US pilots kill war correspondents/children and laugh

@amist,

amist;151767 wrote:

Collateral Murder

I'm mainly posting this just to get it out there, but if anyone has any comments please feel free to post away.

Sickening example of gun ho attitude and no remorse? I could not make out if any were carrying guns though.

@amist,

amist;151767 wrote:

Collateral Murder

I'm mainly posting this just to get it out there, but if anyone has any comments please feel free to post away.

Yea I saw this and mourn the loss; as I think we all should do.

I don't think its OK, I don't think it's right or ethical. I do; however, caveat my intellectual examination of the situation with a thought well said in the article you linked, where the author talked about the , "...journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war." (emphasis mine)

When I was active military and went into dangerous situations, that possibility hung with me. I knew it and felt its presence. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad I'm in one piece! But I do think it prudent that we: 1) Temper our outrage at this by the conscious realization that these were people in an active war zone who knew the risks -and- 2) Keep in mind all acts in such a physically hostile/war-zone environment are likely unethical and morally reprehensible.

The whole thing needs to stop - far too much death.

Thanks

@amist,

amist;151767 wrote:

Collateral Murder

I'm mainly posting this just to get it out there, but if anyone has any comments please feel free to post away.

I can't say thing but american military leaders and gov are utterly stupid by useing such brutal force and specially the Abu Ghraib, it totally destroys USA's chances of winning such simple war. GW Bush is just as insane as Hitler.

@amist,

I think, even in the unedited video that doesn't slam you over the head with the opinion of wikileaks, that it's hard to know exactly what went on. How much fighting was in the area? Were those guys with the AK's heading to a fight with US soldiers? That's kind of a crucial detail.

@amist,

Quote:

even in the unedited video that doesn't slam you over the head with the opinion of wikileaks

Opinions like the fact that children were clearly visible in the van? That a vast majority of the people in the group that was fired upon weren't carrying anything, let alone weapons? Seriously, even if we were 100% that those two guys were carrying weapons, and they WERE enemy combatants, why would they be in a group with so many unarmed men? The first thing that would come to my mind is 1) It's completely ******* normal for Iraqi civilians to be walking around the street with assault rifles. No sarcasm here, they do it all the time, and not because they're hunting for Americans or anything. If you lived in Iraq, you probably would too. Or 2) The unarmed men are prisoners and we probably shouldn't rake them with 50 caliber machine gun fire.

You know what, even if there were two guys in the group heading off to fight US soldiers, you don't shoot unarmed civilians. Every death and injury that occurred in that incident was completely intentional. If you are using a weapon that is just so imprecise, you are intending to kill everything within the accuracy of that weapon. You don't throw a grenade into a classroom with a terrorist in it and a bunch of hostages and then say 'Don't blame me, I was just trying to get the terrorist'. Even worse than that they actually deliberately aimed for everyone in the group, even the people who were clearly unarmed. There's more than enough information in here.

FYI, there was no fighting in the area. They actually say in the video that there are no ground units near the area when the helicopters spot the group and that is why they engaged instead of ground forces.

@amist,

Some years ago I heard about some journalist being gunned down by americans on danish TV.

@amist,

amist;151809 wrote:

Opinions like the fact that children were clearly visible in the van? That a vast majority of the people in the group that was fired upon weren't carrying anything, let alone weapons? Seriously, even if we were 100% that those two guys were carrying weapons, and they WERE enemy combatants, why would they be in a group with so many unarmed men? The first thing that would come to my mind is 1) It's completely ******* normal for Iraqi civilians to be walking around the street with assault rifles. No sarcasm here, they do it all the time, and not because they're hunting for Americans or anything. If you lived in Iraq, you probably would too. Or 2) The unarmed men are prisoners and we probably shouldn't rake them with 50 caliber machine gun fire.

You know what, even if there were two guys in the group heading off to fight US soldiers, you don't shoot unarmed civilians. Every death and injury that occurred in that incident was completely intentional. If you are using a weapon that is just so imprecise, you are intending to kill everything within the accuracy of that weapon. You don't throw a grenade into a classroom with a terrorist in it and a bunch of hostages and then say 'Don't blame me, I was just trying to get the terrorist'. Even worse than that they actually deliberately aimed for everyone in the group, even the people who were clearly unarmed. There's more than enough information in here.

FYI, there was no fighting in the area. They actually say in the video that there are no ground units near the area when the helicopters spot the group and that is why they engaged instead of ground forces.

Circumstantialy its pretty condemning and the remarks of the helicopter crew are frightening. I don't think the children were obvious but it was their unconcern that bothered me. I dont know the details, the report is not independent but even so, pretty awful stuff. Those with the van were definitely not combatants.

@amist,

Nah, there isn't more than enough information. It's possible that they were scared and mowed down civilians needlessly, it's possible that they simply didn't care. And it's possible that there was fighting in the general area, and that this is what groups of insurgents often look like.

My issue with the edited video is that it tells you the story before you see the video, and then labels the reporters and zooms in on the children (who still looked like blobs). Without that, I think watching it you would never guess that reporters and children got shot. In other words, the video is aimed at political impact, not at just leaking the video.

I think one of the toughest dilemmas is how to handle what could be a terrible crime when there isn't enough to go on. If you err on the side of innocent till proven guilty, you wave your hands at murder. If you go ahead and blame, you might be making a terrible accusation that isn't deserved.

I haven't read deeply into the case, so it's quite possible that there's extra information out there that shows they acted completely in the wrong.

@amist,

Or it could be that the pilots got some RPGs confused with camera tripods

Seriously, though, Wikileaks is a pretty sensationalized source of information, I wouldn't trust everything they post there as 100% accurate, as the context they provide is usually over-exaggerated.

Besides, why the **** would you drive your kids into a van and pull up in an area where you hear and see gun shots all around?

@amist,

Quote:

Seriously, though, Wikileaks is a pretty sensationalized source of information, I wouldn't trust everything they post there as 100% accurate, as the context they provide is usually over-exaggerated.

It's a video, it's a ******* primary source document.

Quote:

Besides, why the **** would you drive your kids into a van and pull up in an area where you hear and see gun shots all around?

It's Iraq, where can you drive your kids where you don't hear gunfire all around?

@amist,

amist;151767 wrote:

Collateral Murder

I'm mainly posting this just to get it out there, but if anyone has any comments please feel free to post away.

Well, the link times out, so I am unable to read about it. But I do recall reading something about the report of the incident, vaguely. Of course, I don't know the whole story, and there might very well be more to it than has been reported. But how can there be any other explanation than that American pilots, and Americans in general, are a very evil people who love to murder ,"murder" mind you, not just killing, so we all know for sure it must have been intentional. It is easy to tell about a pilots intentions when one is on the ground and the pilot is several thousand feet in the air. There can be no charity for Americans. They are not merely presumed guilty. They are automatically guilty of all despicable things foreigners can say about them. I can just imagine how they laughed at the deaths of those "correspondents". It must have been one of those evil laughs one hears in children's films. You know, "heh, heh, heh, heh". And I can tell how morally urgent you must have felt to get it out. Obama has a phrase for it (he has a phrase for everything, after all) it is "the fearful urgency of now". Isn't that thrilling?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156948 wrote:

Well, the link times out, so I am unable to read about it. But I do recall reading something about the report of the incident, vaguely. Of course, I don't know the whole story, and there might very well be more to it than has been reported. But how can there be any other explanation than that American pilots, and Americans in general, are a very evil people who love to murder ,"murder" mind you, not just killing, so we all know for sure it must have been intentional. It is easy to tell about a pilots intentions when one is on the ground and the pilot is several thousand feet in the air. There can be no charity for Americans. They are not merely presumed guilty. They are automatically guilty of all despicable things foreigners can say about them. I can just imagine how they laughed at the deaths of those "correspondents". It must have been one of those evil laughs one hears in children's films. You know, "heh, heh, heh, heh". And I can tell how morally urgent you must have felt to get it out. Obama has a phrase for it (he has a phrase for everything, after all) it is "the fearful urgency of now". Isn't that thrilling?

I love how defensive you are getting when you never actually saw the tape. All of the in cabin conversation is captured on the tape. Just watch the ******* thing before you start getting all defensive.

@amist,

amist;156949 wrote:

I love how defensive you are getting when you never actually saw the tape. All of the in cabin conversation is captured on the tape. Just watch the ******* thing before you start getting all defensive.

Yes. I agreed with you. No charity for Americans. It is only war, after all. And the enemy is so merciful. They are just a bunch of fuzzy little fuzz balls. Wouldn't hurt a fly (and there are so many over there too). And when those pilots go home, they will be carrying oil wells back to the States to put into their back yards. (I bet they all have the Devil Incarnate, better known as Dick Cheney over to drink oil with them).

@amist,

You're being really defensive about this for no reason. Especially when you never saw the tape.

@amist,

interview wrote:

I think I agree with this. The van wasn't "supposed to" have civilians in it, they are told not to do that, and insurgents come buy to pick up weapons and bodies. But I don't think they should just shoot based on that weak kind of "supposed to".

@Jebediah,

Is the link dead? I think the website is down.

Here it is on youtube but you gotta sign into your youtube account to watch it.

@amist,

Seems to be. Here's the video on youtube though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

Although you have to sign in to watch it. Googling around will probably turn it up too.

-edit-

Sweet, embedding it bypasses the sign in thing.

@Jebediah,

wikileaks is the future of journalism.

@Diogenes phil,

Diogenes;154651 wrote:

Or it could be that the pilots got some RPGs confused with camera tripods

Seriously, though, Wikileaks is a pretty sensationalized source of information, I wouldn't trust everything they post there as 100% accurate, as the context they provide is usually over-exaggerated.

Besides, why the **** would you drive your kids into a van and pull up in an area where you hear and see gun shots all around?

The spokesman for Wikileaks already said that he gives the videos titles that will create more public attention, intentionally sensationalizing the videos for political impact. Otherwise, the videos would go unnoticed and there wouldn't be an impact at all. So he edits the videos, gives them titles like 'collateral murder', and presents them to the public. He also makes the unedited video available on his website so that we can go back and see the whole thing if we're skeptical.
I think what he's doing is commendable to say the least. He offers a safe outlet for individuals who feel that they've been a part of something ethically inappropriate and provides a service for the public by keeping us more informed.
I don't think the ethical controversy should be about the source of the video (wikileaks), but the content of the video (collateral murder).

Philosophy Forum

US pilots kill war correspondents/children and laugh

Quick Links

My Account

able2know