Killing And Battle

[Chinahand]

I have a policy of not linking to coverage of disturbing and violent images and have asked other posters to take down links when they've done the same. The internet is full of places where such content can be found and I don't particularly want to MF to become a site where people come to find that sort of thing.

 

WikiLeaks has recently released the head-camera video from an American Helicopter gunship killing 12 or so people in an incident in Iraq in 2007. Two journalists were killed in the incident and hence it has become a cause celebre as the powerful organizations these two men worked for have tried to get some justice for their employees.

 

It is a disturbing video - there are armed men about - see 3:40 to 3:50ish and you can definitely see two armed people - but on the whole the scene seems calm and my main impression is that the soldiers have mistaken the journalists' cameras for guns and an RPG - don't forget they aren't given the priveledge of annotations telling us what is a camera and what is not.

 

Obviously we don't get the full picture - another helicopter is involved and there is a chance they had a different view which showed more going on - there is talk of "a guy shooting" (4:24ish) but if that came from the helicopter whose video we are watching that seems to be untrue - sadly I think he's mistaken a telephoto lens for an RPG.

 

The most disturbing part is after the initial shooting when a wounded man is crawling away and the soldier is recorded wishing this man would do anything to allow him to open fire. When a minivan arrives and starts taking him away he gets ever more desperate to fire and eventually is given permission to do so - killing the wounded man, the people who came to help him and wounding two children in the van.

 

That part of the incident is for me the most disturbing – my impression is that a passer-by innocently arrives on the scene and attempts to help a wounded man and is made into a combatant for that reason and that reason only – if the van had been an ambulance to open fire would have definitely have been a war crime, but that is wishful thinking on my part – there was no red cross, but I cannot see how the soldier was able to justify opening fire – I really wonder how he feels knowing there were children in the van. When they later discover this fact, it is downplayed with the words "that is what you get when you bring children into a battle". Chilling – what battle?

 

Modern technology has transformed the battle field - nowadays there will be almost identical pictures coming from Afghanistan or whereever, but where the pilots aren't in a helicopter a mile away, but in an office in Texas, thousands of miles away from the violence they are unleashing. When these "warriors" finish their shifts they go home to play with the kids - a job with massively high incidents of post traumatic stress.

 

My impression is that this was an ambush where the people on the ground were not firing upon US forces, but where the ambushers mistook innocent activity for something more sinister. Modern technology made the consequences of that mistake very great indeed. The ambushers started the firing and no one had fired before then or returned fire – the ambushers chose when to start and when to finish firing entirely unprovoked by those on the ground.

 

It is difficult – US troops were close by and could have been at risk – if that had been an RPG . But the casual way a calm scene is turned into a blood bath is chilling – especially when that violence ends with an attack on those giving succour to the wounded.

 

It is only technology which has enabled this type of conflict to occur – and technology which has allowed us to voyeuristically judge the events with the advantage of hindsight.

 

Most of the commentary on the video has been highly critical – I feel caught on the horns of a dilemma – there were armed people in the scene. US forces were advancing towards the area and the risk of an attack was likely.

 

I’m not entirely in agreement with the idea that the initial opening of fire was entirely unjustified; this is a war, a nasty war, but a real war no less – but do feel it was a very marginal decision. When that is added with the attack on the van it changes to a general disregard for life I feel can’t be justified.

 

There are a few ex-squaddies who post on MF. I’d like to know their opinions – and of course anyone else’s opinion – que LDV’s predictable response and derail ... but ignoring that thoughts anyone?

[Rog]

It’s the inevitable consequences of having unlawful combatants engaging in acts of war, the lack of uniform means that civilians are likely to be caught up in whatever happens not to mention how many “civilians” are in actuality the unlawful combatants or supporters of the unlawful combatants.

 

As for the cameraman who was shot …. You lie with dogs, you get fleas.

 

Personally I think the US troops showed remarkable restraint by seeking authorisation before taking out the enemy.

[P.K.]

Where is the link?

 

Armed men not in uniform are not accorded any "protection" under convention. Plus to hesitate is to put yourself and your comrades at risk which is unacceptable. So in filming insurgents the journalists put themselves in the killing zone and paid the penalty.

[jimbms]

Having just watched that all I can say is it is typical US gung ho attitude, no brain just fire on anything that moves if it doesn't look American, they have the usual American attitude of they are always in the right and their way is best, it is that attitude that makes me say well boo hoo for a couple of buildings in New York demolished, they deserved it, for years they have funded terrorists, examples being the Taliban and the IRA and now their puppet has turned and bit them, but in saying that I do not for one minute condone any other attacks outside the USA. The only thing on that video I could say in slight mitigation is that although it looked pretty obvious that the reporters had cameras not weapons, there seems to be one man carrying what appears to be a long bolt action rifle or unloaded RPG launcher, although it isnt very clear. maybe a quick burst to make them run for cover until the patrol arrived could have been justified but what happened was not.

[P.K.]

The US has always protected it's troops with firepower so nothing new there. Incidentally a bullet from a bolt action can kill you just as dead as a bullet from an AK.

[jimbms]

P.K. I think you read what I said wrong, I said in slight mitigation there seems to be one man carrying what appears to be a long bolt action rifle or unloaded RPG launcher, although it isnt very clear. I didn't make any comment on what the weapon can do, incidently I would say a zeroed bolt action is far deadlier in the right hands. Oh and there is fire power for protection as most armies use and then there is the US firepower for fun & slaughter just in case.

[Rog]

Having just watched that all I can say is it is typical US gung ho attitude, no brain just fire on anything that moves if it doesn't look American, they have the usual American attitude of they are always in the right and their way is best, it is that attitude that makes me say well boo hoo for a couple of buildings in New York demolished, they deserved it, for years they have funded terrorists, examples being the Taliban and the IRA and now their puppet has turned and bit them, but in saying that I do not for one minute condone any other attacks outside the USA. The only thing on that video I could say in slight mitigation is that although it looked pretty obvious that the reporters had cameras not weapons, there seems to be one man carrying what appears to be a long bolt action rifle or unloaded RPG launcher, although it isnt very clear. maybe a quick burst to make them run for cover until the patrol arrived could have been justified but what happened was not.

 

And once again Manxforums establishes a new low when it comes to comment.

 

Still, what can one expect from a pig but a rude noise.

[jimbms]

Well Rog I would say no one can be as calculatedly rude as us British, which amazes the Jewish people , who do not understand studied insult and can only offer abuse as a substitute. But as for America they are the only nation in history which has miraculously gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation. Now run along and die please, your opinions count for nothing with me.

[P.K.]

P.K. I think you read what I said wrong,

No I didn't.

[mæŋksmən]

The US has always protected it's troops with firepower so nothing new there. Incidentally a bullet from a bolt action can kill you just as dead as a bullet from an AK.

 

Yeah an ex south african policeman friend of mine said to me the same thing sorta PK.

He said when tracking a perp in the bush the first thing you find are his clothes, then his shoes as he tires, then he will go to ground and literally spray his ak47 at any approaching noise,he said he wasnt affraid of the bullet with his name on it, however he hit the ground pretty damn quick when all the ones addressed !to whome it may concern! were whizzing overhead.

 

I will wager theres been more british troops killed by american !!!friendly fire!!! in the last 10 years than any iraqi or taliban fire.

[slinkydevil]

Where is the link?

 

 

Put this into google: WikiLeaks

 

or put a .org after it.

[Rog]

Well Rog I would say no one can be as calculatedly rude as us British, which amazes the Jewish people , who do not understand studied insult and can only offer abuse as a substitute. But as for America they are the only nation in history which has miraculously gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation. Now run along and die please, your opinions count for nothing with me.

 

So many words, so little knowledge.

[P.K.]

My opinion is that the order to fire is the correct one.

 

If you freeze it at 02:09 it looks to me as though the figure on the top left is carrying an AK47. Also at 02:34 look at how the individual is looking around the building corner down the street. Hunched low with minimal body exposure ie there's nothing "normal" about it - it's exactly as trained.

 

I can also understand engaging the individual who was helping the wounded. Offering succour to a wounded insurgent so when he gets better he can have another go at killing us - not a chance.

[jimbms]

The order to fire I agree may have beem correct with how things appeared but the way they acted after that order was not. By your views on why they fired at the ones helping the wounded, that is no excuse, the Geneva convention and the UN protocol specifically forbids that troops fire on any other persons be they military or civilian who are tending wounded. No excuse, this makes these yanks war criminals, besides the fact the US military tried to cover this event up. Using your excuse of protecting troops by firing on the ones helping the wounded, should we not then always open fire on US troops as they have a strong inclination to fire upon allied forces, that way we will be preventing British troops from getting shot at.

[P.K.]

So the Iraqi insurgents abide by the Geneva Convention then?

 

You funny.

 

The Geneva Convention does not apply to the insurgents and I believe US SOP's refer to them as "unlawful combatants" who can be shot on sight.