War Crimes

[Dotard]

So sayth the armchair quarterback.

[RedFish]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Khut8xbX...re=related
I'm with Pinky.
And it's 'sayeth'. You should know, you wrote the book.

[Violet]

So sayth the armchair quarterback.

So said the one who's brain is rotting


*Disclaimer: bananas. 'Nuff said, I think.

Edit: I'm with Pinky too.

[Minimalist]

While we are on the subject....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/...tml?src=mv

KABUL, Afghanistan — American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18, and sparking anger in a city where winning over Afghan support is considered pivotal to the war effort.

The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a “tragic loss of life” and said troops fired not knowing the vehicle was a bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing roadside bombs from a highway.

Really? Our troops are so poorly trained that they do not know what a fucking bus looks like? I don't think so.

[tavarish]

^
This is the simplest summation of my entire opinion on the matter. The carrying of weapons does not automatically make a person a terrorist (or other 'villain').

No, but it does automatically make the person a threat to the military unless they announce themselves beforehand.

Even supposing those cameramen had been terrorists, the civilian death count around them was completely ridiculous and unacceptable.

What would have been an acceptable civilian death count?

They could have taken three targets out with 'sniper' (here meaning specifically targeted) fire...

It's not that easy, and it certainly is more safe to have a helicopter patrol an area than it is to send out troops on foot in an area with heavily armed enemy combatants. It's not a video game where everything is black and white and can be taken care of easily.

instead they mowed down more civilians than they did terrorists for nothing but being in the same vicinity.

So you're hanging around with terrorists holding weapons and you see a military helicopter circling overhead. Why exactly do you stick around again?

It's a city... and the units deployed in the helicopters either didn't seem to grasp that in the city there are lots of people, most of them 'innocent'... or they didn't understand why they are killing the terrorists in the first place (to protect civilians).

They understood all of that, that's why they specifically chose particular targets and followed rules of engagement. They didn't just start shooting up buildings and hope that a terrorist was in one of them. They saw a threat and eliminated it.

Any way you slice it... even had the ones with cameras been terrorists, the unit entirely mishandled the entire situation.

I don't think so. They didn't do anything that warranted investigation and followed orders to the T. Could they have known that there were two Reuters cameramen? Possibly, but not probably.

It's like walking across a highway and being struck by a vehicle. Do you get mad at the driver for hitting you and not stopping in time?

Further... they fired upon people for attempting to save the wounded. That was so ridiculous in its own right that had i been their commander I would have immediately suspended them pending investigation.

It's good that you weren't their commander, because you don't quite understand that war isn't won with emotion. There was nothing that said that van was an ambulance, or that it wasn't full of weapons. it's taking a huge chance. I don't think it was the correct course of action, but I do understand how such an act occurred, and it isn't because the gunners were trigger-happy or reckless.

But if this is indeed the way the American military works... then I will have lost whatever respect may still remain regarding the American military. There is absolutely no rational that could defend such an action. None.

They weren't indiscriminately killing people for the hell of it. What don't you understand about that? There's a specific set of rules they have to follow when engaging a threat. Innocent people get killed in war, there's very little that can be done in such a situation. Wrong place, wrong time is a big factor.

Finally, wounded is almost always better than dead. Targeting the arms and legs will as soundly incapacitate them as would death... but you get access to information and don't completely waste lives in the process.

Yes, because you can aim a 30mm bullet from a moving helicopter, firing hundreds of rounds a minute and be able to hit a target a foot in area on several moving targets. Be realistic.

I honestly can't see what there is to defend about that military unit. All they have earned as far as I can see is a suspension for mistaking cameras as weapons, firing with no apparent immediate danger, slaughtering an unacceptable number of civilians to take out not even a handful of 'terrorists', firing upon the wounded and people trying to save the wounded alike, not checking targets, the "just pick up a weapon" comment, and perhaps other lesser transgressions.

They were following protocol and did nothing wrong in the eyes of the military. Collateral damage is always a part of the equation, and it is unfortunate. However, when you're fighting an enemy that has no rules of engagement and doesn't follow any order, it's almost impossible not to have innocents involved. Don't think for a second that these guys wanted innocents dead. I don't like what happened any more than you did, but it illustrates more about the gratuitous and despicable nature of war, not necessarily the actions of a military group on a helicopter.

The only issue I can find is the fact that they hid the truth for so long.

[Dotard]

Armchair quarterbacking / Hindsight 20/20, valid opinions concerning dissection of events and intents that happened years ago.

Brain-rot is ad-homen.

I win!

Kudos to Tav for the ability to systematicly and coherently put into words what I could not.

[RedFish]

^
This is the simplest summation of my entire opinion on the matter. The carrying of weapons does not automatically make a person a terrorist (or other 'villain').

No, but it does automatically make the person a threat to the military unless they announce themselves beforehand.

Not so. It may make them a perceived threat, and a potential threat, but they are only an actual threat if they open fire.

Even supposing those cameramen had been terrorists, the civilian death count around them was completely ridiculous and unacceptable.

What would have been an acceptable civilian death count?

Zero

They could have taken three targets out with 'sniper' (here meaning specifically targeted) fire...

It's not that easy, and it certainly is more safe to have a helicopter patrol an area than it is to send out troops on foot in an area with heavily armed enemy combatants. It's not a video game where everything is black and white and can be taken care of easily.

Sure looked like that to me.

instead they mowed down more civilians than they did terrorists for nothing but being in the same vicinity.

So you're hanging around with terrorists holding weapons and you see a military helicopter circling overhead. Why exactly do you stick around again?

Because you are a journalist, and the people you are with are armed to protect you.

It's a city... and the units deployed in the helicopters either didn't seem to grasp that in the city there are lots of people, most of them 'innocent'... or they didn't understand why they are killing the terrorists in the first place (to protect civilians).

They understood all of that, that's why they specifically chose particular targets and followed rules of engagement. They didn't just start shooting up buildings and hope that a terrorist was in one of them. They saw a threat and eliminated it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biC...re=related

Any way you slice it... even had the ones with cameras been terrorists, the unit entirely mishandled the entire situation.

I don't think so. They didn't do anything that warranted investigation and followed orders to the T. Could they have known that there were two Reuters cameramen? Possibly, but not probably.

They had plenty of time to make sure.

It's like walking across a highway and being struck by a vehicle. Do you get mad at the driver for hitting you and not stopping in time?

Actually, in my country, quite often it is the driver who has to justify themself. This has led to a 'compensation' culture.

Further... they fired upon people for attempting to save the wounded. That was so ridiculous in its own right that had i been their commander I would have immediately suspended them pending investigation.

It's good that you weren't their commander, because you don't quite understand that war isn't won with emotion. There was nothing that said that van was an ambulance, or that it wasn't full of weapons. it's taking a huge chance. I don't think it was the correct course of action, but I do understand how such an act occurred, and it isn't because the gunners were trigger-happy or reckless.

How about the fact that they were picking up wounded?That the vehicle was an ambulance is obvious by the actions of those who were in it.

But if this is indeed the way the American military works... then I will have lost whatever respect may still remain regarding the American military. There is absolutely no rational that could defend such an action. None.

They weren't indiscriminately killing people for the hell of it. What don't you understand about that? There's a specific set of rules they have to follow when engaging a threat. Innocent people get killed in war, there's very little that can be done in such a situation. Wrong place, wrong time is a big factor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biC...re=related

Finally, wounded is almost always better than dead. Targeting the arms and legs will as soundly incapacitate them as would death... but you get access to information and don't completely waste lives in the process.

Yes, because you can aim a 30mm bullet from a moving helicopter, firing hundreds of rounds a minute and be able to hit a target a foot in area on several moving targets. Be realistic.

Says it all, why use one bullet when a hundred will do the job?

I honestly can't see what there is to defend about that military unit. All they have earned as far as I can see is a suspension for mistaking cameras as weapons, firing with no apparent immediate danger, slaughtering an unacceptable number of civilians to take out not even a handful of 'terrorists', firing upon the wounded and people trying to save the wounded alike, not checking targets, the "just pick up a weapon" comment, and perhaps other lesser transgressions.

They were following protocol and did nothing wrong in the eyes of the military. Collateral damage is always a part of the equation, and it is unfortunate. However, when you're fighting an enemy that has no rules of engagement and doesn't follow any order, it's almost impossible not to have innocents involved. Don't think for a second that these guys wanted innocents dead. I don't like what happened any more than you did, but it illustrates more about the gratuitous and despicable nature of war, not necessarily the actions of a military group on a helicopter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biC...re=related

The only issue I can find is the fact that they hid the truth for so long.

And why do you suppose that may have been?

[Pippy]

Yes, all yes. Well said friends.

We are humans, a fantastic and lucky thing to be.

We can be war mongering and full of hatred and division, or we can strive to be something greater, the sky is the limit.

No War, especially not some prep school punks plan to perpetuate retribution.

No War, those brown people are my long lost relatives.

No War on a feeling, on terror itself. I think they are losing, in the sense that there is more terror in the world with unending war spilling over borders than there was before hand.

No War, say it loud. Canada out of Afghanistan. America out of... all 172 countries?