WikiLeaks publishes apparent negligent attack on civillians in Iraq video

Quote:

---

Wikileaks has today published classified US military video of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter murdering people on a Baghdad street in 2007.

The footage shows those on the street seemingly minding their own business until being fired upon. Worse perhaps is that among the people was a Reuters journalist who made the mistake of pointing his camera at the helicopter, a move the pilot mistook as a militant lining up an RPG.

In the second scene, having shot a pile of people, the helicopter then fires on a van that arrives on the scene in an attempt to rescue one of the survivors.

The body count for the day included around a dozen people, and several children were also injured.

The US military initially claimed after the attack that all the dead were “anti-Iraqi” forces or “insurgents,” despite there being two Reuters journalists among the dead.

The footage below in disturbing, and before hitting play we emphasize that we’re not joking when we say that.

---

Inquisitr Site

Link to Youtube video

This video IS shocking. I discourage people with high levels of sensibility to watch it, as people are killed in the video.

This caught my eye in the Paradox OT Forums. While I am on the fence on this one, as that is a warzone and soldiers have to take quick decisions, I'm pending towards that this is a gross neglicence that costed the lives of several innocent people.

Curious thing is also that this video is still classified, and it was just leaked (A few days ago) to an humanitarian transprancy agency called Wikileaks, which I had no idea that it existed until now, by an annonymous source. In its site, you also find many other leaked cases on many countries, including one which caught my eye of an attempt by CIA to attempt to wreck the site's credibility.

The thing which made me heavily pend towards negligence was when they attacked the van which had come to help one of the few people still barely alive after the attack.

I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(

I wish the video makers would let it speak for itself though. When you zoom in and clearly label a blur as "children" you aren't showing what the soldiers could see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't understand at all the thinking behind shooting up the van :(

---

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.

In any event, Reuters and the US military seem to be in agreement that there were armed men in the group.

Quote:

---

Reuters stated that its photographer and his driver "had gone to the area after hearing of a military raid on a building around dawn that day, and were with a group of men at the time. It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture.

"The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire," Reuters stated at the time.

According to a July 19 summary of the investigation, obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. troops acted appropriately.

Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.

"It is worth noting the fact that insurgent groups often video and photograph friendly activity and insurgent attacks against friendly forces for use in training videos and for use as propaganda to exploit or highlight their capabilities," the document concludes.

---

More tragic then it's shocking

I blame the first guy that mistook the camera for an RPG. Once seen, hard to unsee, especially when you figure you could die...

Itchy trigger fingers, nothing more.

Apparently the Pentagon now considers "wikileaks" a threat to national security... Does that mean they'll send in another couple of attack helicopters?

If they thought the van was there to evacuate the wounded, that's a warcrime. If they thought it was reinforcements that is an unfortunate error.

The Military appears to be of the opinion that even if they knew it was a camera it was still a valid target... :inquisitive:

In terms of recruiting for the Taliban, it was very successful all round.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

That may be true, but then the Apache helicopter was still in plain sight and circling around the area where they just attacked. It would have been pretty stupid for an unmarked van to just come by a recently attacked site where there is an American attack helicopter flying-by and loading up people who were attacked if they were insurgents. Likewise, the soldiers should have seen there were children in the van (In the front seat, if I'm not mistaken.)

When there is a terrorrist attack (Like the usual market bombings), the first thing willing citizens do is start loading wounded into their vehicles to transport them to the hospital as quickly as possible. That seems pretty much to be the case of a van who just happened to be around and heard an attack, came to the site and saw a badly wounded man and was about to transport him to the hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

Quote:

---

The question seems to be whether this was a tragic accidental killing of two journalists and several innocents as WikiLeaks and the editors of the video contend, or the killing of two journalists imbedded with insurgent forces as the military contends. An examination of the supposedly unedited video at around 19:00 seems to confirm that there was an RPG involved.

---

The WikiLeaks video seemed to be pushing a "this was an evil massacre from the start" angle. It is clearly tragic however you look at it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Insurgents regularly attempted evacuations of their wounded, sometimes even going back to get the dead to deny coalition forces the intelligence. I think it was reasonable for the pilots to assume that an unmarked van entering the scene so quickly during a firefight to collect the wounded man was serving that purpose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

---

Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Indeed; even if they were insurgents, and the man-with-the-van were an insurgent medic, are you telling me that it is US army doctrine to target enemy medics?

---

Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.

That is true if we were talking about a war zone, which this isn't.

Civilians always have legal protection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Strictly speaking, medics in a combat zone should be displaying the red cross (or crescent) for them to be afforded legal protection.

---

They have to meet other criteria as well. If Buba and Earl want to fight against the gov'ment and use Earl's truck as an ambulance, they aren't afforded any special protection.

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

As far as i understand those two apaches clearly recogniced that no one was shooting at them. Its terrible to listen how the gunner begs for the pilot to get the green light from the commander in ground to open fire at the van,while the men coming out of the van are clearly moving towards the wounded and no one is shooting at the gunships.

The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.

Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The language is pretty harsh. No need to be rude. But seriously, there's nothing like the lack of context to make me mad. The section they show may be "uncut" but we don't know the events leading up to the shooting. I don't trust Wikileaks and they're hypocritical. It appears that a gunship just happened to be flying around and decided to take our a bunch of people. To the ignorant and naive it looks like big bad USA is at it again. I don't know how someone could think this is helicopter gun footage; it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft. You'll also notice how the gunner didn't fire on the wounded man. He wasn't told to do so, he made the decision himself. It looks like he adhered to the rules of engagement. It also looks like the gun camera isn't calibrated to the weapon.

Another issue of armchair generals, lack of context, and emotional outrage. In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys. Yes it's a "50,000 foot view" but it accurately describes the situation. I've grown as numb to these politics as some have grown numb to killing. Both are dirty business.

---

Well if you are educating other people.Maybe you should have noticed that there were 2 gunships and at times it is the first gunships camera that pics up the firing of the other gunships on its view. If you listen to the initial conversation leading to the gunships opening fire. Gunships spot group of men. They report their sightings to the ground commander some distance away and ask for permission to fire. Ground commander gives a green light and the gunships open fire. After a while gunships report to ground commander approaching the area that a van arrives with possible hostiles and after repeated requests the commander gives green light to firing at the van.

The initial spotting and reaction of the gunships can be explained by they are being over enemy territory and under pressure. Thus making a hasty conclusion about the group of men.

The second request to attack the van is unacceptable based on the facts that no one fired a shot against the gunships and the gunships observed the van for quite some time before opening fire.But this isnt the first or last time civilians are killed in wars.

More education to follow:

Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!

The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.

You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

More education to follow:

Measure the time it took between the sound of the gunfire and when the bullets reached the ground. It's silly to think that the gunship needs to be threatened directly. Even if they could see it it's likely thousands of feet in the air!

The gunner clearly followed the rules of engagement regardless of your personal feelings. We can always disagree with those rules but they aren't made up on a whim. The military has lawyers who specialize in this area.

You're thinking about the chess piece not the quadrant or the rest of the board. Civilians are always killed in wars and insurgents are almost always civilians (have fun with those sentences).

---

I dont understand why you are supposed to know my sentiments? Are you empath of sorts? If you had any knowledge about optics. You would understand it that the gunships were low and at times the targets were horizontally out of their sight. That doesnt give the one watching the tape any hint what their distance to their targets was. From the radio conversation it seems quite clear that the gunships had a line of sight to the ground forces below as they were directing them to the area the group of men were. But you dont have any way to measure their distance to their targets. So please stop educating me if you dont know anything about what you are saying.

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills. However, it does make me smile when you suggest that those people fire an AK-47 at a plane thousands of feet in the sky. Again, we don't have context, you're making assumptions, and essentially there is nothing to see here.

---

You dont comprehend that would the choppers be thousends feets at the sky.They would have a birds view on the target? Which they dont have the gunner is talking to the pilot as the crowd disappears behind a building. Second you cant see a single flash coming out from rifle barrels from the crowd.In matter of fact you cant see a single rifle in the crowd. Last i cant understand how i have to be emotional because i disagree with you? Because i hate freedom, for questioning actions of US military service men?

While certainly tragic I can understand why the aviators did what they did. They saw a large group of men, they looked armed, in order to prevent some ambush on US ground pounders they engaged. A few minutes later a van pulls up and starts recovering bodies, the pilots obviously think these are the insurgent QRF and engage. The Apache crew was definitely quick to engage, this being 2007 the ROE was still lax and what they did was well within it. A non-uniformed enemy makes target ID difficult to do, mistakes can and will be made.

As for the lack of threat to the Apaches, in Iraq they fly a few hundred feet from the ground, it allows them to have some aspect of surprise because when you fly high the enemy can see and hear you from much farther away. I've responded to Apaches that have found people digging in IEDs, moving around after curfew and so on, all because they fly low and fast (for a helo).

All this does not however serve to excuse their action, they made a terrible mistake. WikiLeaks is right to publish the footage despite the protests of the Pentagon, this does hurt our war effort and will probably be another recruiting call for more of our enemies but it should be public because I value truth a bit more than pride or this war.

Quote:

---

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

---

Exactly!

Well, part of the problem is that saying sorry destroys the credibility of a military (Who is always noble and brave and "almost" never wrong), and doesn't do much good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

The real problem at the end of the day is the fact the army wont hold up it's hands and say a simple sorry we got it wrong we made a mistake under pressure.

---

Agreed. Of course a military under pressure is going to make mistakes. While the gunner definitely seemed trigger-happy and the attack on the van completely unjustified, I've never been in a war zone getting shot at, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not accepting responsibility for those mistakes that can and will be made, however, is imo unacceptable. Good that this is out, I think.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

---

Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.

Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.

Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long.

Itchy trigger finger is a good point indeed considering the conversation, the pilot/gunner literally says to the command: "come on, let us shoot!", they also call the guys down there bastards and blame them for the two children who got injured, say it's their own fault for bringing kids to a combat zone, which I guess wasn't a combat zone until the military started shooting.

Personally, I find this pretty disgusting, quick decisions didn't play a role here, as kage says, there was noone shooting at the helicopter, they asked for permission to fire all the time, so clearly they should have had enough time to realize that noone was about to fire an RPG at them, yet they didn't, they seemed all concerned about killing everybody down there quickly. They belong in a court IMO.

---

I see no excuse for shooting up the van when they guys tried to pull the wounded guy into it, but didn't the video say that they had weapons, were shooting at the helicopters, and one of them had an rpg round (found afterwards)? That's what I remember hearing.

The "callous" comments made are what I think people would have to say as a defense of their own psyche in a war situation.

Anyway, wikileaks should have leaked the video and left it at that. You can't complain about the government trying to keep the video out of your hands when you edit it like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Clearly you're emotional and I don't have people skills.

---

:laugh4: mind if I borrow that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So? Let them collect the wounded man.

---

Why would they do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae

I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47.

---

I don't mean to question your obvious expertise in long range target identification, but if you examine the video posted at 3:40, there clearly looks to be a man with a weapon. Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner. It even startles the pilots.

Even from a video as heavily edited as that, I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there. Also curious is the fact that the video mentions nothing about the other men. If they had weeping widows and children, surely the propagandists editors would have utilized them. This, along with the conclusions from the military and Reuters, leads me to believe these journalists were most likely imbedded with insurgent forces and their deaths, while tragic, are par for the course in that line of work.

We can think of the gunner's side of the story while we disagree with his decision.
The problem is, would the Middle East, particularly the families and the news agency of those journalists believe the gunner's side of the story? Take note that this happened in 2007. The Middle East knew what happened to those journalists for 2 years without hearing about the explanation for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The "callous" comments made are what I think people would have to say as a defense of their own psyche in a war situation.

---

I've been thinking about that, but is it really the point of that war? Is it right to go there to protect the innocent people from all sorts of horrible things and then turn into a monster yourself?
A soldier without any compassion is just a killing machine, I found it quite telling when he was wishing for the guy crawling on the ground to pick up a weapon so he could shoot him (what he did later anyway when the van arrived), no regard for human life at all, in fact I could envision the taliban saying the same things after killing americans, so what exactly makes these soldiers better again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Why would they do that?

---

Because some people help those who are in need of help, it's called human compassion, it may be surprising to you but it also exists in the middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't mean to question your obvious expertise in long range target identification, but if you examine the video posted at 3:40, there clearly looks to be a man with a weapon.

---

Yeah, I saw the guy carrying the tripod for the camera, too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner. It even startles the pilots.

---

Oh yes, the guy kneeling around the corner holding this 20cm long RPG in one hand who then disappears behind a building in the next second, that's clearly enough evidence to warrant killing 8 people...
I didn't hear anyone being startled either, I'm probably too hardass and not caring enough about those poor soldiers in that gunship, 2km or so away from the scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Even from a video as heavily edited as that, I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there.

---

Yeah, sure, but oh what fun they had when the HMMWV drove over a body, I'm sure they're good christians and all that.

When you are trained for a long time in something, you'll want to put it into practise.

I do wonder, are these people overtrained in shooting, and undertrained in refraining from shooting?

From this distance, with this weaponry, the people shot do not look like people. They do not bleed, they do not scream, they do not die. They are 'elements', to be erased with the push of a button. I find the language of the soldiers very discomforting.

War is war, and requires detachement of the soldier from empathy with the opponent. His orphaned kids can not be the overriding sentiment in pitched battle. One can take this detachment a level too far, cultivate it through language, physical detachement from the battlefield.

I find the use of dehumanised words such as 'elements' even more dangerous than words that relish in actual blood and gore. ('Haha - did he just drive over that dead body?') The latter requires the acknowledgement of the opponent as a human being, who bleeds, suffers, knows humiliation and pride. The former does not, and is therefore even more dangerous.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

As for is/isn't/is too an AK-47/RPG: the one thing that debate shows, is that the military patrols in such a manner, from such a distance, that this can't be established with any accuracy, but will shoot.
In that light, it isn't all that important what the exact nature of the people shot in this video turns out to be. The method itself is a recipe for civilian casualties. If not in this instance, then someplace else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The method itself is a recipe for civilian casualties. If not in this instance, then someplace else.

---

That's what dem lousy hippies say all the time!!

....Like the commander of the US troops in Afghanistan.... A clear case of hippie, next we'll see him form a drum circle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Because some people help those who are in need of help, it's called human compassion, it may be surprising to you but it also exists in the middle east.




Yeah, I saw the guy carrying the tripod for the camera, too...


Oh yes, the guy kneeling around the corner holding this 20cm long RPG in one hand who then disappears behind a building in the next second, that's clearly enough evidence to warrant killing 8 people...
I didn't hear anyone being startled either, I'm probably too hardass and not caring enough about those poor soldiers in that gunship, 2km or so away from the scene.


Yeah, sure, but oh what fun they had when the HMMWV drove over a body, I'm sure they're good christians and all that.

---

I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought in to raw emotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought into raw emotion.

---

Do I smell a Goodwin?

When you fight behind civilians, some are bound to get killed.

The insurgents use these tactics b/c they hafto, any rational person assumes any civilians miling around the insurgents make get mistaken for insurgents themselves. It should come as no surprise what happens when you go into a firefight in an unmarked van and have men unload out of it.

“I would like to know how blind the pilot and gunner must be to think a long-range camera is an AK-47”
Happened to me after Iraq. I saw weapons everywhere (camera as a small weapon). And I was in France, in the festival of jazz in Vienne (near Lyon, not Austria).
The fact is when you are in a war zone (or just come back) your brain links all to war and danger (or food).
So, I watch this video.
What I find disturbing is the will for the pilot and the gunner to see weapons…
Then yes, the RPC is clearly not one. In black and white.
Now due to Iraq luminosity and the fact that the observers did not have black and white vision (I don't know), a black long object could have been suspect.
Then, because their mid was set on “insurgents” they interpreted all the others movements as dangers or help to insurgents.

“As far as I understand those two apaches clearly recogniced that no one was shooting at them”
That is not a reason not to engage potential enemies in a war. In fact it is what you do in ambush… A trained insurgent would take cover again a Apache if he has not AA weapons…

“it is clearly a fixed wing aircraft”: ? Can you developp on this assertion?

“In summary: Bad guys spotted, rules of engagement followed, van is shot when trying to pick up bad guys”. Err, excepted that the dad guys were not bad guys, weapons were not weapons and rescuers were just nice people trying to help… That is a ground point of view…

“Well, they didn't, they thought it was an RPG, which makes it all okay, no wait, worse, because people always wave RPgs around with one hand and everybody knows RPGs are just 20cm long” And even it was a RPG, it wouldn’t have been a menace as RPG are not AA, so in order to be use against choppers you have to be on a roof if you don’t want to be burned by the flame made by the rocket (around 5 metres) when launched…

“Further, at 4 minutes in, it very much looks like a man with an RPG is crouching and peering around the corner.” Err, no, it doesn’t on the black and white film I saw. Again, I don’t know if it is how the gunner/pilot see it, of if it as the colour and light…

“I'm still not convinced that the pilots erroneously saw weapons that weren't there”. Well, if the comments match the film, yes they saw weapons where it was none.
I saw a lot of weapons in fighting situations and angles (not for above) and I can’t see any thing which could be bigger than a light pistol in the hands of the men on the ground…
And knowing that all men in Iraq had/have weapons I don’t understand the haste of the pilots to engage, but I don’t know the tactical situation and the rules of engagement in this particular zone…

“From this distance, with this weaponry, the people shot do not look like people. They do not bleed, they do not scream, they do not die. They are 'elements', to be erased with the push of a button. I find the language of the soldiers very discomforting.” Yeap, and that is the difference with the US grunts running to evacuate the children…
Do you imagine what the infantrymen’s reaction when they saw the result? How did they feel? How you feel when you realise what a mistake it was? The smell of the blood, the heat, the sand, the flesh spread every where…

When you fight behind civilians, some are bound to get killed. That is actually Karadzic defence in The Hague... I don't think it will work for him...

Such a defense would only work if the preponderance of evidence shows that such civilian deaths were NOT the norm -- but merely a sad byproduct.


I always have trouble second guessing these things for the same reason I have trouble second guessing cops on the beat.


Did they see what they wanted to see? Did a climate of constant anxiety lead them to this? Was this film edited to excise weapons that were present in the hands of a few.

Or are they like the chopper gunner in "Full Metal Jacket" who just didn't care, shot them all, and offered the advice that you didn't need to "lead" women and children as much.



Tactically, firing from such a crowd is a perfect terrorist tool. They want hatred of the suppressor force, can't shoot back on an even footing anyway, and really don't care about the lives of those killed so long as the larger cause is served.

I hope Kukri, MRD, and some of our "old sweat" soldiers can speak to this. The USA fights pretty much all of its conflicts with this as a dominant condition (since the rare instances when we've been allowed to face a "conventional" opponent in the field with few civilians about have resulted in quick and lopsided US victories in the last 30 years we can expect folks NOT to oblige us). How do you train troops to address these situations? How do you effectively institutionalize such training?

The basic model for suppressing an insurgency is well known -- we did it very successfully for decades from 1880 through WW2. So what has changed and how do we get back to that level of success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't understand how you could possibly be that righteously indignant with such a vague and ambiguous command of the facts surrounding this incident and the context in which it occurred. Goebbels did say something to the effect that the best propaganda cuts through rational thought in to raw emotion.

---

Why? Of course I don't have all the info but if this was a superhot combat zone why were those eight guys casually walking on the street?
And apart from that, go tell the pilot and gunner they should have weighed their arguments better and considered a bit more of the circumstances before pulling the trigger on more than 8 innocent people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The basic model for suppressing an insurgency is well known -- we did it very successfully for decades from 1880 through WW2. So what has changed and how do we get back to that level of success?

---

What happened was WW2, and the moral lessons learned.

It is not hard at all to defeat an insurgency. See: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian Empires. It is just a matter of what you are prepared to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why? Of course I don't have all the info but if this was a superhot combat zone why were those eight guys casually walking on the street?
And apart from that, go tell the pilot and gunner they should have weighed their arguments better and considered a bit more of the circumstances before pulling the trigger on more than 8 innocent people.

---

Even while admitting to not having all the facts, you've packed in as many unproven assumtions into two sentences as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

What happened was WW2, and the moral lessons learned.

It is not hard at all to defeat an insurgency. See: British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russian Empires. It is just a matter of what you are prepared to do.

---

I wasn't advocating a return to the "glory" days of the Belgian Congo or Spanish Cuba. I had in mind the generally successful -- and surprisingly non-brutal, non-lethal to civilians -- efforts by the USA in Nicaraugua, Haiti, Vera Cruz, and (though a number of brutal incidents shamefully mar this record) much of the occupation of the Phillipines. Now, it is easy to suggest that we were behaving immorally in our high-handed assumption that we had a right to intervene in those places at all, but the tactics employed were reasonably successful and did not generate the localized hatred we seem to garner today. It should be noted that "shock and awe" featured little in this model, and even when used was restricted to the early phases against a clearly identifiable armed "bad guy." Why would it not work now?

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

Here's the transcript of the video. Some things I didn't catch watching the video in the OP. Generally you get more of an impression that there was fighting in the are and several groups of insurgents--they shoot missiles at another group at the end of the transcript.

Here's good article by the New York Times that goes a bit into the psychology of soldiers in general while discussing this tragedy.

Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Even while admitting to not having all the facts, you've packed in as many unproven assumtions into two sentences as possible.

---

So did the pilots, the difference is that I created a forum post with it and they created a bloodbath, is that so hard to get?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So did the pilots, the difference is that I created a forum post with it and they created a bloodbath, is that so hard to get?

---

I believe that PJ is suggesting that they should be held morally/ethically responsible for a series of mistakes under trying conditions, whereas you appear to be suggesting that they are culpable for willful murder (sounds like 2nd degree the way you phrase it, not pre-meditated 1st degree).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I believe that PJ is suggesting that they should be held morally/ethically responsible for a series of mistakes under trying conditions, whereas you appear to be suggesting that they are culpable for willful murder (sounds like 2nd degree the way you phrase it, not pre-meditated 1st degree).

---

Well, on SimHQ I was somewhat convinced that one of the guys may have actually had an RPG instead of a tripod, in that case they might have been insurgents, but I'm still not really convinced, in a warzone it would be wise even for civilians to peek around a corner, especially when there is a firefight in the vicinity. And if carrying AKs isn't illegal then yeah, you don't shoot guys for carrying handguns in the US without a warning, do you?
Now concerning the pilots, I don't know whether it was murder, more like they saw what they wanted and then had fun killing these people, yes it's horrible to imagine you just killed eight people but if you cannot live with that, don't sign up to become a chopper gunner, sometimes realizing what you are actually doing might help you not to kill the wrong people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, on SimHQ I was somewhat convinced that one of the guys may have actually had an RPG instead of a tripod, in that case they might have been insurgents, but I'm still not really convinced, in a warzone it would be wise even for civilians to peek around a corner, especially when there is a firefight in the vicinity. And if carrying AKs isn't illegal then yeah, you don't shoot guys for carrying handguns in the US without a warning, do you?

---

How is carrying an AK in a combat zone, with fighting nearby, a question of legality? You are acting like none of them were insurgents, not just the photographers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

sometimes realizing what you are actually doing might help you not to kill the wrong people.

---

That is an unfounded assumption that is not at all supported by any of the information available, be it the military's investigation, Reuter's comments, or even WikiLeaks itself, whose founder admitted that there were armed men in the group. While it is certainly a shame that these reporters were killed, if they were imbedded with insurgents, then their fate is no one's fault but their own. Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

How is carrying an AK in a combat zone, with fighting nearby, a question of legality? You are acting like none of them were insurgents, not just the photographers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

That is an unfounded assumption that is not at all supported by any of the information available, be it the military's investigation, Reuter's comments, or even WikiLeaks itself, whose founder admitted that there were armed men in the group. While it is certainly a shame that these reporters were killed, if they were imbedded with insurgents, then their fate is no one's fault but their own. Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.

---

The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.

And yes, wikileaks only lets me see what they want me to see, just like the US army so who guarantees me that they didn't just cut the gunner some slack?
If I'm not allowed to comment without 100% of all the info then we can just stop opening new threads...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Do keep in mind that you are watching exactly what these people want you to see, nothing more and nothing less.

---

Which is still a good deal more than what the US government released, which was some reports absolving their own from all blame.

If this was a textbook counter-insurgency operation, why was the full video not released? That would've ended all speculation.

It's still Wikileaks that is responsible for providing us with the fuller picture of what happened, even if by forcing the truth with an edited video. Let's not reverse propaganda and whistle-blower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.

---

If it were common practice for US gunships to open fire on random groups of civilians just walking around their neighborhoods, armed or otherwise, knowledge of such merciless ROEs would have certainly emerged after 7 years of war with the number of reporters present in the field. The fact that such a scandal has not occurred leads me to believe that there was a specific reason that this particular group of people was targeted on that day.

The video provides no information on who those people were, what they were doing, or the larger context of the military operations in which the gunships were involved. Such information is key in making any sort of judgment about the pilot's actions.

Quote:

---

If I'm not allowed to comment without 100% of all the info then we can just stop opening new threads...

---

Good point. :smiley:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Which is still a good deal more than what the US government released, which was some reports absolving their own from all blame.

If this was a textbook counter-insurgency operation, why was the full video not released? That would've ended all speculation.

It's still Wikileaks that is responsible for providing us with the fuller picture of what happened, even if by forcing the truth with an edited video. Let's not reverse propaganda and whistle-blower.

---

I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?

---

Yes, a leaked video that supposedly has two guys with RPGs but the investigation claimed they found one RPG.
I think the investigators are terrorist-loving commie supporters and planted a non-RPG at the scene!
And no, I don't think US gunships do that all the time, but I don't think that the heroic and patriotic deeds of the majority of soldiers should serve as a shield for the black sheep to hide behind.
IF they were black sheep, maybe it's just my perfectly fine eyesight and my love for people who want to kill me getting in the way of seeing that RPG, the US should spend more money on updating their optics perhaps, would make things a lot easier once we can start arguing about the fine print on that sticker on the RPG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

The thing is that I didn't see any of them shooting at US troops. There are civilian contractors in Iraq patrolling the streets with AKs, should a gunship gunner shoot them, too and assume they would be insurgents just because they carry AKs on their shoulder? There was also a reporter who was embedded with just that kind of mercenaries. I don't see how carrying a gun in a combat zone makes you an insurgent, I thought you were all about self defense in the US? If that really was an RPG, well, that's not for self defense and that makes it a lot more likely they were insurgents, but my last comments were mostly assuming it wasn't an RPG. Which I still find hard to say from the video.

---

Civilian contractors do not and have not patrolled streets in Iraq, they have provided security for convoys and work sites and inside bases. They also tend to coordinate with the military so that their presence is known should they need help.

Carrying a gun in a combat zone doesn't make you an insurgent but it certainly doesn't help your standing as an innocent civilian. If there's shooting or combat or something most people bunker down in their homes or flee the area, they don't start patrolling the streets. This is why it was a big thing when the Sunni tribes started kicking out Al Queda in Iraq and trying to provide their own security; after this started the US sent people to live and work with the tribal security so that their was some sort of legitimacy and coordination.

As for it not looking like an RPG, bear in mind that the distinctive part of the stereotypical RPG is the conical warhead which is not universal. There are many different warheads for RPGs, the fragmentation antipersonnel ones look like a small stick out of the end of it making it much smaller and less distinct.

The transcript of the video makes it seem as if there had been a bit of shooting that day and in that area, probably the reason that the journalists were there. The journalists probably wanted to get some great footage of a firefight because that's their job, so very likely they head toward whatever area there was shooting in. If that were the case then it's likely that the pilot and gunner were amped from a previous engagement in the area, either by them or the previous Apaches on station. These pilots fly a lot, they see what normal looks like, they saw a group of men sticking together with large items in their hands - not normal. With US troops on the ground just minutes away in what sounds like a hot area I can easily understand why the gunner is eager to kill what looks like an ambush in the making.


Here's a few key quotes from the transcript:

Quote:

---

15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
15:36 That's why we ah, requested permission to engage.

---

Quote:

---

30:15 Roger, I can ah hear small arms fire from your engagement area at two zero zero zero ah about three hundred meters from that objective over.
30:27 Crazyhorse; from what I understand small arms fire at two zero zero zero degrees about two hundred meters.
30:39 Just to the southwest.

---

As for evidence of it being a "hot" area in which there was fighting go on. The Apache has only 50 rounds of chain gun ammo left, the video doesn't show them unloading a thousand rounds so it can be assumed they had to use the rest earlier. The transcript also continues on to the Apaches having another engagement after the guys on the ground took over where they shot up the van. Not to mention the complete lack of people in the streets seeing as everyone seems to have hid or fled.

EDIT: At 3:39 to 3:53 there do appear to be AK47s being carried, from 4:09 to a few seconds later the radio chatter gives off that a Bradley fighting vehicle was just around the corner, the civilians were at it's 1 o'clock. Looking from the gunner's video while the cameraman peers around the corner it could very well be an RPG, and with US troops literally just around the corner it's understandable why he engaged these guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I don't believe it is common for the military to release such videos, most likely for this very reason. An investigation was conducted. Is there any evidence that it was handled improperly?

---

I think it's noble that you trust your government so completely. An example to all, believing that the state knows best and the citizen should accept their word for everything, needing not the wicked temptations of evidence. :bow:

:wink:

My problem with what I saw is I didn’t see weapons.
The query about engaging armed enemies (or even unarmed) in a war is not a problem.
It is part of the job to attack enemies when they don’t expect it, R&R included…
No. My problem is the keenness of the pilots to see weapons. I didn’t see a RPG. To be fair, I was not in the cockpit, and under tension.

But, having decided it was weapons, the pilots decided to link the mini-bus with the insurgents. And this is their major mistake. And it is the mistake of their Air-controller as well.
Bad enough to mix-up a camera and a RPG and to see AK but the fact that to pick-up injured as a help to insurgent was really a bad move.
As mentioned, the men doing it were unarmed and were doing what a Medic would do.

Now, the problem is how to respond to the insurgents?
If it is a war, they should be treated as soldiers, so yes, you engage when you see them. But, Geneva Convention, you stop to shoot when the cease to be a menace. And you don’t shoot against Medics.
If it is not a war, you don’t shoot in a crowd, and certainly not against a vehicle you can’t see who is inside…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I think it's noble that you trust your government so completely. An example to all, believing that the state knows best and the citizen should accept their word for everything, needing not the wicked temptations of evidence. :bow:

:wink:

---

... :brood:

And I think it is idiotic for you to trust the creators of such an obviously biased and heavily edited video to present the reality of the situation. :shrug:

Seriously, as fun as it may be to do, how does mocking me address the question? If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.

---

And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.

Ajax

---

But the context is important to the video.

I don't think the fact that the military didn't want to release it is good evidence of wrongdoing. If a video looked bad but wasn't actually they wouldn't want to release it.

If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.

Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the context is important to the video.

I don't think the fact that the military didn't want to release it is good evidence of wrongdoing. If a video looked bad but wasn't actually they wouldn't want to release it.

---

Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Absolutely. Being edited certainly makes it an imperfect source of evidence; the point is, it's what we've got access to. I don't like the suggestion that we can't question the rightness of the military action without further evidence, when further evidence is not forthcoming. If the military feels that this video is a poor representation of what happened, they are free to counter it by releasing more information.

Ajax

---

The unedited video was released by wikileaks, and I think the military did an extensive write up.

But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military. The wikileaks commentary attempts to bridge that gap by talking about how the military didn't want the the video released, and by clearly labeling the innocent people just before they are shot. That doesn't bridge the gap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But the thing is, the video in either version does not provide enough information to condemn or clear the military.

---

Not condemning. Only questioning.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

Not condemning. Only questioning.

Ajax

---

Fair enough...but is "Was this a negligent attack on civilians, including two small children?" really "only questioning?". I agree that the reasonable thing to do is to question as we are doing, but the releasers clearly trying for more than that.

I guess in general I feel that in this day and age people are to believe that because something was "leaked" it has a special truth quality about it. You see this all the time with political campaigns and such "leaking internal documents" when really it's a dressed up press release. I guess it's a cultural bias of ours. "The truth they didn't want you to know!"

FWIW, Wikileaks was leaked the encrypted video a few months ago. They had to decrypt it themselves before they could go public with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

And if it's not common for the military to release the materials from their investigations (and shouldn't be?), what kind of evidence is BG going to be able to find? Perhaps a leaked video? In the absence of other evidence, it's what we've got, man.

Ajax

---

The video does not contradict the findings of the military's investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

... :brood:

And I think it is idiotic for you to trust the creators of such an obviously biased and heavily edited video to present the reality of the situation. :shrug:

Seriously, as fun as it may be to do, how does mocking me address the question? If you are going to discount the military's investigation, you'll need more than the assumption that they are liars... like... oh I don't know... some evidence of misconduct in carrying it out.

---

Actually PJ, you might notice I haven't offered an opinion on this video and what it may be evidence for or against.

I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.

I have no intention to mock you, just tease you a little bit with that observation. As for the video, I would agree with you that it's not really evidence for anything as it stands. That's why I believe that all forms of government should be transparent and held to the highest standards of public examination, rather than having web sites try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm just amused that if the government launches say, an attack on some loons in Texas, there are cries of cover-up and conspiracy from certain sections of the citizenry. Almost always the same section that will accept without murmur the word of the military on any incident. I just find it an amusing paradox that one arm of the government is given a free pass, that's all.

---

The paradox is due to the Posse Comitatus Act. The military only goes after foriegners, so we aim all of our scorn on the jack booted thugs of the various 3 letter enforcement agencies. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If something exonerated the pilots like an unedited video I'm sure we'd be hearing talk that it was being actively sought.

Apaches were made as tank killers. There isn't much infantry can do to damage them seeing as they can withstand even some tank shells, hence the pressure on the pilot and gunner was very limited - hardly life and death. Or did they edit out the Taliban had a few tanks just out of the picture... Oh yeah, unless carrying unusual armament, it can take out at least 8 tanks with Hellfire missiles...

~:smoking:

---

Tank shells? Apaches can take some large caliber bullets and small auto cannon rnds, not tank main gun rounds. Besides, the armor on an Apache is certainly not uniform or perfect, there is always the chance of a freak hit from a small caliber round knocking it out of the sky, massed small arms fire at an Apache has a good chance of damaging some of the systems aboard at the least.

Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.

EDIT: Here is a Wikipedia link to aviation losses in Iraq. I count 10 post invasion losses of Apaches to enemy fire. Not a high number compared to the Soviets in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam but still proof that they can be shot down by something short of "tanks."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

Also, it doesn't have to be life or death for them, there are US troops on the ground that they are supporting, certainly they feel anxious on behalf of their buddies on the ground. They mistook the guy with the camera peering around the corner of US troops for a guy with an RPG getting ready to engage US troops. While the "RPG" was not aimed at then they felt compelled to engage because they thought it was an impending and dangerous attack about to happen.

---

They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

They asked for engagement and had gotten it before they saw the camera and mistook it for an RPG. That part is almost irrelevant. If anything the act of the crowd afterwards is indicating that something is wrong. How many would stand next to a guy that aimed an RPG towards an armed helicopter and then care nothing about the helicopter?

---

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

---

Well that's certainly an out of line conversation stopper...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're forgetting that everyone browner than Aryan White are evil, Ironside...

---

Horetore:

That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.

Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source


This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Horetore:

That comment is rather asinine, and far below your usual level.

Moreover, it does not gibe with the demographics of the U.S. military. Source


This is such a broad brush bit of silliness that I, personally, will not gig you for it -- though if one of my colleagues thinks it warranted, I will not object.

---

It was a joke, relax fella ~;) Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF

But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.

“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…:laugh4:

In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.”
You and me have met different kind of commies…:laugh4:

In France, Commies were the one starting strikes, joining the Brigades Internationales, demonstrating against the Colonial Wars and having work values as Gods.
And made a few mistakes as well, as we all know…
But smoking pots? They even didn’t know what it was… They were reading, reacting, were political… They were dreaming, but what a dream… No need of pot…

---

Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives. :clown:

“Next you're going to tell me that black people don't steal and arabs don't beat their wives “ No. I just telling you that you have a different kind of commies, another branch…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It was a joke, relax fella ~;) Lack of smilies etc. Glad you were joking. SF

But is there some truth to it, are there racists, neo-nazi's and fascists in the US army(or any other army for that matter)? Of course there are, why on earth wouldn't there be? Being a tough guy soldier is the homo-erotic dream of any fascist. It's the same reason why you'll find a higher than normal number of commies in an art gallery, because smoking pot and complaining about the wrongs in society without actually doing anything about it is the communist dream.

---

PJ would agree with you that the US goes on rampaging racist wars. :wink3:


And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.

Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And don't get wobbly knees! You are our leftist voice, stand for what you say. Of course there is a lot of racism involved, especially during the early years of the war. That the US army is itself multiracial doesn't diminish that.

Q: They refer to Iraqis as “Hajjis”?
DELGADO: “Hajji” is the new slur, the new ethnic slur for Arabs and Muslims. It is used extensively in the military. The Arabic word refers to one who has gone on a pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is used in the military with the same kind of connotation as “gook,” “Charlie,” or the n-word. Official Army documents now use it in reference to Iraqis or Arabs. It’s real common. There was really a thick aura of racism.

---

Disliking your opponents isn't racism. Hajji means something like "person who has gone to mecca" right? So it isn't referring to skin color.

Do the soldiers believe that they are inherently better because of the color of their skin? Are the prejudiced towards the iraqi's because of the color of their skin? What is racism then?