That is exactly what I saw. It is also fairly clear to me that it was a camera. How could they have mistaken that for a gun??? I'm not sure why the American military felt the need to engage, at least from the footage that I have seen. Perhaps there is more to the story, I don't know. But that footage was chilling to the bone.
That video is disgusting, and I find it appalling that a number of folks on this thread are either okay with the murder of the innocent civilians or outright condoning it. I find it difficult to believe that the majority of folks are okay with actions like this, be they liberal or conservative.
Redress said:It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under
but in war
Yes, I'm sure it was stress that was causing him to chuckle as he shot an innocent reporter to death. :roll:
This isn't a war; this is an occupation.
It's not that people are OK with it, it is that things like that are inevitable. Our military does tend to do all it absolutely can to minimize mistakes, but they will happen. From my watching, it looks like mistakes where clearly made, with tragic results. It's sad, but in war, these things do happen. It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under, and knowing that mistakes the wrong way can result in their friends dying, well, you can understand why they tend to err towards tending to be overaggressive.
“There is no question that Coalition Forces were clearly engaged in combat operations against a hostile force,” said Lt. Col Scott Bleichwehl, spokesperson and public affairs officer for MND-B.
Wow... You are all grotesque. Those men attacked noone. The van with kids was obviously random good citizen trying to help someone with no weapons that is hurt. They purposely allowed unarmed non-combatents to be murdered via shoddy rules of engagement.
You make some very good points. War is hell, and it's easy to judge from my armchair. However, the way in which this incident was reported was almost as disgusting as the mistake. It was apparently clear in the video that these men did not act in a hostile way. Yet the official report reads:
Firefight in New Baghdad; US, Iraqi forces kill 9 insurgents, detain 13 | United States Forces - Iraq
So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?
When did Iraq mess with America?
So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?
No, but there should be a demonstration of hostile intent before engaging. Simply walking out in the open with an AK-47 (which is commonplace in Iraq) is not a sufficient demonstration of hostility.
They are under great stress. I'm not sure how you can deny that.
Either way, it's warfare.
Thank God you don't get to make up the rules of engagement.
Warring forces against those with no army. Occupation is different than open warfare.
texmaster said:So we have to wait for someone to attack before we can attack? What planet are you on?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My point was that whether you call it a war or an occupation, warfare is the end result.
AK's are very commonplace in Iraq. Are you suggesting that simply carrying one is a sufficient justification for engaging?
Absolutely. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion with the Marine Corps. Those were our orders. It's my life or theirs.
Absolutely. I was in Iraq for the 2003 invasion with the Marine Corps. Those were our orders. It's my life or theirs.
ROE's are not static in an evolving conflict, devil dog. What was appropriate in 2003 is not necessarily appropriate in 2007.
The video comes with several caveats. First, the warning soldiers always give about viewing things like this: Videos simply don't capture the complexity, pressures and confusion of modern warfare, they say. Things may look one way, now, on video, but in the heat of battle, it's likely that they seemed a lot different to those involved.
Second, the video may not show Americans doing anything wrong -- or at least not illegal under the Law of Armed Conflict. The shorthand version of that law is that you can kill the enemy, period. The gray area in asymmetrical warfare, however, is determining just who the enemy is. Given those ambiguities, in a military courtroom a jury would have to determine if the shooter "honestly and reasonably" believed he was shooting the enemy, according to Gary Solis, an expert on military law at Georgetown University. "That will always be a defense," he told Salon.
I went a step further and called Homeland Security DHS | Contact Us
And told them about the threatening comments on the video reagarding America.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?