in the jungle, this was highly trained Apache crews over Iraq. They had NO threat (what it looked like was suspicious, but not threatening), and the shot up civilians based on the theory they "looked like they could be up to something". Sorry..based on this logic, just kill everyone, because THAT is your attitude. You rip the RAF for Dresden, but the fact is these guys did something that was as bad if not worse in an era where technology and intelligence would dictate you would clarify the nature of your target before opening up on them. So if you cannot decide, or you decide anyone who looks suspicious should get a maverick missle or 20mm across their melons, you might as well have carpet bombed half of Iraq.

Sorry, Not buying it and I don't think anyone in the US military in any position of authority would openly advocate it. The British Military wouldn't sweep this crap under the carpet, the Canadians, wouldn't and neither would most modern militaries. Last I looked, my nation was serving besides yours in Afghanistan with honour and in conditions similar in that you cannot identify your enemy easily. Yet the guys there manage. These guys were cowboys, and someone in the Pentagon obviously has a ticket to be punched and swept all under a rug.

You Yanks want respect, you get it by using a little discretion in the application of force. Yes, you use it effectively when it is time, but this wasn't one of those situations.

I posted this a long time ago, and it was told to me by an old RSM from the British Army "The Germans shoot, we duck, We shoot, the German's duck, The Americans shoot, EVERYONE DUCKS"

You want to get mad about that, fine but what I saw on this video is why crap like that is said. The US Military's rules of engagement are just a tad loose and you wonder why people start to hate you after a while. Collateral damage is not just a tragedy, it is people dying, but somehow you guys want to justify it when it is people who don't need to be ending up dead who in theory you are trying to "Help".

I defend America left and right on this board and get ripped from time to time for it, and now I have spent the last 3 days arguing with you guys. IT is sad when Eki is starting to look like he might have a point on this sort of crap, and you guys cannot grasp the nuance.

Eki

10th April 2010, 09:02

How is it illegal?
I am curious. Which government agency do you go to to get your invasion permit? Is their a Dept. of invasions? Are their "Invasion" inspectors?

Jeez.......get a life!
The US signed the UN Charter and then violated it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

It's funny how the US at the same time calls some countries "rogue countries" and pretends to speak for the "international community".

Eki

10th April 2010, 09:06

You have a point although it doesn't seem the van is loading weapons (I'd love to be wrong here). As I said earlier what disturbs me is
"Look at all those dead *******s"
"(laughter) he just ran that dead body over"
etc.
They certainly seem to have time to do that kind of observations and comments in the comfort of their helicopter.

airshifter

10th April 2010, 09:26

The US signed the UN Charter and then violated it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm

It's funny how the US at the same time calls some countries "rogue countries" and pretends to speak for the "international community".

If Annan completely forgot the fact (or most likely ignored it) that a number of UN passed resolutions did in fact give member states the authority to use force, he might have a valid point. He simply doesn't recognize that the Security Council nations at the time did in fact grant such authority.

Which is no surprise with the power trip he was on. He's the same idiot that said it was unlikely the Iraqi's would show up to vote. Even in the regions with the worst security and higher violence, they showed up in percentages that exceeded almost all countries that don't make voting a requirement of the law.

Rani

10th April 2010, 09:46

So?

In War? One can never have enough support and firepower....never.
I haven't realized the US switched to the soviet doctrine.
Then why use the 30 mil when you can use the Hellfires or Hydra70's? Those give you a lot more 'support'. That puny 30 mil left two people alive in the van! Unproffessional.

How much time? Enough time to allow them to kill some US soldiers? To escape? The were quite restrained in their actions.

The pilots didn't see any weapons loaded on the van (at least they don't say so in the video), Any of the corresponding houses on the streets has a similar chance of having weapons inside it and is much easier to hit - why stop at the van?

Gallows humor is common place in warfare. But of course you wouldn't know that.
Gallows humor has a place after the fight is over when you sit down with your comrades. The fact that these pilots make these jokes while operating in a hostile enviroment just makes them amateur...

Aren't these guys supposed to be some of the best and most proffessional airmen around ?

Where I come from this kind of comments would get you in trouble even if said during routine training.

Over to you, General vop

Tomi

10th April 2010, 11:16

Aren't these guys supposed to be some of the best and most proffessional airmen around ?

Do you belive seriously in this myth?

Eki

10th April 2010, 11:24

If Annan completely forgot the fact (or most likely ignored it) that a number of UN passed resolutions did in fact give member states the authority to use force, he might have a valid point. He simply doesn't recognize that the Security Council nations at the time did in fact grant such authority.

Which is no surprise with the power trip he was on. He's the same idiot that said it was unlikely the Iraqi's would show up to vote. Even in the regions with the worst security and higher violence, they showed up in percentages that exceeded almost all countries that don't make voting a requirement of the law.
The UN Charter overrules any Security Council resolution, of which none did give permission to invade Iraq against the will of other Security Council countries.

BDunnell

10th April 2010, 11:26

I defend America left and right on this board and get ripped from time to time for it, and now I have spent the last 3 days arguing with you guys. IT is sad when Eki is starting to look like he might have a point on this sort of crap, and you guys cannot grasp the nuance.

You are absolutely 100 per cent right about a lack of nuance. It is sad that a discussion on a subject such as this should divide between those in different 'camps' who refuse to see any shades of grey and instead look at the issue solely in black and white. Both are wrong. Excessive civilian casualties are unacceptable; some civilian casualties, though, are unavoidable, and it is naive to believe otherwise. But those who believe the US military to be infallible are equally naive in this viewpoint.

ioan

10th April 2010, 11:31

markabilly

10th April 2010, 16:14

I've never been in a war, nor in a position where I have to execute orders that include shooting people so I am not in a position to judge the pilots either.

It's easy to sit in front of our computers and blame people for executing orders, without having the slightest idea what they are going through.
If anything the ones at fault are those who made the war unavoidable.
Finally, someone shows up who makes some sense.

All of the rest do not.

For many it is okay to bomb a target filled with civilains that has no military value, but it is not okay to shoot them. Either way, those poor people are just as dead.

Never go to war without going all the way.
And when you do, be surprized stuff like this does not happen more often.

As to this moral superoirty of the Bristish, the acts of horror comitted by British troops and their leaders during the American Revolution, as shown in the movie, The Patriot, were based on fact.

I could dig up more examples of both canadian and british troops more recent acts of unmitigated violence towards the helpless-although Dresdan is an excellent example and Mark somehow thinks this is worse than Dresdan, when Dresdan involved the burning death of several hundred thousand from a distance rather than "in the fog of war", but I have to go see some kids I coach play volleyball.

anthonyvop

10th April 2010, 16:24

anthonyvop

10th April 2010, 16:26

I haven't realized the US switched to the soviet doctrine.
Then why use the 30 mil when you can use the Hellfires or Hydra70's? Those give you a lot more 'support'. That puny 30 mil left two people alive in the van! Unproffessional.

The pilots didn't see any weapons loaded on the van (at least they don't say so in the video), Any of the corresponding houses on the streets has a similar chance of having weapons inside it and is much easier to hit - why stop at the van?

Gallows humor has a place after the fight is over when you sit down with your comrades. The fact that these pilots make these jokes while operating in a hostile enviroment just makes them amateur...

Aren't these guys supposed to be some of the best and most proffessional airmen around ?

Where I come from this kind of comments would get you in trouble even if said during routine training.

Over to you, General vop

You really have no clue do you?

Those pilots were the epitome of professionalism. They did their job and they did it well.
The real fact is that we have terrorists who will never threaten U.S. lives again....And that is a good thing.

Eki

10th April 2010, 16:54

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2010, 18:49

I've never been in a war, nor in a position where I have to execute orders that include shooting people so I am not in a position to judge the pilots either.

It's easy to sit in front of our computers and blame people for executing orders, without having the slightest idea what they are going through.
If anything the ones at fault are those who made the war unavoidable.

Very true. 99% of the time, that is my take. Then I see this video that pops up that was originally buried by the Pentagon. I don't have to be in combat to recognize someone tried to hide this incident. I also don't have to served time in the military to realize that it is one thing to have collateral casualties in war. THAT happens, I get that, but the attitude of these guys and the nature of this incident says to me there should be a fair and open investigation and possible court martial here. I am not saying guilty or innocent, so much as it wasn't even looked at from what I have read or seen in the media. The point is, the knee jerk reaction from all the Americans who choose to argue about this is "Tough" which is utter nonsense.

IT is tough for those who got wiped out because they looked Suspicious. Like I said, if you go by whom looks suspicious, they might as well carpet bomb half the Middle East...

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2010, 18:50

You really have no clue do you?

Those pilots were the epitome of professionalism. They did their job and they did it well.
The real fact is that we have terrorists who will never threaten U.S. lives again....And that is a good thing.

Rani has served in the military of his nation. I take his word on what he thinks is professional in this manner.

Tony...these guys were just GUYS..and the kids in the van were KIDS. No terrorists..no RPG..not pointing AT the Apaches. Some idgit might call that murder....maybe he wouldn't be an idgit...

markabilly

10th April 2010, 20:27

Rani has served in the military of his nation. I take his word on what he thinks is professional in this manner.

Tony...these guys were just GUYS..and the kids in the van were KIDS. No terrorists..no RPG..not pointing AT the Apaches. Some idgit might call that murder....maybe he wouldn't be an idgit...
Professionals ???? People are professional hockey players, tennis players and so forth.

This was killing in a war. Professional killers are hitmen and other paid assassins.

This was guys flying in a chopper without the benefit of perfect hindsight.

yeah too bad somebody with an RPG did not fall out out of the van dead. Then they would be getting medals.

But it does hit the gut hard to see this stuff up close on a personal level of a few people rather than from a distance, as Mark O. already said, this was worse than Dresdan(!!!!??????? :dozey: )

BTW-Rani must be of the new breed rather than the old breed, as the old breed I knew and heard of, would have no problem hunting down and killing anything that threatened them and their country. Even if it meant some assassinations and blowing up a hotel or two.......and it seems to be a lingering attitude there today as in this:
Chabad rabbi: Jews should kill Arab men, women and children during war
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091469.html

""The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle),"

I will not say, well as long as you do it professionally without any jokes, then it is okay...or killing children for God is not only the Jewish way, but it is the only good "moral way"...

tempted to say it, but I will not....guess cause I do not beleive that for one second.

Eki

10th April 2010, 20:36

Professionals ???? People are professional hockey players, tennis players and so forth.

This was killing in a war. Professional killers are hitmen and other paid assassins.

News for you: The US has professional military these days, unlike in Vietnam. They are willing to risk their lives half way around the world for money.

Mark in Oshawa

10th April 2010, 20:49

News for you: The US has professional military these days, unlike in Vietnam. They are willing to risk their lives half way around the world for money.

No...the American military is professional in how it conducts itself. Or at least, that is the story we were all supposed to believe. This tape flies in the face of that.

There is a code of honour and conduct that dictates military people do what they do for the right reasons. I believe 99% of the US Military, as well as that of most free nations are there for the right reasons. People who join the service may be thinking of it as a job in a sense, but they know it is bigger than that. The point is, there is an argument for totally being ruthless on the battlefield. Where the water gets muddy is when the battlefield isn't defined, much like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam often had non-combantants with terrorists and the "enemy" in their midst without uniform. I can understand how someone like Markabilly can feel the way he does, but in this case, an investigation and an admission this is a tragedy would at least be a good start.

airshifter

10th April 2010, 22:53

The UN Charter overrules any Security Council resolution, of which none did give permission to invade Iraq against the will of other Security Council countries.

If you actually beleive that you have no understanding of how the UN works, and have obviously never read the various resolutions regarding Iraq.

Rather than base your opinon on what Kofi wrote, why don't you inform all of us as to what article of the UN Charter was violated, and why the express authority given to the Security Council did not properly provide authority for the actions taken.

Eki

10th April 2010, 23:25

If you actually beleive that you have no understanding of how the UN works, and have obviously never read the various resolutions regarding Iraq.

Rather than base your opinon on what Kofi wrote, why don't you inform all of us as to what article of the UN Charter was violated, and why the express authority given to the Security Council did not properly provide authority for the actions taken.
I don't know which article Annan meant, but article 27 says it all:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

[quote:owgua5g4]Article 27

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.[/quote:owgua5g4]

That says it all. Most of the Security Council was against the invasion and thought more investigations are needed. Enough said.

Bob Riebe

11th April 2010, 00:07

News for you: The US has professional military these days, unlike in Vietnam. They are willing to risk their lives half way around the world for money.
If you think this is why they do what they do, you are not only ignorant but self-righteous.
You are standing on your soap box deriding others because others have fought and died to make that possible.

God bless the service men of this world and Rev. Wright said what God can do to those condemn them.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 00:15

If you think this is why they do what they do, you are not only ignorant but self-righteous.
You are standing on your soap box deriding others because others have fought and died to make that possible.

God bless the service men of this world and Rev. Wright said what God can do to those condemn them.

Propably they join the army because they dont really fit anywhere else, I remember an I think it was Australian document from Afganistan, where they asked us soldiers why they are there, actually the soldiers could not answer the question, that explaines quite much.

Bob Riebe

11th April 2010, 00:22

Where the water gets muddy is when the battlefield isn't defined, much like Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam often had non-combantants with terrorists and the "enemy" in their midst without uniform. I can understand how someone like Markabilly can feel the way he does, but in this case, an investigation and an admission this is a tragedy would at least be a good start.Please tell me all the intel and communication that went on before or outside that video.

If you cannot, you are making accusations based solely on your make-believe vision of what happened.
You are going by what the hallowed "press" has shown, here is another example of how people with half-truths can distort what little they have to push lies, and damned lies.

The pathetic way the picture of a Cong being executed has been dallied around by God only knows how many progressive liberal twits to show how the U.S. was wrong in Nam but the facts are always ignored.
Here is an abstract of facts.

Lém was captured and brought to Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, then Chief of the Republic of Viet Nam National Police. Using his personal sidearm, General Loan summarily executed Lém in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams and NBC television cameraman Vo Suu. The photograph and footage were broadcast worldwide, galvanizing the anti-war movement; Adams won a 1969 Pulitzer Prize for his photograph.

South Vietnamese sources state that Lém commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lém was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lém's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong and she did not see him after the Tet Offensive began. Shortly after the execution, a South Vietnamese official who had not been present said that Lém was only a political operative.

Some critics[who?] claim that Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war. The rights of POW status were accorded to Viet Cong members only if they were seized during military operations.
Lém had neither been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the commission of war crimes.

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Adams later apologized in person to General Loan and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Loan died of cancer in his new home of Virginia, Adams praised him: "The guy was a hero. America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him."

Bob Riebe

11th April 2010, 00:25

Propably they join the army because they dont really fit anywhere else, I remember an I think it was Australian document from Afganistan, where they asked us soldiers why they are there, actually the soldiers the question, that explaines quite much.
Proof for that opinion, and I think you typo-ed your thoughts.

OK, proof for the condemnations here is sorely lacking, but talk is cheap.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 00:44

Proof for that opinion, and I think you typo-ed your thoughts.

OK, proof for the condemnations here is sorely lacking, but talk is cheap.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706118,00.html

this article maybe explaines you a bit.

anthonyvop

11th April 2010, 01:27

BDunnell

11th April 2010, 01:29

Those pilots were the epitome of professionalism. They did their job and they did it well.
The real fact is that we have terrorists who will never threaten U.S. lives again....And that is a good thing.

In your opinion, has a US military pilot ever made a mistake in the heat of combat?

anthonyvop

11th April 2010, 01:29

anthonyvop

11th April 2010, 01:30

In your opinion, has a US military pilot ever made a mistake in the heat of combat?

yes they have but not in this case.

BDunnell

11th April 2010, 01:30

BDunnell

11th April 2010, 01:32

No...the American military is professional in how it conducts itself. Or at least, that is the story we were all supposed to believe. This tape flies in the face of that.

It doesn't really, though, does it? After all, this is one (known, alleged) instance we're talking about.

Bob Riebe

11th April 2010, 01:56

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1706118,00.html

this article maybe explaines you a bit.
It explains nothing, it is an article, opinion about recruiting, not soldiers in combat, or anything else about these men and women.
It does say that the liberal agenda foisted on U.S. schools has produced an increasingly poorly educated population, but of course when the special class students are thrown into the general population and take more of the teachers time than educating those without special needs, what is to be expected.

Bob Riebe

11th April 2010, 02:06

Where, might I ask, does your perspective on these events derive from? Are you privy to some information that the rest of us are not? Because if not, I don't understand how your opinion can somehow be more valid than anyone else's.
I am not condemning the actions of the soldiers, those condemning had better have proof for their opinions.
Any damn fool can make an accusation, unless they have proof positive; Until they say that those that failed ,only failed, by their opinions based on their standards, without regard to the realities of what was really occuring at the location their accusatons are based on, I have every reason to challenge such accusations.

This thread is based on a cheap accusation and I fully intend to hold those claiming and favoring it to prove their points.

Roamy

11th April 2010, 05:18

Rack em Bob,

As I said War is hell - people die but we kill far less civilians than the terrorists. Plus based on what I have seen of video permission is always asked over and over. So to suspect this is some "cowboy" move is not warranted. And I can say that without even viewing the clip. And get off our ass and worry about all the Islams immigrating into you country!!

markabilly

11th April 2010, 05:41

In your opinion, has a US military pilot ever made a mistake in the heat of combat?

Clearly in hindsight, in slow motion and instant replay, in the quiet of our homes with plenty of time to think and debate about it, and especially not having to be the one actually pulling the trigger, or maybe being responsible if some terrorist is not stopped and they go on to kill some innocents, or having to be dodging some missile or car bomb, it was a mistake, but not of the nature that many seem to think around here.

If a terrorist with an RPG had fallen dead out of the van, then it would not have been a "mistake" and people would be talking about giving them medals. It is that the result is the only difference in this particular case, and as before, that is not enough to be even talking about condemning or any censure of those guys in the chopper in the middle of a war.

Instead those guys in the chopper will have to live with it as best they can, and live with the video being shown around the world and what others think

ShiftingGears

11th April 2010, 06:14

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 06:36

Please tell me all the intel and communication that went on before or outside that video.

If you cannot, you are making accusations based solely on your make-believe vision of what happened.
You are going by what the hallowed "press" has shown, here is another example of how people with half-truths can distort what little they have to push lies, and damned lies.

The pathetic way the picture of a Cong being executed has been dallied around by God only knows how many progressive liberal twits to show how the U.S. was wrong in Nam but the facts are always ignored.
Here is an abstract of facts.

Lém was captured and brought to Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, then Chief of the Republic of Viet Nam National Police. Using his personal sidearm, General Loan summarily executed Lém in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams and NBC television cameraman Vo Suu. The photograph and footage were broadcast worldwide, galvanizing the anti-war movement; Adams won a 1969 Pulitzer Prize for his photograph.

South Vietnamese sources state that Lém commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lém was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lém's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong and she did not see him after the Tet Offensive began. Shortly after the execution, a South Vietnamese official who had not been present said that Lém was only a political operative.

Some critics[who?] claim that Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war. The rights of POW status were accorded to Viet Cong members only if they were seized during military operations.
Lém had neither been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the commission of war crimes.

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths ... What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Adams later apologized in person to General Loan and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Loan died of cancer in his new home of Virginia, Adams praised him: "The guy was a hero. America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him."

Where did I attack the US for the Nam shooting? All I am asking for is an open inquiry in what may have been a tragedy based on the footage seen. THAT IS IT!!!! WHAT IS SO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!????

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 06:38

It seems there are two very clear viewpoints in this thread, one believing that it was just to gun them down because they can't disprove that they are terrorists, and one believing that it was wrong because they can't disprove that they were innocent civilians.

And there isn't solid evidence from the video to prove either of the opinions.
That's the point, but when the Pentagon hides the evidence for 3 years and it was likely a Freedom of Information request or a leak that puts this tape out there, it leads people to ask awkward questions Bob, Mark and Tony wont even consider asking. They could very well be right, but what I saw was cold blooded wiping out of unarmed Iraqi civilians. An inquiry, not an inquisition. Fer Chrissakes I have had my head handed to me by the libreals and anti war crowd over my understanding where the US was coming from on Iraq, and now I am taking it from these three as if I was Eki's illegitimate cousin. It just doesn't pay to be a man of reason these days...

airshifter

11th April 2010, 06:53

I don't know which article Annan meant, but article 27 says it all:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

That says it all. Most of the Security Council was against the invasion and thought more investigations are needed. Enough said.

If most of the Security Council were "against" the invasion they should have acted quickly to pass resolutions which condemned action taken in Iraq. They did not, and the permanent members were the same that passed the resolutions that authorized force unless full compliance was maintained in Iraq. The supposed thoughts of a current Security Council do not change the voted, recorded, and legal proceedings of Resolutions which remain in effect.

Just like all the others that thought there was some violation of international law, those opinons have been proven wrong time after time when courts have dismissed such charges. The same isn't true of Iraq, with courts finding Saddam and his government guilty of training, assisting, and harboring terrorists within the country.

airshifter

11th April 2010, 06:59

That's the point, but when the Pentagon hides the evidence for 3 years and it was likely a Freedom of Information request or a leak that puts this tape out there, it leads people to ask awkward questions Bob, Mark and Tony wont even consider asking. They could very well be right, but what I saw was cold blooded wiping out of unarmed Iraqi civilians. An inquiry, not an inquisition. Fer Chrissakes I have had my head handed to me by the libreals and anti war crowd over my understanding where the US was coming from on Iraq, and now I am taking it from these three as if I was Eki's illegitimate cousin. It just doesn't pay to be a man of reason these days...

To be honest I can't find any actual proceeding of the investigation, which is true of most military investigations. But barring finding out what information was passed to the investigators, along with the full tapes of what took place, it's next to impossible to determine what the entire chain of events was.

Exactly what evidence is it being claimed that the Pentagon hid?

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 09:17

To be honest I can't find any actual proceeding of the investigation, which is true of most military investigations. But barring finding out what information was passed to the investigators, along with the full tapes of what took place, it's next to impossible to determine what the entire chain of events was.

Exactly what evidence is it being claimed that the Pentagon hid?

Finally...a rational argument. This video hits You Tube out of the blue 3 or 4 years after it happens. It hit the press likely around the same time. No one has said what the outcome of any investigation was, was there one. The press hasn't said diddly. My contention was, rightly or wrongly, that I thought it was weird for this could come out now, and it looks damning. There is no news story that I have seen anyhow accompanying this video that said this was a valid attack. ON the surface, it looks like the Apaches shot up civilians on the basis they didn't look right.

If there was an investigation fine, but for 3 days we have had the usual sides drawn up with Tony, Mark and the like saying "oh no, they were doing just what they had to, and you guys are all nuts" and the rest of us are saying "no..you don't shoot up civilians as we saw in this video and call this justified". I get the miltary mindset of kill or be killed when you perceive a threat. I get that the US military is for the most part an honorable institution. I however saw these guys in the chopper treating this whole thing as if it was some sort of video game and they basically shot up civilians without any real justification that anyone has said other than "they looked suspect, so it is a good kill".

That is Horse manure, and Rani agreed with me. Since he has served in a miltary and likely has seen some form of action if not at least being close to it (in Israel, a war is but a rocket attack away), I trust his instincts when he agreed with me that this made the US look bad. Now maybe there was an investigation, if so I will cease and desist. I wont shut up tho if there hasn't been something at least looked at. Killing people in cold blood isn't something I would want my nation's military doing for kicks. If these Canadian pilots, there would be a field day in the press and in the halls of government. You don't go to Iraq to rid them of a dictator who killed indiscriminately and replace it by a semi occupying force who uses Apache attack helicopters to wipe out civilians because one of them had a camera that looked like an RPG.

The US Military has had a reputation for shooting first and asking questions further and I do think it has on occasion hurt the image of the USA when it is trying to do something right. I am not in the Eki and Tomi club of Iraq anti-war "Bush is a war criminal" crowd, but I do like to see some transparency an I am afraid I am not seeing it here.

Eki

11th April 2010, 10:06

You are standing on your soap box deriding others because others have fought and died to make that possible.

Yes, but they were mostly conscripts fighting on their home soil (and sometimes on the Soviet soil) to keep their country independent.

God bless the service men of this world and Rev. Wright said what God can do to those condemn them.

You also include the Iraqi service men, of which your service men killed tens of thousands, right?

Eki

11th April 2010, 10:27

And get off our ass and worry about all the Islams immigrating into you country!!
They come as asylum seekers to MY country, because YOUR country invaded THEIR countries.

Eki

11th April 2010, 10:33

If most of the Security Council were "against" the invasion they should have acted quickly to pass resolutions which condemned action taken in Iraq.
The US and the UK had a new resolution ready that would have justified the invasion, but since the US knew beforehand they would lose the voting , they decided to invade and not present the resolution.

For your information, they can't pass resolutions that condemn action taken in Iraq, since the US has the right to veto them. It would be a futile exercise.

Ghostwalker

11th April 2010, 12:19

They come as asylum seekers to MY country, because YOUR country invaded THEIR countries.

i say the same.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 12:48

i say the same.

Go ahead and take them, but when they start demanding Shariah law, and demanding you adapt to their ways, you will begin to grasp this is a complex and thorny issue.

Just ask the French how well they are doing with that Muslim immigration thing....riot anybody?

Ghostwalker

11th April 2010, 13:38

Go ahead and take them, but when they start demanding Shariah law, and demanding you adapt to their ways, you will begin to grasp this is a complex and thorny issue.

Just ask the French how well they are doing with that Muslim immigration thing....riot anybody?

no you do not understand what we say Mark its the direct opposite of what you seems to think.

Becasue of the US/Uk invasion of Iraq allot of refugees leaves Iraq and head to Europe in general and Sweden in particular.
Meaning USA and the UK are causing problems for us when the refugees comes to us to seek asylum.

a few years ago a Swedish city council politicians from the City of Södertälje visited Washington D.C. to have a lecture infront
of the congress about the fact that this city received more Iraq refugees the USA and Canada together in the year of 2007.

Those refugees come their becasue "The coalition" invaded Iraq but what
are USA/Canada doing to help the refugees? What are you doing to prevent the need for
the people of Iraq to abandon their homes and country?

http://www.dn.se/sthlm/sodertaljepolitiker-hyllad-i-usa-kongressen-1.538470
http://www.dn.se/sthlm/lago-nojd-efter-usa-berom-1.678010
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sodertalje-tar-emot-fler-irakier-an-usa-och-kanada-1.599238
http://www.dn.se/sthlm/sodertalje-i-varldens-blickfang-1.703745

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyktingar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq#United_States

Rani

11th April 2010, 13:50

They come as asylum seekers to MY country, because YOUR country invaded THEIR countries.
I think asylum seekers make up a very small percentage of muslim immigrants to europe. They mostly migrate because they feel they'le be far better off getting used to the cold and living in your backyard than living in their own countries: corrupt countries full of natural resources that no one except those close to the leaders enjoy. Countries who waste half their workforce by not letting be equal members of society. Countries who unify their people on the hatred of others.

Eki

11th April 2010, 14:03

I think asylum seekers make up a very small percentage of muslim immigrants to europe. They mostly migrate because they feel they'le be far better off getting used to the cold and living in your backyard than living in their own countries: corrupt countries full of natural resources that no one except those close to the leaders enjoy. Countries who waste half their workforce by not letting be equal members of society. Countries who unify their people on the hatred of others.
You think what you think, and I know what I know. Now, explain to me why any sane person in North America or Western Europe would immigrate to Israel, because I have never understood it and it's the root cause of the problems in the Middle East.

Rani

11th April 2010, 14:14

I guess that someone would just have to be outdoorsy.

anthonyvop

11th April 2010, 17:45

BDunnell

11th April 2010, 17:54

I am not condemning the actions of the soldiers, those condemning had better have proof for their opinions.
Any damn fool can make an accusation, unless they have proof positive; Until they say that those that failed ,only failed, by their opinions based on their standards, without regard to the realities of what was really occuring at the location their accusatons are based on, I have every reason to challenge such accusations.

You have not answered my question, perhaps not surprisingly. Exactly what is it that makes you any less of a 'damn fool' than anyone else offering an opinion here? I must say that your comments in other threads hardly mark you out as a great expert on military matters.

markabilly

11th April 2010, 18:44

It seems there are two very clear viewpoints in this thread, one believing that it was just to gun them down because they can't disprove that they are terrorists, and one believing that it was wrong because they can't disprove that they were innocent civilians.

And there isn't solid evidence from the video to prove either of the opinions.

For me, the "proving" has little to do with it. They appearred to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in circumstances that suggested that they may or may not have been the enemy, and indeed that proof, objectivily speaking, is very very weak that they were the enemy at the moment the trigger was pulled.

There are those that would require far more concrete proof than what is in the video and because children were shot inside the van, the chopper pilots should be court martialed and condemned...shows bad character, gun happy nuts and so forth and all the rest

What they do not get is the proof after the fact is immaterial.

And that in war, life is very cheap--including your own life, which some general is more than happy to spend wherever---- and it just does not take much to get killed. Indeed, it is more like random chance

markabilly

11th April 2010, 18:47

You think what you think, and I know what I know. Now, explain to me why any sane person in North America or Western Europe would immigrate to Israel, because I have never understood it and it's the root cause of the problems in the Middle East.
Right or wrong, pro jewish or anti-jewish or moslem, that is true beyond dispute. In the absence of Israel and all jews in the iddle east, things would would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.

Rani

11th April 2010, 19:38

Right or wrong, pro jewish or anti-jewish or moslem, that is true beyond dispute. In the absence of Israel and all jews in the iddle east, things would would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.
That reminds me of a man I read and hear about every once in a while. He would very much agree with you. He said that in the absence of Israel and all jews in the middle east (and everywhere else for that matter), things would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.
Practical and resourceful as he was, He devised a final solution for this problem (which has been bugging individuals such as yourself for centuries) and started putting his word where his mouth is. He wrote a book about it, I'm sure you'd relate to many of his ideas, here's a link for you to purchase it if your local library doesn't have a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/817224164X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271006611&sr=8-1

Too bad he put an end to his life 65 years ago, I'm sure many regret he didn't have a chance to see what the jews he tried to kill have done with their original motherland.
It's a funny coincidence as today is Yom Hashoah eve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_HaShoah

Eki

11th April 2010, 20:16

That reminds me of a man I read and hear about every once in a while. He would very much agree with you. He said that in the absence of Israel and all jews in the middle east (and everywhere else for that matter), things would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.
Practical and resourceful as he was, He devised a final solution for this problem (which has been bugging individuals such as yourself for centuries) and started putting his word where his mouth is. He wrote a book about it, I'm sure you'd relate to many of his ideas, here's a link for you to purchase it if your local library doesn't have a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/817224164X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271006611&sr=8-1

Too bad he put an end to his life 65 years ago, I'm sure many regret he didn't have a chance to see what the jews he tried to kill have done with their original motherland.
It's a funny coincidence as today is Yom Hashoah eve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_HaShoah
So you decided to use the Nazi-card at this stage, how predictable and convenient. Haven't you noticed that Europeans and Americans aren't complaining about Jews in their neighborhood that much anymore, instead they are more often complaining about Muslims in their neighborhood. Times change, so do victims.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 20:20

That reminds me of a man I read and hear about every once in a while. He would very much agree with you. He said that in the absence of Israel and all jews in the middle east (and everywhere else for that matter), things would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.
Practical and resourceful as he was, He devised a final solution for this problem (which has been bugging individuals such as yourself for centuries) and started putting his word where his mouth is. He wrote a book about it, I'm sure you'd relate to many of his ideas, here's a link for you to purchase it if your local library doesn't have a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/817224164X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271006611&sr=8-1

Too bad he put an end to his life 65 years ago, I'm sure many regret he didn't have a chance to see what the jews he tried to kill have done with their original motherland.
It's a funny coincidence as today is Yom Hashoah eve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_HaShoah

lol, so predictable, it dont take very long if someone says an opinion about israeli immigration policy or what ever critic about israel until the hitler or holocaust card comes from the sleeve, personally i think inflation has eaten it allready, its used too often, and causes more or less amusement nowdays.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 20:27

no you do not understand what we say Mark its the direct opposite of what you seems to think.

Becasue of the US/Uk invasion of Iraq allot of refugees leaves Iraq and head to Europe in general and Sweden in particular.
Meaning USA and the UK are causing problems for us when the refugees comes to us to seek asylum.

a few years ago a Swedish city council politicians from the City of Södertälje visited Washington D.C. to have a lecture infront
of the congress about the fact that this city received more Iraq refugees the USA and Canada together in the year of 2007.

Those refugees come their becasue "The coalition" invaded Iraq but what
are USA/Canada doing to help the refugees? What are you doing to prevent the need for
the people of Iraq to abandon their homes and country?

http://www.dn.se/sthlm/sodertaljepolitiker-hyllad-i-usa-kongressen-1.538470
http://www.dn.se/sthlm/lago-nojd-efter-usa-berom-1.678010
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/sodertalje-tar-emot-fler-irakier-an-usa-och-kanada-1.599238
http://www.dn.se/sthlm/sodertalje-i-varldens-blickfang-1.703745

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyktingar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq#United_States

What are we doing? Well first off anyone from Iraq who came to Canada would be treated no different than anyone else. What is more, since Canada was NOT part of the coalition that took out Hussein, I would like to think that would mean something if someone did want to come to Canada. However, be that as it may, we have no problems with anyone coming from anywhere and they can bring their culture with them....but at some point, they better not clash with ours. Contary to the past, I think Canadians have reached a point where they are questioning the multicultural theory that made us proud. We have more immigrants from more nations than probably any other western nation. Most of the inhabitants of our largest city are now foreign born. So if Iraqi's don't want to come to Canada, it isn't like we singled them out.

I think many go to European nations because it is a) closer, and b) quite tolerant to those coming in just living their lives, and in Canada we treat immigrants much the same.

IN fact, When you have Switzerland banning Mosque minarets, and unemployment of French Muslim youth being so high, I would question how well the nations of the EC are actually handling this immigration. Factor in that Muslims have a higher birth rate, and most western Christian nations in Europe are NOT having enough kids to replace themselves, and Europe is due for some interesting demographics.

IN short, I wouldn't be scolding Canada or the US on taking in Iraqi's. One of the largest Iraqi ex pat communities is in Dearborn Michigan, and a friend of mine with the CBC was there when the war started doing a doc on how the people reacted, and they were all for the US invading Iraq, much to the dismay of the Montreal born producer who had a disdain for all things American. My buddy tried to warn her too.....

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 20:34

For me, the "proving" has little to do with it. They appearred to be in the wrong place at the wrong time in circumstances that suggested that they may or may not have been the enemy, and indeed that proof, objectivily speaking, is very very weak that they were the enemy at the moment the trigger was pulled.

There are those that would require far more concrete proof than what is in the video and because children were shot inside the van, the chopper pilots should be court martialed and condemned...shows bad character, gun happy nuts and so forth and all the rest

What they do not get is the proof after the fact is immaterial.

And that in war, life is very cheap--including your own life, which some general is more than happy to spend wherever---- and it just does not take much to get killed. Indeed, it is more like random chance

If you had posted this post about 3 pages ago, I would have had a different take on how I approached this.

You say the proof is immaterial. Well is it? The US Military investigates things all the time on their own. There is a rules of engagement, and while Iraq is a nasty and hostile place to be an American in some spots, there was still some sort of command and control in theory on what should be targets, and what isn't.

Listen, I get the nasty bits of combat. I didn't have to got to Vietnam to get that on the front lines things are quickly changing, and you have to be in kill or be killed mode, but in this video, it wasn't really evident there was a threat, and it isn't like the Apache isn't capable from getting away and coming back around to get a different view of the target area. Those guys are the best combat helicopter pilots in the world in theory, and I didn't expect them to have the attitude of "lets just hose them down because they look suspicious" .

War is hell as Sherman once said, but in the modern era, camera's depict the hell, the horror and the injustice at times, and they don't lie. There is no evidence this attack was on terrorists, and the fact the tape was buried for 3 years says to me that someone didn't want this video seen by the outside world. Take it for what it is. I am not blaming Bush, Obama or any political leader for this, I am just saying there are times when military units do things they know they shouldn't and they do their level best to not let anyone know they screwed the pooch. Well in this video, it is a WAG that someone screwed up...

Rani

11th April 2010, 20:44

lol, so predictable, it dont take very long if someone says an opinion about israeli immigration policy or what ever critic about israel until the hitler or holocaust card comes from the sleeve, personally i think inflation has eaten it allready, its used too often, and causes more or less amusement nowdays.
Yeah, lol.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 20:50

So you decided to use the Nazi-card at this stage, how predictable and convenient. Haven't you noticed that Europeans and Americans aren't complaining about Jews in their neighborhood that much anymore, instead they are more often complaining about Muslims in their neighborhood. Times change, so do victims.

On don't worry Eki, I am sure I can turn up some anti-Semites and anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists. Just open up a thread on the Palenstinians and they will all come out of the woodwork.

Americans have the largest Jewish community outside of Israel, probably LARGER actually than is in Israel, so to say Americans complain about Jew's is a bit of misnomer. They do attack Israel's foreign policy at some levels, but I wouldn't say it was anti Jewish conspiracy at all.

Certainly not like the one Hitler had created.

AS for Muslims, well yes, guilty as charged. North American society has taken in a lot of Muslims, but in the light of the push for Shariah law in Canada there is a backlash, and in light of the fact some native born Americans keep joining the radical fringe of Muslim society in the Jihad; has created a fuss. Still don't see anyone in the Congress or House of Commons here advocating laws to control or curb Muslim immigration or to treat them different. Both nations have protection of religious freedoms in the Constitution. It isn't a question.

So don't be claiming victim status for Muslims in North America. They are doing quite well actually, and MOST (99% I would wager) fit in JUST fine.

I haven't seen Muslim race riots on the streets of any city over here, but I do know Paris has had a few, and there has been some in the Netherlands.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 20:52

Yeah, lol.

I hope you dont understand me wrong, i have visited Auscwitch and a smaller camp name Stutthof to pay respect, and know quite much about what did happen then, but to pull that card every time when its raining a bit is ridiculous, dont you think?

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 20:59

I hope you dont understand me wrong, i have visited Auscwitch and a smaller camp name Stutthof to pay respect, and know quite much about what did happen then, but to pull that card every time when its raining a bit is ridiculous, dont you think?

Tomi, it didn't happen to your family. If you a member of a group that has tattooed ID numbers put there by the Germans as if you were a piece of meet, it is a far more emotionally charged response.

I don't think Rani was trying to "go there" so much as make a point.....

The fact is, No one ever targeted Finn's as if they were cattle to be slaughtered any more than anyone tried to systematically wipe out Scots/Irish Canadians, so you and I really are talking about this from an abstract point of view. It is like men talking about Child birth. Our perspective isn't going to be the same as a woman's.....and it is that with the Holocaust. Jews cannot see it the same as we do, because they were the ones almost wiped out. I would think they shouldn't look at it the same as we do...

Tomi

11th April 2010, 21:05

Tomi, it didn't happen to your family. If you a member of a group that has tattooed ID numbers put there by the Germans as if you were a piece of meet, it is a far more emotionally charged response.

I don't think Rani was trying to "go there" so much as make a point.....

The fact is, No one ever targeted Finn's as if they were cattle to be slaughtered any more than anyone tried to systematically wipe out Scots/Irish Canadians, so you and I really are talking about this from an abstract point of view. It is like men talking about Child birth. Our perspective isn't going to be the same as a woman's.....and it is that with the Holocaust. Jews cannot see it the same as we do, because they were the ones almost wiped out. I would think they shouldn't look at it the same as we do...

Still its ridiculous, every time when someone give critic, the holocaust card slips from the sleeve, i have a feeling that those who got killed in the camps might be annoyed aswell.

Mark in Oshawa

11th April 2010, 21:24

Still its ridiculous, every time when someone give critic, the holocaust card slips from the sleeve, i have a feeling that those who got killed in the camps might be annoyed aswell.
I didn't read Rani's point in that light Tomi, but if I did, I would just say this. The Jew's and the Holocaust cannot be separated in this generation. When the last survivor of that era dies, maybe they will view it as in the past, but I know a few Jews that have relatives who escaped or were in the camps. Rani does too. It isn't history to them, it was a reality..and it can cloud how they view the world in a way we wont grasp.

Rani's post I didn't think was using as a "card" so much as he was trying to make a point, and of course he is going to use one he knows.

I am really leary of accusing all Jew's of playing that card, because no one bats an eyelash when a Muslim goes off on a tirade about the Crusades and how Christianity is trying to suborn them....we just sigh and are supposed to feel guilty or something. Which is NONSENSE....

The Jewish people (not Israel but Jews in general) do not bring this up in every day conversation, but I can tell you they are always aware of it. It is what it is.....It isn't a lie, and no one can say it didn't happen. So for him to use it to make a point isn't gratitutious, it is what he understands. You and I may or may not like it, but it is what it is.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 21:35

I didn't read Rani's point in that light Tomi, but if I did, I would just say this. The Jew's and the Holocaust cannot be separated in this generation. When the last survivor of that era dies, maybe they will view it as in the past, but I know a few Jews that have relatives who escaped or were in the camps. Rani does too. It isn't history to them, it was a reality..and it can cloud how they view the world in a way we wont grasp.

Rani's post I didn't think was using as a "card" so much as he was trying to make a point, and of course he is going to use one he knows.

I am really leary of accusing all Jew's of playing that card, because no one bats an eyelash when a Muslim goes off on a tirade about the Crusades and how Christianity is trying to suborn them....we just sigh and are supposed to feel guilty or something. Which is NONSENSE....

The Jewish people (not Israel but Jews in general) do not bring this up in every day conversation, but I can tell you they are always aware of it. It is what it is.....It isn't a lie, and no one can say it didn't happen. So for him to use it to make a point isn't gratitutious, it is what he understands. You and I may or may not like it, but it is what it is.

Well, when the holocaust or hitler is used to get political benefit or to water out some political discussion i think its used wrongly, ok now the question is what has the holocaust or hitler to do with israeli immigration policy today, that was the actual issue, if nothing, then what might be the motives to bring those up?

Rani

11th April 2010, 22:12

Still its ridiculous, every time when someone give critic, the holocaust card slips from the sleeve, i have a feeling that those who got killed in the camps might be annoyed aswell.
The thing is, that I said that not to counter critique, but to counter a way of thinking. Maybe I should have said that maybe if the first descendents of the "Americans" didn't start migrating to America in the 16th century the US wouldn't be in Iraq and scandinavia wouldn't have an asylum seekers problem. Of course saying stuff like that is utter nonsense.

While Americans (not meaning native americans of course) as we know it started living there for only the last 500 or so years, there is proof of jews living as a nation in Israel from as early as about 1270 BC. Anyone care to check when Islam started so we can check "the native israelis'" (as Eki and markabijy view it) claim to this land?
I'll give you all a hint, the time difference is the same as the difference between today and days when the Roman empire went through a crisis. That's just the time difference- The times of the Ipod (Iphone, Ipad, whatever) versus the times of the Three kingdoms in China. Jews have a historic right to the land of Israel more than a lot of other nations have to theirs.

Forget Mein Kampf, I now hope everyone (except Eki, he never understands me) gets what I meant.
It seems everyone is tired of Jews reminding of the Holocaust because it makes them feel guilty. No one likes to feel that way and it reminds them that many of their nations who always proud themselves on equal oppurtunities and no discrimination simply appeased the Nazis by giving away their jewish population, feeding them to that monster so it won't give them any trouble. I don't want to make you feel guilty, it's only a reminder of history. While it's very productive here (in Israel) when you explain something to a jew, I now understand non-jews see it as condescending. That's not what I meant.

Eki

11th April 2010, 22:24

The thing is, that I said that not to counter critique, but to counter a way of thinking. Maybe I should have said that maybe if the first descendents of the "Americans" didn't start migrating to America in the 16th century the US wouldn't be in Iraq and scandinavia wouldn't have an asylum seekers problem. Of course saying stuff like that is utter nonsense.

While Americans (not meaning native americans of course) as we know it started living there for only the last 500 or so years, there is proof of jews living as a nation in Israel from as early as about 1270 BC. Anyone care to check when Islam started so we can check "the native israelis'" (as Eki and markabijy view it) claim to this land?
Judaism is a religion, not a nation. There isn't a Lutheran nation or a Muslim nation either. OK, there's a Catholic nation, which is starting to look more and more ridiculous after all these pedophile scandals.

Tomi

11th April 2010, 22:28

It seems everyone is tired of Jews reminding of the Holocaust because it makes them feel guilty.

Lol, why should I feel guilty, I was not even born then?
Reminding holocaust i think is ok and I have have no problem with it, long as it is used with respect to those who got killed there, not to benefit pity or other advantage, dont you think the same?

Rani

11th April 2010, 22:33

Judaism is a religion, not a nation. There isn't a Lutheran nation or a Muslim nation either. OK, there's a Catholic nation, which is starting to look more and more ridiculous after all these pedophile scandals.
Then why did my Israeli citizen ID read 'Jewish' next to "Nationality"?
:rolleyes:

I suggest you read the definition of the word 'nation' or the first sentence of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews'

Rani

11th April 2010, 22:35

not to benefit pity or other advantage, dont you think the same?
I absolutely agree. Had I known that this is the way people here would view it I wouldn't have posted.

Eki

11th April 2010, 22:52

Then why did my Israeli citizen ID read 'Jewish' next to "Nationality"?
:rolleyes:

Beats me. My nationality is Finnish and not Lutheran. My religion isn't anywhere in my passport or other ID document.

Also in WW2, the Finns considered the Finnish Jews to be Finns above all and not Jews:

http://www.mannerheim.fi/06_vsota/e_suhsak.htm

There was a very special "brotherhood in arms" between Germany and Finland, which was not based on a union pact. A number of Jews, for example, fought in the ranks of the Finnish army, although that would have been impossible in the German army. During the "brotherhood" Mannerheim endeavoured to take advantage of his relations with Germany – e.g. through Göring – to liberate some persons imprisoned by Germans. The decision not to return to Germany Jew refugees charged for different reasons was partly based on Mannerheim’s authority.

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/sf/EncJud_juden-in-Finnland-ENGL.html

During the Finnish-Russian War of 1939-40, Jews fought alongside the Finns. When Viipuri (Vyborg) was annexed to the Soviet Union, the Jews (about 300 persons) evacuated the city along with the Finns. During World War II (1941-44) Finland fought on the German side against the Soviet Union, but, despite strong German pressure, the Finnish authorities, headed by Field Marshal Mannerheim refused to enforce anti-Jewish legislation. 160 Jews who did not possess Finnish nationality found refuge in neutral Sweden. At one stage the Finns yielded and allowed the Gestapo to deport 50 Jews from Finland who had arrived as refugees from Austria and the Baltic countries before the Nazi invasion. However, after dispatch of the first transport of 11 Jews, who were murdered at their destination, Mannerheim and the Finnish authorities refused to continue the operation. The peace treaty between the Allies and Finland prohibited racial discrimination and thereafter Jews again enjoyed full civil rights.

Eki

11th April 2010, 23:14

Then why did my Israeli citizen ID read 'Jewish' next to "Nationality"?
:rolleyes:

I wonder if the Germans during the WW2 had 'Aryan' next to 'Nationality' in their IDs. I know the Jews had to wear the star of David.

anthonyvop

12th April 2010, 02:36

I wonder if the Germans during the WW2 had 'Aryan' next to 'Nationality' in their IDs. I know the Jews had to wear the star of David.

Stop it.

This thread is about bias anti-American reporting. It has nothing to do with your lame attempts to turn it into another of your Anti-Israeli diatribes.

airshifter

12th April 2010, 05:19

The US and the UK had a new resolution ready that would have justified the invasion, but since the US knew beforehand they would lose the voting , they decided to invade and not present the resolution.

For your information, they can't pass resolutions that condemn action taken in Iraq, since the US has the right to veto them. It would be a futile exercise.

You forgot Spain, but regardless none of them needed a further resolution. Since 1991 Iraq had been in violation of cease fire agreements that required them to completely cooperate. Various resolutions dating back as far as 1990 authorized member nations to take action.

And for your information, nobody forced all the various Security Council members to agree to these resolutions. Had they never been made the authorization for use of force would have never existed.

Bob Riebe

12th April 2010, 06:40

You have not answered my question, perhaps not surprisingly. Exactly what is it that makes you any less of a 'damn fool' than anyone else offering an opinion here? I must say that your comments in other threads hardly mark you out as a great expert on military matters.
I answered your question,you do not like the answer

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 10:44

I answered your question,you do not like the answer

In what sense was your set of comments an answer? You completely fail, yet again, to tell us why your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's, especially those whose views you dismiss out of hand without anything to back up your assertions. There's absolutely no evidence as to why it should.

markabilly

12th April 2010, 12:50

You say the proof is immaterial. Well is it? ...
yes proof after the fact is completely immaterial.

However, that is not true when it comes to the general thinking of the population, so releasing the video only leads to outcries by folks that have not been there in those situations and think war should be fought by civilized rules; yet fail to see the hypocrisy of sanction widespread bombing that kills unnamed civilains and children (one example of many)

markabilly

12th April 2010, 13:36

Right or wrong, pro jewish or anti-jewish or moslem, that is true beyond dispute. In the absence of Israel and all jews in the iddle east, things would would be very quiet and the problems would not be there.

I say the one simple and undeniable truth.
And the resonse is this--that I am little different from Hitler:

That reminds me of a man I read and hear about every once in a while. He would very much agree with you...........

. He wrote a book about it, I'm sure you'd relate to many of his ideas, here's a link for you to purchase it if your local library doesn't have a copy: http://www.amazon.com/Mein-Kampf-Adolf-Hitler/dp/817224164X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271006611&sr=8-1

Too bad he put an end to his life 65 years ago, I'm sure many regret he didn't have a chance to see what the jews he tried to kill have done with their original motherland.
It's a funny coincidence as today is Yom Hashoah eve here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_HaShoah

all you have done in your posts is demonstrate your hypocrisy----calling the american pilots "cowboys" and such

In 1996, who was responsible for the deliberate massacre of 106 civilians of at Qana, Lebanon?

How many children died?
And your government denied any responsiblility( talk about a cover-up!!!!)....although any idiot should have known that the shelling would, without question, kill children for a faint hope that somewhere there might be some enemy personnel with a mortar--a motar that was used to stop israeli soldiers from laying mines close to the camp...and mines have killed as many children as enemy soldiers in the middle east...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre

and I could go on and on and on with many other examples over and over

and then there is this from the religious as i cited earlier:

BTW-Rani must be of the new breed rather than the old breed, as the old breed I knew and heard of, would have no problem hunting down and killing anything that threatened them and their country. Even if it meant some assassinations and blowing up a hotel or two.......and it seems to be a lingering attitude there today as in this:
Chabad rabbi: Jews should kill Arab men, women and children during war
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1091469.html

""The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: Destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women and children (and cattle),"

and I could cite many more examples .....after all what other Rabbi said:
"A millions arabs are not worth a single Jewish fingernail?"

Yes, Mark of Oshawa, you picked a real good "cowboy" to be relying on for opinions of professionalism

markabilly

12th April 2010, 13:53

and if that is too dated for you, how about 2006, in Qana, again, in which 28 civilians were killed while sleeping and wearing their bedclothes, of which 16 were children

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Qana_airstrike

Mark in Oshawa

12th April 2010, 14:30

yes proof after the fact is completely immaterial.

However, that is not true when it comes to the general thinking of the population, so releasing the video only leads to outcries by folks that have not been there in those situations and think war should be fought by civilized rules; yet fail to see the hypocrisy of sanction widespread bombing that kills unnamed civilains and children (one example of many)

See, this is where you just go off the rails.

This attitude that only people who have been in combat have a right to even discuss this is utter BS. I see the hypocracy alright. I know that people sitting in ivory towers in Washington sent your sorry behind off to Nam to fight a war with handcuffs on. I get that. I get that people were carpet bombed and attacked as a matter of state policy in WW2 too.

I also know in the last 20 years technology, media coverage and the general education of the public has made warfare a public spectacle at all times. You think this is nothing, it should all be washed under the carpet because as you point out, these things happen, and hey...it was just a few kids in a van, what is THAT compared to the RAF leveling Dresden? Well we are not talking about the RAF in WW2 returning to the Germans what they did to Coventry, but we are talking about the sainted and mighty US of A who went to Iraq to liberate it from the regime of Saddam Hussein. So wouldn't be a REALLY good idea as "liberators" to not be using 50 million dollar Apache gunships to not wipe out a van full of civilians and then have the gun camera tape of the action NOT in the public domain of the pilots talking like they did something grand?

Wouldn't be nice for there to be an explaination for this?

One other than "you weren't there, you cannot understand"? BS...I get where you are coming from, but I watched the tape and there was not a enough threat to justify hosing the area down. Sorry, Not buying it. Just because intelligence says "No friendlies in the area", doesn't mean anyone on the street at that point is a terrorist. If you are using THAT mindset, then as I said, carpet bomb Iraq because, hey, they all could be threats.

You guys are supposed to be better than that. That is the line I get from people like Tony whenever the USA of questioned. I usually agree Americans are better than this, and just once I wish you would call one as the rest of the world see's it rather than wrapping oneself in the flag and telling the rest of us we are not smart enough to get it.

BDunnell

12th April 2010, 16:50

yes proof after the fact is completely immaterial.

However, that is not true when it comes to the general thinking of the population, so releasing the video only leads to outcries by folks that have not been there in those situations

I assume you have never offered an opinion on any subject that you have never had any professional involvement in, then?

Eki

12th April 2010, 16:50

Rani

12th April 2010, 18:21

I say the one simple and undeniable truth.
And the resonse is this--that I am little different from Hitler:

all you have done in your posts is demonstrate your hypocrisy----calling the american pilots "cowboys" and such

In 1996, who was responsible for the deliberate massacre of 106 civilians of at Qana, Lebanon?

How many children died?
And your government denied any responsiblility( talk about a cover-up!!!!)....although any idiot should have known that the shelling would, without question, kill children for a faint hope that somewhere there might be some enemy personnel with a mortar--a motar that was used to stop israeli soldiers from laying mines close to the camp...and mines have killed as many children as enemy soldiers in the middle east...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre

I won't comment about Qana, If you like you can read my thoughts on it in my posting history.

I'm a firm believer that People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Do you have the faintest idea how many innocent civilian deaths your country has caused over the course of its existence?

What about the Hiroshima massacre? 90000-14000 dead.
What about Nagasaki? (tens of thousands here also),

What about My Lai? 347 to 504 CIVILIANS were killed by your 7th Cavalry regiment.Many in cold blood with small arms fire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

What about Tiger Force's antics in Quang Nam ? http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/tigerforce/BigMap.pdf

In the past century the US is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousand of innocent civilians. It doesn't compare that well in my opinion. We both know war brings a lot of suffering for both sides. You as an american soldier calling the IDF savages looks a bit ridiculous in view of your armed forces' antics over the years.

By the way, The Lebanese border is about an hour and a half drive away from where I grew up. In 2006 some rockets the Hizbuallah (who take shelter in villages and people's houses, just like Hamas) fired hit very close to there. Last year a grad rocket hit a few hundred meters from where I lived.

We protected our homes in 2006 in Lebanon and in 2009 in Gaza.

How many hours of driving does it take to get from your house to My Lai? Did a VC rocket hit near your home the days prior to your invasion?
and I could go on and on and on with many other examples over and over

and I could cite many more examples .....after all what other Rabbi said:
"A millions arabs are not worth a single Jewish fingernail?"

So your judging the whole jewish nation by the words of a man who confused his rear end with his mouth?
Why don't I judge your nation by the good people of the Westboro Baptist Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Hated_Family_in_America

http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/00260/atheist/the-most-hated-family-in-america/

Are you one of your 'New Breed'?

Yes, Mark of Oshawa, you picked a real good "cowboy" to be relying on for opinions of professionalism

What does anything you've posted have to do with me?
You don't know a single thing about me accept my nickname and the city I reside in.

Concerning the subject at hand, I'd like you to know I admire your soldiers. They seem to come mostly from weak financial backrounds and are shipped to places I'm sure many of them couldn't find on a map. Add to this most of the people better off in the US don't recognize the sacrfices they give for their country and many times for the world as a whole. How could your country live with the fact that Memorial day has become a national day of shopping for a great deal of americans? I salute your soldiers abroad. Some of them are true unsung heros.
This does not change my opinion about the Apache pilots.

donKey jote

12th April 2010, 20:58

Yesterday I saw a French documentary named "Ghosts of Mylai", I think it was quite "fair and balanced" and showed there were both "bad" Americans and "good" Americans at Mylai. For example, an American helicopter crew saved several Vietnamese civilians by stepping between them and the Charlie company that were going to throw hand-grenades in a bunker full of civilians. The pilot talked to the civilians and convinced them that they were safe to come out. To his crew he told to open fire at the Charlie Company if they opened fire at the civilians. Another example was when Lt Calley told one his men to open machine gun fire at civilians. The man said he couldn't do that and Calley pushed him aside and started to gun them down himself. They interviewed an old Vietnamese lady who had survived Mylai and asked if she can forgive the Americans. She replied that she can forgive and reminded that not all Americans took part in the massacre, not even everyone in the Charlie company. I wish everyone could be as forgiving, there would be much less terrorism in the world.
I too have recently seen a similar documentary "Four hours in My Lai" (YTV 1989, BAFTA and International Emmy)... the contrast between Hugh Thompson and these videogame kids made me so angry that I decided to post in a thread like this, and mention My Lai to Markabilly.

If My Lai were to happen again today, I guess the Vops of this world would view Thompson as the traitor for (in their warped minds) putting the US-troops in some sort of hypothetical danger (how about: I didn´t rape her, I was just checking for concealed weapons... or: what if that baby were carrying a hand grenade?), and would hail the murdering scum as heroes for blindly obeying orders no matter how immoral (the main defence at Nüremberg)... but I digress, My Lai has nothing to do with this isolated incident in WikiLeaks.
As Mark says, the problem here is not so much the collateral but the cover-up. Makes you wonder how many so-called insurgents really were or are insurgents in the intended sense of the word.

I also mentioned Gaza in my post, as I recalled discussions over "collateral damage" with Rani during Cast Lead. Rani despite our disagreement I had to respect your views then, but I admit to being surprised at your views in this thread -more similar to mine then and now-.
But of course, Baghdad has nothing to do with Gaza either...

donKey jote

12th April 2010, 21:07

You forgot Spain,.

Don´t take the name of Spain in vane ;) :p

Mr Ansar (who?) (http://www.escolar.net/MT/archives/aznar-azores.jpg) went it alone without the backing of 80% of the Spanish people.

Eki

12th April 2010, 21:09

I too have recently seen a similar documentary "Four hours in My Lai" (YTV 1989, BAFTA and International Emmy)... the contrast between Hugh Thompson and these videogame kids made me so angry that I decided to post in a thread like this, and mention My Lai to Markabilly.

If My Lai were to happen again today, I guess the Vops of this world would view Thompson as the traitor for (in their warped minds) putting the US-troops in some sort of hypothetical danger
Thanks for remembering Thompson's name, donkey. He really deserves to be remembered. A true hero:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.

Mark in Oshawa

12th April 2010, 22:57

Rani, I salute you. The only point you made I might quibble with was the Hiroshima and Nagaski bombs being put in the same light with My Lai or this incident. The fact is, the war with Japan was one to the end, and the Japanese had clearly lost on all counts by the spring of 45, and yet continued to fight and die to the last man in every confrontation. They also wouldn't even consider surrerender even though the US had blockaded Japan.

The dropping of the Nuclear weapons jolted the Emperor into finally doing something and the madmen running Japan realized finally the inevitablity of what they were facing. The Americans had carried on the same conventional war that all western nations had fought at that time and had suffered great losses of their own. To say the A-Bombs were an affront to civil behaviour in the same manner My Lai was is in many ways true, but how many would have died had the Allies continued the war to its most logical conclusion, in that they would have to invade the home islands? The Russians were gearing up to join in the war at that point as well, so one might ask what would have been the fate of Japan? How many would have died as the Nipponese Bushido code was carried out as soldiers died to the last man on their home soil? The A-bombs were a tragic event, and I hope we never see them again, but lets face it, Japan wasn't going to care if they sacrificed everyone in a conventional war but the nuclear reality finally put a stop to it.

markabilly

13th April 2010, 03:27

I'm a firm believer that People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
.
Amen, bro!!!! but alas, like any hypocrite, you are quick to distinguish and weave around...drag up Hitler and so forth.....and admit anything but the truth.

fact is I do not outright condemn those attacks, despite the fact that the officers in charge had all the time to think about it before they took action and were deliberate attacks on civilains with the clear foreknowledge that civilains and children were likely to be killed--very unlike the situation of the guys in the choppers.

and I could cite many more examples of the so called "professionalism" of your force--or lack thereof, based solely on the standards you seek to impose on others.

If you were honest, you would admit to the fact that you have no clue nor basis for your opinions about the guys in the chopper and shut up......but obviously you are not. :dozey:

as to the stuff in Nam, as I said, when I stepped on the ground, no way would I have ever been involved in such stuff or anything close to it......but after a few months, things got very hazy--as it did for everyone truly in the jungle----- and I would have be a hypocrite to sit on my holier than thou throne with the rest of you and pass judgment on those others (but I certainly would not hail them as conquering hereos). And I think you Rani and the rest are just arm chair quarterbacks trying to impose standards on others that you could never live up yourself

markabilly

13th April 2010, 03:48

I assume you have never offered an opinion on any subject that you have never had any professional involvement in, then?
Do it all the time but always with the recognition there are some situations that do require the equivalent experience of being there to be able to relate to what happenned.

And my point is that many are judging this after the fact, rather than in the heat of the moment. And in this case, you can not judge the heat of the moment unless you been in similair situations.

and for the first time this weekend, courtesy of a friend who had it on his DVR, I watched a repeat of that series "the Pacific" on HBO about Peleliu, and parts of that show bothered me so much and brought back memories, that I failed to watch the rest and have no plans to see the rest.

Bob Riebe

13th April 2010, 05:49

In what sense was your set of comments an answer? You completely fail, yet again, to tell us why your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's, especially those whose views you dismiss out of hand without anything to back up your assertions. There's absolutely no evidence as to why it should.
This thread is not about me, I have to prove nothing, but to calm your snit-fit:
My opinion is based on the reality of the tiny amount of information we have of the occurrence

Do you have any idea, even a hint, of what transpired BEFORE or AFTER that scene.

NO you do not, YET you seem to be offended that I do not simpy roll-over and accept your vacuous condemnations of the soldiers based on nothing more than you elevating your-selves to some higher moral ground based on your opinions of your-selves.
You, or they, are condemning them because you, or they, are trying to sell your self-righteous opinions based on a vacuous premise, as absolute fact.

You were not there, the video DOES NOT show what transpired earlier,or later.
I am not condemning the soldiers, and unless you gives proof that YOUR condemnations are based on some absolute facts you possess, your opinions are all merely self-centered and self-righteous.

Mark in Oshawa

13th April 2010, 05:54

markabilly

13th April 2010, 14:50

Markabilly, even if I was there in Nam beside you, would you not at least acknowledge that hosing down a van full of civilians JUST might look BAD, even if if the tape is taken out of context. I can accept the argument that the take is out of context to a point, but based on the tape, an investigation would bring up the context.....and THAT is why I am saying they should have one.

You automatically think I am condemning these guys to time in Leavenworth. I am not...but I would be asking a lot of questions...because the tape looks damning, and you know it as well as I. Your argument is "you don't know what it is like"....and you are right, I don't. But I sure as hell know what someone unarmed getting hosed by an Apache looks like.....
I would not want you or anyone else there.

But if you had been in that chopper, you would not know who was armed and who was not armed, and whether someone was not going to pop out of that van and start blasting away, but you would know that you would not be the first chopper pilot (along with your partner) to crash and burn from a shoulder launched missile, rpg or from rifle fire.

and you would know that you would not be the first to let someone go who kills again, but if they did, it would be your responsibility for failing to stop it.

You would know about car bombs, and people blowing up themselves and your fellow comrades and civilains, probably seen the blood first hand, and would know these kind of people going to villages and committing wholesale slaughter on others.

You would know why you were sent there that day because those sorts of people were there.......your job was to find them and put a stop to them by killing them

And by then you would have gotten over that sick feeling from pulling the trigger and seeing the results....and probably become very desensitized or disassociated with it, a form of denial and self preservation that permits you to live with such things. But it does not mean you do not still feel some strange overwhelming emotion when it happens....

But then, in that case, maybe you would not be on the throne and preaching hypocrisy like Rani.....or maybe not.

airshifter

15th April 2010, 07:02

The actual investigation documents are available on the CENTCOM website. I suspect most won't bother looking at them, in fear that it might not support their view on the events.

Though I didn't read all the stuff available, it does give an indication as to the frame of mind of the pilots, and the events previous to their arrival. There are also some photos that do in fact show the reporters in the direct vicinity of other men carrying AK-47s and RPGs.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=http%3a%2f%2fwww2.centcom .mil%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20 CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=0x012000587B38E487342246BDE36DE67B007E1 7

Mark in Oshawa

15th April 2010, 07:17

I would not want you or anyone else there.

But if you had been in that chopper, you would not know who was armed and who was not armed, and whether someone was not going to pop out of that van and start blasting away, but you would know that you would not be the first chopper pilot (along with your partner) to crash and burn from a shoulder launched missile, rpg or from rifle fire.

and you would know that you would not be the first to let someone go who kills again, but if they did, it would be your responsibility for failing to stop it.

You would know about car bombs, and people blowing up themselves and your fellow comrades and civilains, probably seen the blood first hand, and would know these kind of people going to villages and committing wholesale slaughter on others.

You would know why you were sent there that day because those sorts of people were there.......your job was to find them and put a stop to them by killing them

And by then you would have gotten over that sick feeling from pulling the trigger and seeing the results....and probably become very desensitized or disassociated with it, a form of denial and self preservation that permits you to live with such things. But it does not mean you do not still feel some strange overwhelming emotion when it happens....

But then, in that case, maybe you would not be on the throne and preaching hypocrisy like Rani.....or maybe not.

Maybe so.... and I see Shifter DOES have the link for the Centcom investigation. So good..there was one...THAT was my MAIN point....if there was more than what was on the tape, then that should be in the public domain.

I was only saying the tape was damning on the face of it and I found it weird that tape was out there and there was no talk of the investigation, and why was it all buried?

Mark in Oshawa

15th April 2010, 07:19

markabilly

15th April 2010, 13:21

Maybe so.... and I see Shifter DOES have the link for the Centcom investigation. So good..there was one...THAT was my MAIN point....if there was more than what was on the tape, then that should be in the public domain.

I was only saying the tape was damning on the face of it and I found it weird that tape was out there and there was no talk of the investigation, and why was it all buried?
my main point was life is very cheap in a war, yours and everyone else.
So it does not surprize me one way or the other about the guys in the chopper, even if no weapons had ever been seen.

I went there, because I got drafted and was something of a very anti-vietnam war type, but thought if i went as a medic, it would somehow be different, so I did not dodge my time.

Thing is they no longer give out the helmet with the white and red cross....makes too good a target.

But they now give you all the weapons and grenades and so forth, to go along with the medical stuff......so much for my plan.
talk about My Lai? Those people were the enemy, or appearred allied with them.

Upon arrival, I heard the story of a very recent shooting..where an NCO was shot dead by one soldier when he was in the procees of jumping on another soldier for something. Right out in the open. No fragging in the middle of the night. The attitude by the whole group of a number of soldiers in which it happenned, was very nonchalant.

same for snot nosed, punk asss Calley. His own troops were considering murdering him because of his arrogant stupidity had gotten one soldier killed and was likely to get more of them killed. A ticking time bomb was the whole group. When it started, for some it was another way for carrying out their rage on the "enemy" rather than on him. For others, they wished they had never been born.

I would love to think I would have been like Thompson, but.......before i was out of there, it could have been me pulling the trigger there that day. Indeed, it would have been everyone who ever posted on this board and who went through this stuff.

Including both Donkey and Eki. Oh yeah

Kid yourself not.

donKey jote

15th April 2010, 23:32

markabilly fair enough... could happen to anyone and yes probably even to a donkey in those circumstances...
still doesn´t make it right though :)

markabilly

16th April 2010, 01:42

markabilly fair enough... could happen to anyone and yes probably even to a donkey in those circumstances...
still doesn´t make it right though :)

never said any of it was right-far from it---unlike some around here, just said that it was not wrong, just war.

If anybody was wrong, it was the leaders, reporters, news media and all the rest who drag people off to a war, then act surprized and shocked that stuff like this happens, because babies, children and other innocents did not get killed according to some set of "civilized" rules of engagment.

Even worse is the reporters who show up wanting to photo some people getting killed and then talk about how the war is bad, yaydaada, when they are the ones who contributed to it happenning in the first place. Then they want to investigate so they can have some more news to report on, with their usual holier than thou attitude

One can pretend otherwise, but the victims are just as dead regardless of the exact details as to how it happened, in the rules or outside of the rules, on the news or ouside the news...

Sort of like someone repeatedly slapping a tiger on the nose, and then being surprized when the tiger bites their head off--nothing civilized about war. Then they want to blame the tiger for acting like a tiger

As whoever in that movie said....fussing about this kind of stuff, is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500 or putting bandages on someone after they had their head chopped off

and the word was would, not could. Saw enough "transformations" to know

markabilly

16th April 2010, 01:58

To be clear, for My Lai, I hold the leaders responsible for putting that piece of garbage in an officer's uniform and letting him lead men in a really tough environment. And for creating the war, and that includes Kennedy, LBJ and Nixon

The best thing would have been some soldier shooting him in the head after it became clear that he was getting his own people killed and putting them in danger from stupidity....but that would make me a sick whatever for saying such as some said about me, and certainly would be outside the rules of engagement and civilized behavior.

Instead, he does what anyone with an ounce of common sense should have expected..........sets it off....and then everyone is shocked.
Duh.

Malbec

21st April 2010, 04:00

Yes there was a shift, instead of backing off and taking casualties, as Bush had done for the first years, he took it to the enemy, while abandoning the asinine treatment the Sunnis recieved.
Bush had x amount of allied soldiers unnecessarily killed by a restricted kill zone and paranoid treatment of Sunnis in the early years. Absolutely.

You see what you want to see and nothing more.
Without the surge and increased killing zone, all the happy talk would have been nothing, but you only see what you want to see. Take the blinders off.
``

Bob apologies for not replying earlier, business took me away from the forum.

Firstly if you think there was merely an increased killing zone with the surge and nothing else then that shows your ignorance of Petraeus' policies. Bit odd for someone who speaks continually in defence of the US military.

But then you've continually ducked and weaved from my question which is as follows. Just to clarify, my question is the sentence followed by the question mark, the only such sentence in my post.

Taking your to statements regarding killing all potential threats to its logical conclusion you'd be in favour of giving your darling soldiers carte blanche to kill any civilian going, after all how do YOU know they were innocent of anything?

After five goes you should be able to spot the question this time and answer it.

Mark in Oshawa

21st April 2010, 04:13

Bob apologies for not replying earlier, business took me away from the forum.

Firstly if you think there was merely an increased killing zone with the surge and nothing else then that shows your ignorance of Petraeus' policies. Bit odd for someone who speaks continually in defence of the US military.

But then you've continually ducked and weaved from my question which is as follows. Just to clarify, my question is the sentence followed by the question mark, the only such sentence in my post.

Taking your to statements regarding killing all potential threats to its logical conclusion you'd be in favour of giving your darling soldiers carte blanche to kill any civilian going, after all how do YOU know they were innocent of anything?

After five goes you should be able to spot the question this time and answer it.

I think your point is where I was going Dylan. I don't doubt stupid things happen in combat. I am not naive, but the automatic defense was kneejerk and in my mind to be questioned. Airshifter's take on things and link to the Pentagon report on the incident tells me people did look at the incident in the proper context. I still don't like it, but hey, that is what a war zone will do. I just was asking for for an investigation, because the tape is terribly damning.

Too many people automatically defend those on "our side" as if no one can screw up. First rule of any war is the plan and the morality of it can be gone in an instant as fight or flight responses can kick in...

airshifter

22nd April 2010, 02:57

I think your point is where I was going Dylan. I don't doubt stupid things happen in combat. I am not naive, but the automatic defense was kneejerk and in my mind to be questioned. Airshifter's take on things and link to the Pentagon report on the incident tells me people did look at the incident in the proper context. I still don't like it, but hey, that is what a war zone will do. I just was asking for for an investigation, because the tape is terribly damning.

Too many people automatically defend those on "our side" as if no one can screw up. First rule of any war is the plan and the morality of it can be gone in an instant as fight or flight responses can kick in...

Fair enough view, but in the interest of of looking at all views in the same perspective most of the initial comments on this thread were just as biased and lacking in information of the entire chain of events.

With initial posts containing statements from "coverup" to "murderers" to "war criminals" it's safe to say that most didn't view the investigation showing that there were in fact weapons present before voicing an opinion.

Defending actions without proper supporting evidence is in my view no worse than condemning actions without proper evidence. And I'll add that I'd bet money since posting the link I did, that the vast majority won't read it yet will maintain their original position.

markabilly

22nd April 2010, 04:45

:rolleyes:

.

Taking your to statements regarding killing all potential threats to its logical conclusion you'd be in favour of giving your darling soldiers carte blanche to kill any civilian going, after all how do YOU know they were innocent of anything?
.

You mean like the RAF did when Churchill and his generals gave carte blanche to kill any and all innocent civilians living in Dresden and other German cities with fire bombs??

Even though many of whom were refugeess from countries who had initially fought against germany?

After all when the germans burned their victims in concentration camps, they were already dead, and were not burned to death or sufferring the long slow death that occurs from burns on one's skin....

or do you mean like when the RAF participated with its bombers in the cold war, bombers carrying nothing but "city busters" (20 megaton H-bombs) designed to kill everyone, including babies, be they born or unborn, living in large cities? Of course they never dropped any, as the opportunity failed to present itself....but would if they were presented with an opportunity to do so....

Or the guded bombs and missiles that hit targets that turned out to be purely civilian in Iraq...

But of course, this was all pursuant to "rules of engagement" so that makes it just fine and dandy, a-okay, and all so civilized, not some guy facing getting shot at daily, pulling the trigger and making it personal

or I could add, the bombings in the Falklands or in Iraq, where civilians were simply treated as mere collateral damage....

Or perhaps like what Finnland did during WWII when it fought on the side of the Nazi and maintained concentration camps in karelia where many "innocents" died as well as the issues of torture of Russian prisoners........I especially like the sign of "Transfer camp. Entry to the camp and conversations through the fence are forbidden under the penalty of death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

yes, turn loose the dogs of war, oh yea hypocrites, and then get all excited..oh, my oh my, they killed innocents outside the civilized rules of engagement, and not within the rules for burning babies pursuant to civilized war.... :rolleyes:

..mind you, I do not blame the RAF pilots for doing what they did or would have done, but the generals and the leaders, that is an entirely different matter, as Ioan so succiently pointed out, a number of posts ago.

markabilly

22nd April 2010, 04:51

Defending actions without proper supporting evidence is in my view no worse than condemning actions without proper evidence. And I'll add that I'd bet money since posting the link I did, that the vast majority won't read it yet will maintain their original position.
Does not matter if there were, in fact, weapons, except to hypocrites (most of whom do not realize their hypocrisy for many good and valid reasons). With weapons or without, it changes nothing except it makes some feel better to know there is evidence of weapons.....

No need to say more, as anyone can read the other posts to see why.

Mark in Oshawa

22nd April 2010, 15:58

Malbec

22nd April 2010, 20:03

:rolleyes:

You mean like the RAF did when Churchill and his generals gave carte blanche to kill any and all innocent civilians living in Dresden and other German cities with fire bombs??

Even though many of whom were refugeess from countries who had initially fought against germany?

After all when the germans burned their victims in concentration camps, they were already dead, and were not burned to death or sufferring the long slow death that occurs from burns on one's skin....

or do you mean like when the RAF participated with its bombers in the cold war, bombers carrying nothing but "city busters" (20 megaton H-bombs) designed to kill everyone, including babies, be they born or unborn, living in large cities? Of course they never dropped any, as the opportunity failed to present itself....but would if they were presented with an opportunity to do so....

Or the guded bombs and missiles that hit targets that turned out to be purely civilian in Iraq...

But of course, this was all pursuant to "rules of engagement" so that makes it just fine and dandy, a-okay, and all so civilized, not some guy facing getting shot at daily, pulling the trigger and making it personal

or I could add, the bombings in the Falklands or in Iraq, where civilians were simply treated as mere collateral damage....[/I]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

yes, turn loose the dogs of war, oh yea hypocrites, and then get all excited..oh, my oh my, they killed innocents outside the civilized rules of engagement, and not within the rules for burning babies pursuant to civilized war.... :rolleyes:

..mind you, I do not blame the RAF pilots for doing what they did or would have done, but the generals and the leaders, that is an entirely different matter, as Ioan so succiently pointed out, a number of posts ago.

I think you misunderstood my post completely. I was asking whether there is any civilian Bob Riebe wouldn't advocate the killing of just in case they were a potential threat. It speaks volumes that he STILL hasn't responded.

BTW, living in Britain does not make it automatic that I support everything Britain has done I'm afraid.

Re: Dresden I believe it was on this forum that there was a recent thread on the subject matter where I made my opinions VERY clear. Also regarding the British nightbombing campaign, understand that the driving force was pure vengeance for the Luftwaffe attacks on the UK. Intellectual arguments talking about hitting German industry miss the point in explaining British strategy. As such it was supported by the British public at the time. Does that make it right? No.

If you want to attack someone about Dresden you're barking up the wrong tree.

Bob Riebe

22nd April 2010, 23:01

Mark in Oshawa

23rd April 2010, 07:48

I think you misunderstood my post completely. I was asking whether there is any civilian Bob Riebe wouldn't advocate the killing of just in case they were a potential threat. It speaks volumes that he STILL hasn't responded.

BTW, living in Britain does not make it automatic that I support everything Britain has done I'm afraid.

Re: Dresden I believe it was on this forum that there was a recent thread on the subject matter where I made my opinions VERY clear. Also regarding the British nightbombing campaign, understand that the driving force was pure vengeance for the Luftwaffe attacks on the UK. Intellectual arguments talking about hitting German industry miss the point in explaining British strategy. As such it was supported by the British public at the time. Does that make it right? No.

If you want to attack someone about Dresden you're barking up the wrong tree.

I can back you on this Dylan. I remember very distinctly your principled stand on the RAF raids on Dresden....

AAReagles

26th April 2010, 20:35

Fair enough view, but in the interest of of looking at all views in the same perspective most of the initial comments on this thread were just as biased and lacking in information of the entire chain of events.

With initial posts containing statements from "coverup" to "murderers" to "war criminals" it's safe to say that most didn't view the investigation showing that there were in fact weapons present before voicing an opinion.

Defending actions without proper supporting evidence is in my view no worse than condemning actions without proper evidence. And I'll add that I'd bet money since posting the link I did, that the vast majority won't read it yet will maintain their original position.

:up: Well put.

I see that the source leads to DOD. I haven’t read it, but I have no doubt the AAR ([After Actions Review) is detailed to some extent in there. The military is under a lot of pressure to ward off scrutiny these days, so I’m sure there must be some accuracy in the report – not the mention the fact that when this occurred it was during the surge of troops being deployed in the region to quell the insurgent activites.

Nevertheless, like others here, I hope to see some sort of follow up on this.

You make great sense in all your posts sitting here, safe and secure… But when you start killing people on a personal level at the age of 18 or 20, and when those people are doing their best to kill you and anyone like you, and you are seeing the results of their efforts not on TV but on the guy who was next to you, and you know the chances are real good, you may well be next, it does not take long before things get real hazy, you stop worrying over right and wrong… just start hoping to survive..
One of the few genuine posts on this thread. :up:

Guerrilla War by W. D. Ehrhart (Vietnam Vet)

It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Viet Cong.

Nobody wears uniforms.
They all talk
the same language
(and you couldn't understand them
even if they didn't).

They tape grenades
inside their clothes,
and carry satchel charges
in their market baskets.

Even their women fight.
And young boys. And girls.

It's practically impossible
to tell civilians
from the Viet Cong.

After awhile,
you quit trying.

Concerning the van, I don't see it as a 'man driving his kids in an innocent manner'. I realize the man's need to take the wounded to hospital…. but you have to understand that taking armed people to hospital is taking an active part in a fight. Just like a medic running to the aid of his friends is exposed to fire from the enemy, the van driver became that medic when he rushed to help them. I wouldn't have ran to help that fast had my children been in the van - you must understand you become a possible target when you help armed men in the midst of a firefight.

Aside from Markabilly’s expostulation of what war does to people who survive, you were the only other one I believe IMO, to have expressed a more clear view of the logistics of (guerrilla) warfare. The van was unmarked – NO ‘Press’ on it – NO ‘UN’ on it – NO ‘Red Cross’ emblem… nothing. It engaged in the event and in doing so, the van became - much like those pilots were in the eyes of insurgents – what is known as a Target Of Opportunity. And with what has been stated before, it transpired into a regrettable event. As in most cases of conflict, be it in combat or civil unrest.

... It seems everyone is tired of Jews reminding of the Holocaust because it makes them feel guilty. No one likes to feel that way and it reminds them that many of their nations who always proud themselves on equal oppurtunities and no discrimination simply appeased the Nazis by giving away their jewish population, feeding them to that monster so it won't give them any trouble...

Not me. I have no problem with it being discussed. It’s apparent by some of the comments you received for bringing up the ‘holocaust card’, that some folks (American and European) still don’t get it. That being the case, with consideration that genocides still continued long after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established, along with the fact that the US still refuses to confront Turkey about the Armenian Genocide – due to national interests (of course) – I find it imperative to remind not only ourselves but upcoming generations as well. But then again, I suppose I’m being naïve to think of mankind being capable of learning from his mistakes.

‘The students of today will be the leaders of tomorrow. Their ideals must be grounded on a solid ethical foundation. Loose thinking on the great moral issues of the times will inevitably lead to confusion in action, and confusion in action will be disastrous both for the individual and for society. The salvation of the individual and of society depends vitally on a correct system of ethics. Pagan and Christian, Jew and Gentile – all are in need of sound ethical principles if mankind is to escape moral chaos and final dissolution.’
- Celestine Bittle, 1950

Mark in Oshawa

26th April 2010, 20:53

Excellent points Mr. Reagles....

AAReagles

26th April 2010, 21:33

... It is a pain in the @ss trying to be on the side of the USA when too many of its citizens forget the principles they hold dear just to either make an argument, or to ignore something their country legitimately should look at in a critical eye...

... I wanted some context and I was thinking coverup only because this video was out there, and there was no context. Some in kneejerk fashion automatically defended it. So the "war" of sorts was on...

As I have pointed out, I have defended American actions more than once on this board and I was a little ticked off from the flaying I was taking for asking questions.....

It’s unfortunate as to how this thread spiraled at times, but given the normal atmosphere as to how political discussions transpire on the forum, with the customary exchanges of insults, it comes as no surprise people go overboard from time to time – myself included of course.

The very subject being debated here exacerbated the disagreements on both sides, given the nature of the contents of what we have viewed online.

Part of the problem I believe is that few members participating on this discussion, were able, or perhaps in some cases, were unwilling to give a bird’s eye view of the event and its’ participants.

Due to intensity of discussion, in an attempt to maintain some sort of fair view on the exchanges, I not only read some of the posts twice, but I viewed the video twice as well; once in a respect as a casual observer, the second time was, of course, viewed as to how the pilots were possibly viewing things as well.

As one member (or two members ?) mentioned already there is the question of what occurred before and what occurred after the what we seen on the tape. So with some further considerations if I may:

The pilots’ perspective:
What did their operations order consist of?.... what possible threats were they advised to be on the look out for?... what was the level of hostile activity?... were these pilots (like most soldiers on the ground) working in extended hours of combat operations?

What displinary action, if any, have these pilots received in the past?... did both of these pilots conduct any previous engagements with the hostile forces?... if so, did they respond accordingly? Or not?

What about their aviation unit?... what was the unit’s casualty rate of downed aircraft?... has anyone in their unit been KIA?... what were the considered risks?... and what were 'acceptable' risks?

How were they suppose to engage suspected vehicles?.... were their orders to suppress the vehicle with just enough firepower to disable it?... or we’re they under orders to continue firing at a vehicle to neutralize all subjects inside and/or set off any possible large scale of ordinance inside the vehicle (which as we all know have been used in the past)?

Reuters perspective:
Why weren’t they briefed (by military PR officers presumably) of what the proper attire was for their reporters to adhere to so they would be recognized accordingly?... why weren’t they briefed (by the US let’s say) that groups of men standing about could face the possible risk of being mistaken for hostiles?...

Families of the Iraqi victims:
Why were they all fired upon?... and why were they all killed?... why did they keep shooting at the van?... did they know there were children in there?... why did a member of the US high command in charge of the operation, alter the mode of transportation of the children from the Americans (to go an American base hospital) to the IP (Iraqi Police) instead, going to an Iraqi hospital (that was possibly less capable of handling wounded and/or short on supplies?

All elements of the participants should be taken into account – though, I doubt I covered everything. Since it is after all a complex situation, that only those folks over there would know.

As BDunnell mention, along with others, this appears to be a grey area... so far– particularly on the US and Reuter’s part. I want to see additional info before I judge these guys.

If anything good came out of this mess, it was that the tape was made available to the public... finally.

And just in case anyone thinks I’m being a bit biased since I’m an American…

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=594711
U.S. Soldier Convicted of Murder Post #11

Yes he should be executed.

Unfortunately I agree that he'll get a pardon of some sort or reduced sentence. As long as it isn't something as outrageous as being punished with a house arrest - which was the case of William Laws Calley, Jr., an Army Lt. who, to the best of my knowledge, was the only person charged in the My Lai Massacre.

… I don’t discriminate when it comes to murderers.