Pharyngula

Posted by: erutheone.eric | April 5, 2010 5:09 PM

I wish they had a version without the arrows describing what and who was actually on the ground, and that they forced you to watch that first. Our solders over there don't have the luxury of instant replay.

I only wish that the government hadn't tried to cover up the indecent. I do, however, understand why they tried to.

Posted by: Sioux Laris | April 5, 2010 5:12 PM

"That's the way we are. We're pigs."

Posted by: transmogrifier | April 5, 2010 5:15 PM

Oh great! I just saw this video on Andrew Sullivan's blog and was livid with anger. I came to your blog to read something else so that I can go back to work again. But here you have it too!

This video is horrible. I didn't see anyone with weapons in the video either. Especially despicable is the fact that the soldier in the helicopter wanted the wounded reporter to make any movement that may look like he is picking up a weapon so that he can shoot him some more. And then they shot the children! Simply horrible!

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 5, 2010 5:17 PM

Has there ever been an imperial occupier that hasn't acted this way?

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou | April 5, 2010 5:19 PM

So why isn't this all over our supposed "liberal" media?

Posted by: Red John | April 5, 2010 5:25 PM

Saw this on your twitter feed earlier. Truly awful.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8Er0xHwr5oQ2bWARUzonh6Ov_ijL0Dbw | April 5, 2010 5:27 PM

So why isn't this all over our supposed "liberal" media?

We have no liberal media. We have corporate media. I'm guessing you were being sarcastic and already knew that.

I can't watch this--or the lousy TV news that ignores this horror.

Peg

Posted by: The ghost of Rod Serling | April 5, 2010 5:29 PM

I don't know enough about the war to know whether it was (In theory) a good idea or not. Still, when you corral a bunch of teenagers into your armed forces with Kid rock songs, product placement in Michael Bay movies and subtle/not so subtle xenophobic propaganda you have to expect results such as this.

Posted by: hje | April 5, 2010 5:30 PM

I hope they identify the SOBs who pleaded for permission to fire and fire again, and make them watch the video every fucking day of the rest of their fucked up lives.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou | April 5, 2010 5:32 PM

I'm guessing you were being sarcastic and already knew that.

Yeah, well you know. I can't be expected to put a sarcasm tag every time I make a sarcastic remark. :P

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 5, 2010 5:34 PM

The BBC is covering it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm

Posted by: Stuart | April 5, 2010 5:36 PM

It's been top story on Al Jazeera English for most of the day... but of course that has minimal coverage in the US.

Posted by: n1l0c2501 | April 5, 2010 5:38 PM

As someone else posted on the comments for this video, it makes me wonder how many other incidents like this have taken place that we've never heard about.

Posted by: Glenn G | April 5, 2010 5:40 PM

"We are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians"

You doubted this for a second about the USA professor Myers?

Posted by: nichalai | April 5, 2010 5:42 PM

This is what happens when you deify the military.

I'm all for supporting the troops that aren't fucking worthless subhuman trash, but I unfortunately know too many of them that are.

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 5, 2010 5:44 PM

Horrible is too soft a word, but do not feel like cursing. Being me, I watched it so can expect nightmare duty tonight. Just went through a bout of that and was getting better - my mind has been dry cleaning itself.

It is a horror for the Iraqis and the Afghans when it happens there. It is also a horror for the soldiers who did it and they will face it in the future in their dreams and memories. War cheapens and ruins the lives of both the civilian victims and the soldiers who fire upon them.

Yes, it can be stopped. Commanders have to issue orders about rules of engagement and what they should and can do and enforce the rules. Collateral damage does happen for real at times, but too often it is an excuse. This was not responding with fire when ambushed, adrenalin pumping and fear twanging the nerves. This was at long range and the people had time to think and look. Hell, the things I did which are justified are hard enough to face.

Enough, need to try and switch off.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 5, 2010 5:47 PM

#1:

This is what happens when you go to war, and especially when you go to war with an idiot leading the charge from the White House. Even if some other war happy prick put us in this mess, it would have happened, because we went to war for the wrong reasons, without proper planning, without anything guiding the CiC except OIL FEAR KILL OIL FEAR KILL OIL FEAR KILL OIL FEAR KILL. Anyone who had been in the military who wasn't a retard ideologue could see this coming.

That's why Iraqi human rights was one of the first items I brought up when I was at my Congressman's office to let the prick know how moronic this Iraq thing would be. I asked him what would be done if the soldiers committed another My Lai, which would inevitably happen in war, so it had to be addressed. Did we want that on our consciences, especially if we went to war for the wrong reasons. Do you know what answer I and other concerned citizens got?

"Our military is a more professional fighting force now."

He didn't even hesitate to say it.

This is ignorance at best, and at worst denial of reality on a dangerous scale. This incredible mentality is what creates My Lai, Abu Ghraib, and this incident. The rot starts at the head, as the old saying goes, and this travesty started with half the body already rotten from cynicism, narcissism, and flat out greed.

As soon as I heard that remark, I knew we were facing another Vietnam, because we had learned nothing from its mistakes--or its misery.

Posted by: andrew h | April 5, 2010 5:49 PM

"We are the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians."

hasn't it been this way for centuries? it's not news. it's been going on since we got here. we Americans have never been the good guys. come to grips with it and keep your head down.

on the other hand, Jessica Alba has never adopted a baby before. this is *news*.

Posted by: Katrina | April 5, 2010 5:50 PM

Saw it this morning on Rachel Maddow's blog. I expect there will be mention of it on her show tonight.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Scholar of Shen Zhou | April 5, 2010 5:54 PM

Onward Christian soldiers.

I can't remember how many times Christian TV programing have said that this war will bring Christianity to the middle east. Jesus did say he brought a sword.

Posted by: mothra | April 5, 2010 5:55 PM

I have no intention of watching the macabre video. When did this incident occur?

Posted by: Prometheus | April 5, 2010 5:58 PM

This will get covered in the media for certain.

I don't think it is a fair inference that the helicopters saw the children or that the cameras were not Klashnikovs and RPGs.

The jovial mood that soldiers have in face of the horrors of far is despicable.

Islamic militant groups do have a habit of brinking noncombatants with them so it makes the US look bad. This is the essence of the soldier's comment on the children: The Islamists killed them long before the soldiers fired a bullet.

Of course, we know know that the van was not full of militants and the inference was not valid at the time. The firing on the van should not have occurred, and indicates the soldier behaved barbarically.

More telling than all this would be what the military procedures are for this sort of engagement. If the helicopter guy violated procedures, that would be small injustice in a war ordinarily fought with more regard for civilians. If the helicopter guy followed procedures than we don't need to see it on video to know that it happens all the time everywhere.

Posted by: Demonhype | April 5, 2010 6:02 PM

dboy @ 24:

This has been my point for years, and it's frustrating how people deflect it. That deflection is part of the problem and the first part that needs to be fixed before anything else can be done. Much like the "War" on Drugs, it's turned into a witch hunt against anyone who offers legitimate criticism. Criticize the witch-finders and you will be in the defense stand. Criticize the anti-drug zealots and their methods and you are marked as an addict by definition. Criticize the troops and you are marked as an inhuman monster who hates the troops and should be forcibly impressed into the military, deported, or even killed. (I've been hit with all three numerous times.)

How the fuck can we begin to fix this if any criticism of the military is drowned out in a sea of ignorant patriotism? How can you fix any problem when legitimate criticism is punished severely or simply shut down? How can you make anything better when the very act of asking a simple question is anathema? (very similar to religion over the ages, actually)

I haven't watched it yet. I want to wait for my dad so I have some damn moral support. Some part of me doesn't want to see it, but I feel it's important.

I'm thinking of it this way: if it's hard for me to watch, imagine how much harder it is for the people who were gunned down on their own streets? And how can anything be done if this is ignored because it's "too distressing" to watch? If I can't even be prevailed upon to suffer the distress of being informed (at minimum), then how will this sort of thing not continue to happen again and again forever?

I'm glad BBC is covering it at least (or so someone commented). It's disgusting that in all the deified-military cheerleading the media can't be bothered to report on something that's actually relevant, if not pleasant or fitting in with the bizarro-world they're trying to sell us.

Posted by: JSug | April 5, 2010 6:08 PM

Apparently, the truth is a threat to national security.

Posted by: lautrec85 | April 5, 2010 6:08 PM

Wow, I remember having been in a couple of demonstrations against this--7 years ago. It was 2003 alright, the same year America murdered José Couso, a spanish journalist, by bombing down the hotel where he and many other journalists from all over the world were placed. Thank good we got a new president that got us out of that illegal, hideous invasion as soon as he could.

The rest of the world have been watching what's been happening in America last year. We thought your president would create some hope not only for domestic issues but also for the neverending hell of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

Posted by: Andyo | April 5, 2010 6:11 PM

Patriotism is a bug, not a feature.

Thanks for bringing this up. I wonder how our American rationalists and atheists feel about this. I don't see it mentioned too much. Patriotism (not only chauvinistic nationalism, which is obviously worse) has bugged me for years, almost as much as religion, but it doesn't seem to bother other people.

Posted by: ChrisD | April 5, 2010 6:12 PM

The people who did this are fools with a will to survive. Combatants often stand out in the open after spotting an attack helicopter? Fuck me sideways if they do. Their was or should have been reasonable doubt per their actual intent.

What the victims did wrong won't excuse the manslaughter, but the one fatal error made was the camera man ducking around a corner aiming some black thing at a military vehicle suspiciously. If I was in the chopper with them I would have some increased fear for my safety at that point, yes.

What I imagine is the most grotesque thing about it is the bloodlust, the callous disregard for human life, the lack of remorse, the sickening inhumane comments afterward. Yet I suppose they have to compartmentalize like that when they murder for a living.

Posted by: zhcchz | April 5, 2010 6:13 PM

#1 you can see an annotated timeline here: http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/timeline.html

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | April 5, 2010 6:15 PM

I have never understood the reasons for invading Iraq. However I knew as soon as the US did invade that incidents like this would take place with some frequency.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 6:18 PM

The incident just makes me sick. I can barely focus.

There was another blog that posted this that got swarmed with defenders rushing to defend the unjustifiable, find some way that an atrocity could be nice and legal, understandable, merely "unfortunate".

It sickened me even more. There is a rot at the center of American culture, an idea of toxic masculinity built upon the deaths of the weaker, the different. It is a drive so strong that many wanted to dissuade any detractors who ever say war is fundamentally a bad thing. That these atrocities are a part of war and why war shouldn't be a fucking dalliance of occupation and aggressive invasion.

Even in the last "good war" for America, we committed atrocities like they were going out of style. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Japanese internment camps. And that's before a thousand incidents on the ground like this that we'll never know about.

Even this would have disappeared, only to have been known by "our enemies" that we would have responded to in a daze "how could they hate us" if not for the victims being our own, our hired reporters.

This rot doesn't just stop with the Bush junta, this goes through our society. This careful seeking of the indefensible is heightened, unleashed in the chaos of war, but it's built of the racism and fear of the other seen in lynch mobs and teabagger protests. The rapes of war are built in the sexism of the rapes at home. And the belated justifications and "acceptable targets" are so often felt in the dead bodies of "its", I mean trans people, and also hookers.

And again, I feel sick not only that this occurs and we can't seem to get anyone of political will to stop it, get our troops out or build any framework to prevent the next "wargasm"-style invasion on flimsy pretense, but how it reveals the depravity in our fellow citizens who will do anything to try and erase this incident, what it means, about us and about war.

In short, we suck.

Posted by: David Marjanović | April 5, 2010 6:19 PM

Because he's a citizen of the United States of America and pays taxes most of which go to prop up it's bloated, murderous military machine.

That's not his fault.

It could at most be called his fault if it stays that way because he's not doing enough against it... but so far, it looks like he is doing against it what he can.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 5, 2010 6:20 PM

DavidM, I read about and saw photographs from Fallujah not long after the battle where the white phosphorus was dropped. Horrifying. I'm not surprised that there are long lasting effects. It seems like after three wars where we used weapons that cause 20 years of birth defects, poisoned suffering civilians, and latent deaths from cancers and various syndromes... you'd think we'd quit it.

What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

The American public at large cared more.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | April 5, 2010 6:23 PM

People, people, people! We need to SUPPORT our troops!

A good, strong rope would support them nicely.

Posted by: acr228 | April 5, 2010 6:25 PM

Not to defend the actions of the pilots but as for someone who has seen many an AK and RPG the people did look like they were carrying weapons. The way they were carrying their camera's look like AK's slung on the shoulder and being carried by one hand. The guy who also pokes his head around the corner carrying an object also looks like an RPG launcher.

After that though is where things break down extremely fast. Since there were no American forces in the immediate area they should have continued to observe instead of requesting permission to engage and there is ABSOLUTELY no excuse to fire upon the van. ROE at the time was positive identification of target before engaging and as soon as you lose the PID you are no longer supposed to engage. They didn't have PID. They only had suspicions.

The ROE's suck but they are in place to protect the civilian population. What I mean by the ROE's suck is that if you're engaged you can't fire back if you can't ID the source. You can get shot at, know the general area it came from but because you don't see the man who was just shooting at you holding a weapon in his hand anymore you can't do anything about it. Failure to follow the ROE's results severe punishment for junior enlisted. Hell, the higher ups will try to fry you for following the ROE's. Not so much if your senior enlisted and these pilots where anything but junior enlisted, most likely Warrant Officers, not the teenagers the ghost of rod serling automatically assumes.

Those pilots violated the ROE's plain and simple as did higher who gave them permission to engage. They'll get off easily because they are warrant officers/officers.

Posted by: Red John | April 5, 2010 6:26 PM

I wonder how our American rationalists and atheists feel about this. I don't see it mentioned too much.

I've never really understood patriotism either. I support freedoms, not countries. Patriotism is just another way for people to split humanity into us vs them instead of realizing that, for better or worse, we're all in this together.

Posted by: Ordeneus | April 5, 2010 6:29 PM

This is pretty sick, but I think you have to expect that this is happening ALL the time. Were it not for these being reporters I'm sure this would never have come out.

Americans are occupiers, torturers, killers. In your name this happens...

Posted by: Menyambal | April 5, 2010 6:31 PM

http://english.aljazeera.net

Posted by: Happy Tentacles | April 5, 2010 6:35 PM

That was utterly horrifying. Does anybody know what happened to the children?

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 6:36 PM

And for those commenting about "well maybe I could understand", this is at the root of the banality of evil. We get so used to it. Oh, yes, there would be a great reason to gun down underarmed people first for no reason and keep firing, there would have to be, cause otherwise, we're just committing evil to avoid admitting a mistake and every time we approve a war, we will see a thousand atrocities. Or even start viewing war itself as an atrocity.

Evil is not all powerful, evil is banal. Something we'll slip into because it's in the culture, everywhere. And only the long scope of time will truly make us see how vile we used to be.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 5, 2010 6:38 PM

YEah, that guy on the tape anxious to shoot reminds me of a quote from Monty Python's Meaning of Life:

Better than staying at home, eh sir! At home if you kill someone they arrest you. Here they give you a gun, and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers sir! Now at home they'd hang me. *Here* they give me a fucking medal sir!

Posted by: Bobber | April 5, 2010 6:38 PM

This is what empires do. Somehow Americans have never gotten over the myth of their "divine mission", that somehow we are special, and that very specialness makes us immune to the excesses of militaristic imperialism.

I've often thought that if we'd learned the lessons from the Philippines, Vietnam might not have happened. Now I despair that we just learned the wrong lesson.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 5, 2010 6:42 PM

This is what empires do. Somehow Americans have never gotten over the myth of their "divine mission", that somehow we are special, and that very specialness makes us immune to the excesses of militaristic imperialism.

Yup. We believe our own PR, despite all evidence.

Posted by: Ziggy66 | April 5, 2010 6:43 PM

CBS News just aired a report and showed SOME of this footage. They left out the part about the children.

Posted by: Alpinist | April 5, 2010 6:45 PM

This was posted over at Reddit by a person who was there (soldier in Iraq):

--quote:

War is an ugly, atrocious action. Bad things happen every day; good things only rarely. It's a waste of money, time, potential, and especially lives. What's in this video is distasteful to say the least, but it's also intentionally inflammatory (presumably so WL gets more clicks, and we all obliged them). This video is from a period of increasing, and increasingly violent, action by insurgents. Mortar and rocket attacks, IEDs/EFPs, executions in the most grotesque manner, were all becoming the norm.

The men you hear are reacting to stress from a variety of sources: lack of sleep because of indirect fire attacks, stress from friends being WIA/KIA, stress from feeling little support from the Iraqis at that time, from being away from home and family. In all that stress, they still behaved according to the rules of engagement. They positively identified small arms (which are a threat) and misidentified an RPG. Had I not known, I would also have called out RPG. It unfortunately looks like it, and that was amplified by the pose he took. WL added in captions to let you know there were cameras to amplify outrage, but having flown around Baghdad in helos everything looks like a threat after they shoot at you.

Shooting the van was also justifiable because the "insurgents" were going to collect their wounded and weapons. Clearly the aircrew were wrong, but not unjustifiably and probably only in hindsight. They followed the ROEs, received approval to fire, and did so efficiently. Further, the initial statements that said they were engaged with a violent group also does not strike me as "cover up." If you've ever been involved with an emergency situation you know the first reports out are usually wrong. The later reports, however, I find repugnant. Events like this make me want to stay in the military because I don't want the bastards trying to cover up what was a horrific mistake thinking I won't be right over their shoulder next time.

I have found virtually all the military members I was with in Iraq serious, professional (at least on duty!), and genuinely concerned for civilians. You saw the soldiers running out with the kids. Genuine concern there, from fathers, older brothers, cousins that know kids like that back home. The amount of work we did to keep civilians out of harms way was breathtaking sometimes because it put us in much more vulnerable situations. I'm good with that. I signed up, they didn't. As for the attitude and demeanor of the aircrew, yep, it's stomach-turning. I did see this on occasion, and it's not something I've seen many redditors say they teach you in training. It's a defense mechanism to deal with the privations and violence you see. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to deal with it. If you've never read or seen a synopsis of On Killing you absolutely should. That's why running over a body was seemingly funny. I'm ashamed to say I've had similar gut reactions of really terrible things, and like those guys I feel awful about it when I reflect.

This post isn't to justify the killings, but hopefully to tone down some of the hyperbole. It's a terrible tragedy; it's a waste; I'd love to see us out of Iraq as soon as feasible. It's not a war crime. It's not 18-year-old kids just wanting to kill people for the fun of it. Now, let's all be pissed together that it took this long to get the real story out. OK, too long of a ramble but I needed to get it off my chest.

--end quote

Posted by: redmjoel | April 5, 2010 6:46 PM

Perhaps this will cause some of the outrage of the My Lai Massacre, and finally turn public opinion against the wars. Of course, one would have though the Abu Ghraib would have had the same effect.

Posted by: Valdyr | April 5, 2010 6:51 PM

Personally I would have never fired on it, but ultimately until you surrender you are still in the fight.

What fight? Please tell me what part of the video shows any of these people doing anything more than crouching at the corner of a building and peering down the street while holding an unidentified black object. And please tell me how the danger from one, maybe two guys with AK-47s is so great to a couple of Apaches hundreds or thousands of feet away that justifies ripping a group of people standing around unawares to shreds with 30mm cannon fire.

How do you surrender to a attack helicopter that mows you down while you're talking on your cellphone doing nothing wrong?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkK3Cosm9nnFw8tuX2VjPQYU5NY0754clw | April 5, 2010 6:54 PM

The Guardian may have reported it, but using absurdly understated wording.

"Wikileaks video prompts US criticism"

Shouldn't that be "US soldiers massacre civilians?"

"Footage of July 2007 attack made public as Pentagon identifies website as threat to national security"

National security my ass. Soulless idiots that carry out actions like this are threats to world security. Why not focus on the right things? That'll be the day.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | April 5, 2010 6:54 PM

Jingoism isn't patriotism.

Posted by: ChrisD | April 5, 2010 6:57 PM

An AK-47 and RPG are clearly visible at 3:45 if you bother to look, taking out the group was perfectly legit.

Clearly they also weren't being fired upon. At all. Also, when did it become OK to kill people who simply have weapons, who you have no ability to contact and warn them to disarm? Even if you are correct in your assumption that those were weapons, I want to know why you think it's necessary to kill people who carry weapons in an area of the world beset on all sides by violence. They could have been bodyguards. They could just be civilians arming themselves. If our second amendment is so great, maybe we should allow it to apply in the areas we're illegally invading.

Posted by: Utakata | April 5, 2010 7:00 PM

"An AK-47 and RPG are clearly visible at 3:45 if you bother to look, taking out the group was perfectly legit. As for the van, if it where marked then that would have been a clear cut war crime, but it wasn't and as such has no protective status. Personally I would have never fired on it, but ultimately until you surrender you are still in the fight. Being wounded does not make one not dangerous."

Presuming what you said is true, I don't care if they where waving around fracking ICBMs, WP @ #80, killing people hostile or otherwise is never legit. Killing bystanders is even less. Idiot!

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 5, 2010 7:02 PM

And aim your flame at the faggots who are trying to cover this up.

Just who the fuck do you think you are, and just where the fuck do you think you're posting? Watch your mouth.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 5, 2010 7:02 PM

As for the van, if it where marked then that would have been a clear cut war crime, but it wasn't and as such has no protective status.

Wow, some of the excuses....

Posted by: khaos.theorem | April 5, 2010 7:04 PM

I honestly don't understand how anyone could be surprised by any brutality done by our, or any other, volunteer military. It is entirely full of people who signed a contract that says that they are willing to kill people for money.

I wouldn't want to not have a military. I understand the need. I just can't understand why people seem to worship and give adulation to what are literally hired killers.

These people did what they are paid to do: kill. The only part that deems investigation is whether they killed the people we did not direct them to and if they did it in proscribed way.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 5, 2010 7:08 PM

hitblade:

So, how about cutting the soldiers some slack instead of judging them by a crappy video.

No, I don't think I will. Unlike you, I use my brain, whereas you rely on blind patriotism and shit pulled from your ass.

And aim your flame at the faggots who are trying to cover this up.

Watch your mouth, you ignoramus.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 7:13 PM

ChrisD @102

Yes.

It is tragic, the loss of humanity in the killers, how their souls get drained in the chaos of war. It's why we SHOULDN'T fucking engage in it like it was the Superclassico and we hope our team will score a magical goal that'll make all our dicks hard and bring purpose to sad little lives.

War murders the weak, gives excuse for the petty tyrants, slaughters living, breathing, loving humans by the thousands, and drains the humanity of even the side with the moral high ground.

And when we don't even have that...

There is no end to the atrocities you'll get your people to support to avoid thinking about that. Yeah, sure, torture some people in Abu Ghraib, kill random cameramen and beg for a chance to keep shooting, anything to keep me from realizing that I'm one of the baddies.

Posted by: davem | April 5, 2010 7:16 PM

WP:

Being wounded does not make one not dangerous.

Wtf? Being wounded, clearly not being armed, and being horizontal, in the arms of two other unarmed guys, and he's still dangerous? Fuckwit.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 7:19 PM

Prometheus: I don't think it is a fair inference that the helicopters saw the children or that the cameras were not Klashnikovs and RPGs.

I don't see how you can have it both ways. If they had a clear enough view to distinguish a camera from an RPG -- which one would have to be able to distinguish to justify shooting on civilians in an urban center who aren't pointing anything at you -- then you can see the kids in the van.

I couldn't even understand why the gunner kept on talking about eight men with AK's (multiple) and RPG's from the video. You can't see a damn thing, other than one man or two appear to be carrying something. Was he just making shit up for the recording? Was he insane, seeing AK's that weren't there in his mind?

The helicopter is perfectly safe. There are no troops on the ground that need immediate assistance. This is just civilians milling around, with the unconfirmed possibility that someone might have a weapon in a city in the middle of a civil war.

Are these our "rules of engagement"? Shoot if you have a suspicion that someone might be your enemy? In an urban zone? When all your troops are safe, and you can perfectly well stay out of range until you have real confirmation? Is the plan to just kill anyone who might be a "militant" -- screw the costs in civilian lives?

Isn't that the very definition of a war-crime -- to engage in war without any consideration for civilians?

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 5, 2010 7:24 PM

Wtf? Being wounded, clearly not being armed, and being horizontal, in the arms of two other unarmed guys, and he's still dangerous? Fuckwit.

This. Seriously - what the hell? "Whoa there - no second chances for you! We meant to kill you dead the first time, so don't even bother crawling away." It's depraved. It's as if those fuckers in the helicopter were offended that their quarry had the audacity to still be alive, to struggle for his life.

Sometimes I hate humanity so. Watching this has affected me far worse than I would have thought. Were I religious, I'd describe it as feeling like a piece of my soul was killed. Damn it, damn it.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | April 5, 2010 7:26 PM

If McCain/Lieberman get their way, it can happen here.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 5, 2010 7:27 PM

I'm just surprised that people are surprised by war still.

That's not an excuse for it.

I don't think the people shooting are really monsters, although my post may have sounded like it. I do think that some people do at points get pleasure or satisfaction out of it. I think that propensity is in more people than we realize so when we are confronted with it, the fact is horrifying.

I think the pilots are acting the way that people do in war (no not all, but enough not to be surprising to me). Which is why it's so important not to start so many damned wars.

The most shameful thing really to me though is the attempt at cover up from the military later.

The blatant lies about what occurred are what have me particularly upset.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 7:29 PM

I wrote this on the other blog to another crowd of "well, war, you're not military so you wouldn't understand, ROE" types:

War is like the patriarchy, it sucks for everyone involved. The “top dawgs�? lose their souls. The victims, their lives.

I guess, I just don’t want this minimized, just another “what do we do�?. What we do is we don’t fucking go into war!

Cause, this, this is what war is. It’s not cheering parades and kisses on the docks. It’s banal atrocities, friendly fire, meaningless battles, one-sided massacres based solely on nerves or someone’s need to unleash the evils of their hearts on someone they’ve been trained to view as inhuman. It’s rapes and the destruction of societies for generations and massive PTSDs that will be taken out on the innocent for generations to come.

And yet, so often, we treat it like some John Wayne film. Some people will do awesome special effects and then there will be cake and partying and feeling really good about how awesome it will be. And every atrocity gets swept under with “oh, well, what do you expect, these things happen, can’t blame anyone, etc…�?
It’s all connected. And things like this need to be highlighted precisely because this is war. People so cracked under stress that they’ll laugh and beg for the chance to keep gunning down a bunch of same-side reporters through a “video game�? screen. It’s banally evil.

And the sooner the majority of Americans realize this, the sooner we can stop being quick to enter wars and slow to leave them and treat them solely as means for rich white conservatives to get their jollies off on how much the hippies are weeping.

Posted by: Rebelest | April 5, 2010 7:33 PM

David Marjanovic wrote:

"That's not his fault.

It could at most be called his fault if it stays that way because he's not doing enough against it... but so far, it looks like he is doing against it what he can."

Whatever, David...you asked for an explanation of why Dr. Myers kept using "we". I gave you an answer...maybe you're just a little peeved because the answer implicates ALL US taxpayers, whether you supported the war or not(you're just one step removed from the baby killers)!

Of course, there is no way not to pay taxes...if you are feint of heart!

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 5, 2010 7:34 PM

Caine and Josh, are you defending the people who are trying to cover this up? If you ask me, they are the really bad guys in this sad story.

Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you don't understand what we're objecting to? Look at my name, for Christ's sake. Don't call people faggots. It's not a general epithet to be used at people you don't like. It's a nasty slur. If in doubt about when to use "faggot," see if you think subsituting "nigger" would be acceptable.

Shithead.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 5, 2010 7:37 PM

Caine and Josh, are you defending the people who are trying to cover this up? If you ask me, they are the really bad guys in this sad story.

So, "faggots" are bad guys? There are more than a few of us "faggots" on these boards.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 7:38 PM

Furthermore, to the point of this is war.

War deliberately trains men to be sociopaths. The point of training is so that you will without thought of conscience of empathy blow away another thinking, breathing, human being without a thought in the world.

Oh sure, you're supposed to pay lip service to friend and foe, civilian and "bad guy", but the point of being "molded into a soldier" is so you'll kill so fast that no one has a chance to shoot you or your squadmates. If this means dead civilians, meh, collateral damage, who will check? As long as your "team" has more living, you win.

And that's when everything is going right. When people are doing their jobs and the orders make sense and the battlefields are drawn.

Turn it into an occupation, have a sadistic gunner looking for an excuse to mow down some brown people for a laugh, have ROEs that will excuse any murder of a brown person anywhere, even those on our side (hell, even hero Pat Tillman was gunned down by friendly fire).

And the atrocities build and build.

But war is atrocity. Maybe we do it for a reason that we pray excuses our involvement, but it doesn't change the price we pay in our humanity in undertaking it.

So maybe, we shouldn't undertake it for a lark and maybe we should get the fuck out when all we have left is "but gosh gee whilikers, we'd lose if we stopped now". Cause it's not a fucking football match. These are peoples lives, not a position on the league table.

Posted by: hitblade | April 5, 2010 7:39 PM

damn it... i mean "faggot =/= gay". i need sleep.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 5, 2010 7:40 PM

faggot = gay.
good night ignoramuses.

Don't you mean "good night faggots" since you're talking to gay men?

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | April 5, 2010 7:42 PM

"faggot =/= gay"

Posted by: Seth | April 5, 2010 7:43 PM

Some of you see an RPG.

I see a collapsed tripod.

Some of you see an AK-47

I see a camera with a long lens.

I'd love to know who was right.

I'd love to know what hard evidence there was indicating that these guys were doing anything that warranted the attack by the helicopters.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 5, 2010 7:44 PM

damn it... i mean "faggot =/= gay". i need sleep.

No, you need some common fucking decency.

Posted by: watchingthedeniers | April 5, 2010 7:45 PM

Video at 15:32, voice over.

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into battle. That's right."

I'm sure there are enough words in the English language to convey my disgust and outrage.

Posted by: Red John | April 5, 2010 7:46 PM

Caine and Josh, are you defending the people who are trying to cover this up? If you ask me, they are the really bad guys in this sad story.

I seriously doubt he didn't know what you guys meant. Just another dumbfuck of a troll.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 7:46 PM

hitblade: The helicopter crew believed they saw armed men aiming at them.

That simply not true. That's no where in the video -- at best they believed that the men on the ground had the capacity to shoot at ground troops, if the ground troops came closer

They're in a fucking helicopter, quite a distance away! You don't shoot at helicopters with AK's and RPG unless they're right on top of you, as far as I know. No one is pointing anything anywhere in the video, as far as I see. Never does the pilot or gunner say that they're under fire, or someone is about to shoot at them.

It's an absurd statement to say "they saw armed men aiming at them." They didn't even believe that they saw "armed men aiming at them." At best they believed they saw "armed men". At best.

How does that justify shooting into a group of civilians? Because one or two men may be armed -- but you are safely half-a-mile to a mile away? And can perfectly safely retreat quickly if you actually do feel you're in danger?

The entire video makes no sense unless you assume that these soldiers believe that they can legitimately shoot at civilians on the least suspicion that they may possibly be "militants". In other words, that they feel authorized to shoot whenever they see males gathered in any area where conflict has or may occur.

That seems pretty clearly a war-crime -- to act as if you had standing orders (or worse still, to actually have orders) to shoot into crowds of civilians because they are in the conflict zone.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 7:50 PM

Seth @137

Well, there was the inconvenient fact that

WE KNOW WHO THE FUCK THEY ARE!

We know that it's a collapsed tripod, a long-lensed camera, etc... because we know that these were Reuter's photographers preparing to head out and meet up with their colleagues. We have identification of who they were.

Reuter's spent long hours getting to the truth of their men's deaths. Why the military lied and covered up what happened to their men.

And now we know why.

The video drains me.

But the people on even the liberal threads. Desperate for an excuse where this can be excused or explained away, somehow less than it was.

They're the ones who have me weeping for humanity.

No, somehow, this was totally legit. Don't make me think bad things about war, you can't make me, you can't make me. Tanks are the only things that still keep me hard. Waah!

Fuck, man.

This right here is the banality of evil. The corrosion on our souls. And what lust for war breeds in our common culture. This is the fruit of all of our most hated qualities as a species.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 5, 2010 7:52 PM

@aratina:

One of them does sneak around a building and aim an RPG directly at the chopper. I guess it is possible that it is a camera, but it is ambiguous and does appear to have a handle when it is dangling where a camera wouldn't.

You could be right - trouble is, I don't know what I'm looking at, or what to look for. I have no idea whether it would be a reasonable inference to think that guy had an rpg (or how much more detail those in the chopper could see that we cannot in this video).

Even if that were an RPG, the blood bath that followed. . .I can't see how it can be excused. The sheer delight those bastards took in it nauseates me (running over a dead body. . hahah. . .wounded guy crawling around in his own blood. . .comedy gold).

Posted by: Shala | April 5, 2010 7:53 PM

You've sure as hell insulted me, Josh, MAJeff and Cerberus, (and probably more) on just this thread alone.

*raises hand*

I actually don't care if someone calls me a fag. I can usually determine when someone is being either homophobic with it or just equating it with the term 'stupid'.

But shitblade has no place using that word when it comes to an act this atrocious, and should certainly own up when called on it. It's just beyond tasteless to be calling people fags after an incident like this.

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | April 5, 2010 7:56 PM

On the subject of marked vans and for all those inclined to make excuses, I suggest that you look into the case Terry Lloyd.

Lloyd was an experienced ITN journalist, one of several members of the press in two clearly marked vans near the Shatt al Basra bridge. There had been a US/Iraqi fire-fight earlier but it was over. US marines fired on the vans despite their markings. A local citizen with a van came to pick up the wounded and the marines fired again into what was by then an ambulance. Several dead, of course, one still listed as Missing Presumed Dead. All unarmed, all civilians, most of them press.

There are at least four war crimes there: just identify them for yourselves, will you, as I want to get to bed. Start with a search on the BBC News site and then you'll discover much more all over the internet.

The US authorities exonerated the personnel involved and refused to cooperate with the inquest on Lloyd.

And all this was in March 2003. How can anyone with 3 braincells not know? How can anyone with 5 braincells not have forseen? My knees have still not recovered from all the marching I did in the months before that illegal, unnecessary and unplanned war.

Right, I'm off before I put my fist through this screen.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 5, 2010 8:00 PM

Right, I'm off before I put my fist through this screen.

Smart move, Maureen. I should do the same.

Posted by: davem | April 5, 2010 8:01 PM

And why would a journalist hide behind a building and then suddenly jump out and point the camera at the chopper?

I agree, it could be interpreted as an RPG in the heat of the moment, although I disagree it's being pointed at the helicopter - with the benefit of hindsight, you can see it's a camera at 4:16. He's certainly not aiming it anywhere except below the line of sight to the helicopter - it looks like he's taking photographs of the street.

Posted by: acr228 | April 5, 2010 8:03 PM

@147 S

Someone somewhere else on a base completely independent of the base where the Apache came from might have known who they were, but to assume that everyone outside the wire knew who they were, what they were doing and where they were going is ignorant. Many things don't get passed along because of people operating on different frequencies, not having anything to do with their mission, because someone deemed something "super secret squirrel", plans changing or just plain laziness.

There's the inconvenient fact that

WE KNOW WHO THEY WERE NOW BECAUSE WE ARE TOLD WHO THEY WERE. THOSE APACHE PILOTS MOST LIKELY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEM BEING IN THAT AREA, IF THEY EVEN KNEW WHO THEY WERE WHICH IS HIGHLY DOUBTFUL.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 8:09 PM

aratina cage: OK, I watched from 2:33 to 2:44 and Newfie #120 is totally right. One of them does sneak around a building and aim an RPG directly at the chopper. I guess it is possible that it is a camera, but it is ambiguous and does appear to have a handle when it is dangling where a camera wouldn't. And why would a journalist hide behind a building and then suddenly jump out and point the camera at the chopper?

Wow -- folks with magical eyes. "It could be a camera". When they ask to engage, they say "We have five to six individuals with weapons." We've seen two individuals with bags/guns/etc. They are sighting five guys with no apparent weapons.

Then they "see a guy with an RPG". You can see a guy looking in the direction of the helicopter from around a corner -- he might have an RPG, it could be a shadow, or his arm. Then "We've had a guy shooting" -- but they don't say at them, and we see no "shooting" on the video, or any sound of shooting. I can't tell what they're talking about, or whether they're just repeating something they think they heard the other guy say.

They come around the hotel. There's a bunch of guys still milling around -- apparently getting close to the buildings because they've noticed a helicopter overhead, one would assume.

We know two of the folks were journalists -- matching the two bags/rpgs/weapons we see. We never see the civilians reacting like soldiers/militants. They don't break up and go opposite directions. No one fires while the rest go in another direction quickly.

No one ever suggests that they might be unsure of this -- that anyone has to be sent in to "make sure" of what they saw. It's all blase, calm, quiet.

This isn't a hot situation, where you're within striking distance of an opponent and you either shoot or you're dead. This isn't a helicopter coming down under fire to pick up the wounded. This is a fucking patrol over a fucking civilian area which is perfectly capable of backing away if they think someone is actually fucking capable of harming them.

I don't know what you people are seeing. If you think that because you could "think you might be seeing an RPG" on a video like this, that that justifies shooting into a civilian crowd in a city ---

well, you're clearly not my kind of people. Not at all.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 5, 2010 8:10 PM

davem:

He's in a war zone, and people at the end of the street are fighting, and he doesn't want to be a target? Or because it allows him to rest his long lens against something solid?

Yep. I commented up above that aratina cage might not be overly acquainted with serious camera gear. It can be mistaken for a lot of things if all you have is a quick look. As a photographer, I can vouch for the highly bizarre positions you're willing to get into in order to get a photo. Large lenses in particular, which are meant to have a tripod support, can be supported with a portable mount, which is a platform and a handle, so you can move with them.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | April 5, 2010 8:12 PM

Thought I'd try and clarify comment № 117,
Check out Senate bill 3081. It seems to me that almost anyone can be classified as an "enemy belligerent" if they are a "person of interest".
Soo hopefully that bill goes nowhwere.

Posted by: Red John | April 5, 2010 8:16 PM

I suppose nowhwere is also a suitable place for the bill to end up.

Posted by: Meathead | April 5, 2010 8:19 PM

To all the people who seem to be defending this shit, let me just ask you a few questions, assuming you're not just trolls who rolled in from Redstate.

1) I'll admit I can't see much in the video. The quality is shit. The guy with the camera might well have had a rifle too. He might also have had a kitten in a Hannah Montana shopping bag. The main argument I'm hearing is "well you see it MIGHT have been a gun". Funny though, it seems to me that if you're going to kill someone you need more reason than "he might have had a weapon". but...

2) You will argue that this was like when the cops shoot a guy reaching for a cellphone thinking he was going for a gun. Tragic, but they HAD to act. Which brings me to...

3) Really? Last time I checked the Apache was an armoured ship. It can take a few rounds from an AK assuming that it was even possible for the people on the ground to hit the thing. This is not a traffic helicopter that you could shoot down with a 9mm. The RPG (if it was even real) is more serious but again, last time I checked the RPGs the Iraqis have are mostly old Soviet junk. Can they even track a gunship?

4) Finally, as someone upthread pointed out, Iraq is a gun culture paradise anyway. Everyone is armed and it's legal for each household to have an assault rifle. How do we know the "gang" wasn't just going to the gun range?

Posted by: ivankaramazov | April 5, 2010 8:26 PM

I don't mean to be the callous one here, but if they are looking through the same black and white camera we're looking at, the strapped cameras did look like weapons, and one of the individuals had a long cylinder looking object that resembled an RPG. And when one of the individuals was around the corner, it looked like he was aiming an RPG at them.

I think we realize they were holding cameras, only because we're made aware of it after the fact, but as a former marine I can quite well see why the soldiers though they saw weapons.

The soldiers seemed to honestly believe they were individuals carrying weapons, and the individuals in the van were coming to aid insurgents. I didn't notice the children in the van, until it was zoomed in later in the film, nor did the soldiers even once mention seeing them.

They followed the rules of engagement, but this time it was a tragic consequence.

I understand that individuals here are taken back by the apathetic nature of the soldiers, because our own privilege doesn't allow us to see how apathetic human beings easily become when exposed to violence quite frequently, when violence is just a part of everyday life. People die, and we loose the ability to sit there and sob over it.

This is just the nature of war, and how we encourage our soldiers to be. Conscientious objectors don't make good soldiers, and defeat the purpose of even having a military.

Posted by: whistlepete | April 5, 2010 8:28 PM

I'm not 100% positively sure, but if you go to the YouTube link above and watch the video at about 2:40 it looks like the guy they thought had an RPG actually had a camera with a long lens. At one point it looks like the whole thing is out from behind the corner and it appears to be short with a square base, like a camera. When the helicopter swings around you plainly see a guy with a camera, the same guy who initially tried to run when the firing first started.

Posted by: Valdyr | April 5, 2010 8:33 PM

Then "We've had a guy shooting" -- but they don't say at them, and we see no "shooting" on the video, or any sound of shooting.

At that distance, you wouldn't hear the sound of the gunfire, but you'd be able to see the shooting easily enough. And people with rifles who are using them or about to use them move in very distinctive ways--compare the posture and gait of the group of Iraqis to the American ground troops later in the video.

Posted by: darthcynic | April 5, 2010 8:35 PM

Most days I drive to and from classes at my uni, all I have to worry about is incompetent Irish drivers and I can see them.

I have not spent months or years of repeated deployment living in fear of unseen IEDs going off and taking my legs or worse. I have not been shot at by snipers, took heavy fire from assault rifles and rpgs or wondered if the seemingly innocuous vehicle / people are actually intent on facilitating my death.

My point is that it is all very well for us in our comfy homes, sat on our comfy desk chairs to hurl self righteous anger and opine on just what the soldiers should have seen, should have done and acted afterwards. Fact is that hardly any of you have even the slightest idea of what war is like — which is fortunate, what it does and how it feels. You have no idea of the stress or mental toll, and no idea of how things look on the ground. Hindsight is just bloody wonderful, as is slow careful examination of the footage. Until you walk in their shoes, in their environment then you have no real understanding from which to make an informed decision.

Whether right or wrong the US invaded Iraq, having invaded and overthrown Saddam's regime it just could not up and leave the mess it had created. America had to administer the mess it created and the troops are there because of that. The soldiers are there because their job is to go where their government sends them, it is not a pleasant job, it is not a fun job. It is a dull job of boredom punctuated by spells of sheer terror, where grievous injury and death are never far away. The people trying to kill them look just like everyone else as do the vehicles they drive. These people also routinely detonate themselves or the vehicle they are in to kill soldiers, or more commonly their own countrymen. This creates a very tense, stressful environment where mistakes can and will happen, and where hesitation may result in your own or other civilian deaths.

Me, I'll need to see an investigation that finds fault with their actions, I'll not condemn them or hurl abuse at them on foot of one video and my stunning, fortunate lack of comprehension of what war is like at the front. I'd suggest that all the other similar arm-chair experts do likewise.

Posted by: Jarred C. | April 5, 2010 8:39 PM

@ Alpinist #87.

Thank you for posting this. I wanted to write something to that effect, but I didn't have the words.

War is hell. I've been through two. Things I witnessed while I was in Iraq (2003): friend in gunner hatch beheaded while driving down the road, due to wire pulled taught across the road. Iraqi kids dropping large rocks on me and friends in the back of an open-back vehicle (broke a friend's arm); We didn't fire back because they were kids. Friend lost his elbow from insurgents placing ball bearing in an IED. Friend electrocuted to death. Vehicle suicide bomber killing over 50 innocent Iraqi civilians (they were working on our post). Same incident, a friend survived the blast, he was standing 3 feet away from the car when the bomb went off.

Second hand witness (heard from friends who witnessed, and saw aftermath): passenger side of vehicle blown completely off; few to no remains of passenger (I didn't know the guy). Mortar hit a cement wall, shrapnel hit friend along his side and leg. Insurgent blew up only iraqi (civilian) hospital within 50 miles, because americans helped build it.

We were hit with mortars on a daily basis, sometimes multiple per day. I've seen civilians used as shields by insurgents. I was on radio duty on day, and listened to a sister unit in a fire fight. I listened to a trained man lose his mind that day, and break down crying on the radio when the rest of his crew was killed in front of him. He was a lieutenant. I've seen insurgents steel Iraqi police uniforms, and wore them, so we wouldn't be able to tell the enemy from friend. I saw a man's leg sliced clean off from a shotgun blast (iraqi police officer firing upon an insurgent); it was the first time I learned how inaccurate shotguns are portrayed on movies.

On another war front (Kosovo), I saw the aftermath of a macedonian soldier kidnapped by two serbian soldiers. They tied him to the back of their car, and drug him along the freeway. Then they started torturing him. Then they carved his name into his chest before releasing him. I never found out why.

War is hell, and you need serious training to be able to handle it psychologically. I had that training, and I still had problems when I came home. A good friend of mine didn't have that training (he was a mechanic, who was unlucky enough to be caught in a firefight). He shot a man who surrendered, because he thought the man made a signal to other insurgents. He was wrong. It's been years, and he still has issues.

When you're out there, you make on-the-spot decisions that cost people their lives. Usually, and if you're right, they were the enemy. Sometimes, you're wrong, and you live with that the rest of your life, like my friend is right now.

One of the things that makes it worse is Armchair Generals, or people who've never been to war (or any intense, extreme environment), and judge you from their armchairs. You get judged for an on-the-spot decision that may or may not have been right by people who've never experienced what it's like to have to make split decisions while your adrenaline is pumping, while you're sleep deprived and stressed. We trained hard just to be able to act and make decisions in environments like that. Back in the civilian world, I've seen people crumble, collapse, pass out, or just go blank, in extremely stressful environments (I worked as an EMT after the war for two years, and I volunteered for the Red Cross).

I don't know if the men in the video were right or wrong. I didn't watch all of it (got to the part where they shot the unmarked van), as I got tired of seeing just more war. I've been of the opinion that we need to abandon this war for a number of years now.

However, For those of you who are being Armchair Generals, please stop making it worse than it already is.

Thank you,
- A veteran

Posted by: acr228 | April 5, 2010 8:43 PM

@ FROG INC. #170

I am in no way defending their actions, see my post way back up at #67 where I point out what they did wrong in regards to the ROE's. I was just pointing out where someone tried to pass off their assumption as fact in my post at #159

Posted by: MadScientist | April 5, 2010 8:44 PM

Ol' Greg: But Dubbyah's masters said no phosphorous incendiaries were used - only illumination rounds. (Even though reading the accounts of people on the ground, they would either all have great familiarity with the phosphorous warheads or else those weapons really were used despite claims to the contrary.) And there *are* weapons of mass destruction! And nukular bombs! Yeah, don't you just love dumbshits? Don't forget we'll only be there for a "few days, not weeks". I wonder if the Iraqis are missing their old murderous dictator and how the "incidental casualties" in this war compares with Saddam's murder sprees.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/26Pka6RqgOrv5dnPO9sLAHTXFKAjHg--#15934 | April 5, 2010 8:48 PM

I rarely post here, especially on these topics and Jarred C. in #179 sums up why.

Great post. If I may, I would like to nominate it for a Molly.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkbsu50FTcW-y2QCgN20AJH5MYsgFm_bFc | April 5, 2010 8:49 PM

Yeah, I bet these pregnant women who were shot and then had bullets dug out of their dead bodies to cover it up were huge threats as well http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05afghan.html and here is a video of a man talking about Nissour Square when blackwater fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians, killing at least fourteen, one of them this man's nine year old child http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100215/scahill_video

From ABC news, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/blackwater-chief-accused-murder-gun-running/story?id=8258915&page;=1 here's a description of the words contained in an affadavit of an Iraqi man involved in legal action against Blackwater

"Blackwater personnel routinely attacked and killed innocent Iraqis who posed no security threat, sometimes without informing the State Department of the incidents, and that they sometimes used powerful automatic weaponry that was barred by their State Department contract. He also said that Blackwater personnel destroyed videos that showed them conducting criminal acts of violence."

Here's info from the case of Abeer Kassem, who was a fourteen year old who was raped and murdered by American soldiers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1543650/US-soldier-jailed-for-100-years-for-rape.html:

"Sergeant Paul Cortez, 24, admitted he was among five soldiers who broke into an Iraqi home, raped the 14-year-old girl, then shot her and her family and set fire to the house. "

This isn't a one time mistake, this has become the MO of the US military and the Blackwater mercenaries. Murder, rape, and cover up, welcome to US imperialism.

Posted by: tylerofmanyminds | April 5, 2010 8:53 PM

If you've ever wondered what results when the military attracts people like Eric Harris...well, here's your answer.

Posted by: amphiox | April 5, 2010 8:56 PM

This is an example of what I think is the difference between "responsibility" and "fault". (Others may disagree.)

This monstrosity was committed in our names, justified at least in part as for our benefit/protection, and ultimately sanctioned by a political process we participated in, benefited from, and continue to choose to participate in and benefit from.

We are responsible for this, and we share this responsibility with every other U.S. citizen, even though we are not at fault.

And by disseminating this information, and criticizing it, PZ is accepting his portion of the responsibility, assuming ownership or it, if you will. As are all the rest of us who are participating in this discussion.

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 9:00 PM

@179

Yes, war is hell, and it makes monsters of all those fighting and victims of all those caught in it. It occasionally releases the best in us, but far more often releases the worst as the only way to survive is to lose one's humanity until the only people that matter are one's immediate family or squad.

I think many of the "armchair generals" at least on the hippie peacenik side, understand that and understand the unique and hideous position soldiers are asked to be put under for reasons that one eventually hopes were good enough and will end up with nightmares that the vast majority of us at home will never have to suffer.

And I think most of us hippie peacenik types understand this so thoroughly, that things like this serve as great underlines for a fact so often lost in especially American culture. Which is that war is hell so we shouldn't be actively diving into it, actively seeking it out and shoving our weight around and treating it like a fun game.

It is a hell, dehumanizing for the soldier, life-ending for the civilian, traumatizing for generations for everyone involved. And yet, in America, we've had at least one conflict every decade. Almost all in 150 years, wars of aggression or occupation, heavily cheered into and with forces slow to leave.

It's a cancer that needs to stop, because war is hell. I can understand how those pilots could be reduced to doing that. But this horror is what war is. It's not bunting, it's not hero's processions, and kissing your lady at the dock. It's atrocities and death and endless nightmares for the rest of your life.

And this shit needs to be pushed back on for all of our sakes.

War isn't a rite of manhood, war is hell.

Posted by: Newfie | April 5, 2010 9:05 PM

Uhm...?! You got to watch news channels from foreign countries if you want to learn about what's going on in the US of A dirty business.

yup.. just like China, eh?

Posted by: tacroy | April 5, 2010 9:10 PM

I'd just like to point something out: as an example, the maximum range for an RPG-7 (the Soviet mass-produced RPGs that are most common in the Middle East) is about 1000 meters. That's maximum, at which point the thing self-detonates.

If you look at the Wikipedia article, you'll see that the US Army has determined that the hit probability on a 5 x 2.5 meter target moving at 4 m/s at 500 meters is about 4%. The helicopter is somewhat larger than that, but almost certainly at least a kilometer away and moving much faster.

The helicopter crew would have been briefed on these numbers. They knew there was no chance in hell that a guy with an RPG could hit them at that range.

There was zero reason to engage right then and there without any further confirmation, unless they just wanted to see a pretty pile of bodies.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 9:11 PM

@JarredC: However, For those of you who are being Armchair Generals, please stop making it worse than it already is.

You've got it all backwards. It's bad because those in "armchairs" have let generals and politicians be in charge, have refused to hold people responsible for their wars, have "supported the troops".

War is too important to leave to soldiers. Wars continue because folks back home feel comfortable leaving it in the hands of the soldiers -- who'll keep on fighting as long as they're asked to, as long as they're paid, as long as someone is telling them it's the right thing to do.

If it wasn't for the "armchair generals", we'd still be fighting in Vietnam. Soldiers are in no position to judge -- precisely because they're in the middle of the shit. Precisely because they have huge psychological commitments. Precisely because they're being asked to deal with very dirty things, and do dirty things.

Who would you say is best judge of whether the Iraqis should "rebel" against the US? Militants or civilians? Do you think the militants will ever stop as long as the civilians back them in what they're doing?

Why do we make efforts to cut out the support of civilians for insurgents? Why do we try to make them the judges?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/26Pka6RqgOrv5dnPO9sLAHTXFKAjHg--#15934 | April 5, 2010 9:14 PM

"War is too important to leave to soldiers. Wars continue because folks back home feel comfortable leaving it in the hands of the soldiers --

...which is a very good argument for universal mandatory conscription. That would probably get a lot of Americans to think twice before voting for the hawks.

How many of the "armchair generals" here would support that? (Granted it will never happen.)

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 9:22 PM

aratina cage: My excuse is that I don't like being lied to or having information withheld from me in news reports, and Newfie gave the exact places to look for an RPG on the leaked video, and I looked, and I saw what had been called an RPG.

Who was lying to you, or withholding information? The video has the sound track, points out the people. When you see the "rpg", you can hear the gunner, I believe, saying that he "sees an rpg". 'Cept it looks to me like a shadow, or an arm, or a camera, or a reflection.

What is newfie's great "discovery" that isn't clear on the video? That there's a smudge spot that kinda looks longer than it's wide? Seriously?

Are you that sure of anyone's perception for a second or so? Wikileaks never says what the smudge is -- they don't comment one way or another. They just give the facts -- who was known to be there, what equipment they were known to have, etc.

Posted by: Jarred C. | April 5, 2010 9:23 PM

@Cerberus, 192

"Which is that war is hell so we shouldn't be
actively diving into it, actively seeking it out and shoving our weight around and treating it like a fun game."

I wholeheartedly agree.

I wasn't arguing or discussing whether we should be at war (or whether it is right), I was talking about those who criticize on-the-spot decisions in a time of extreme stress, while at the same time never having experienced such a thing themselves, and somehow believe that they would have acted differently or better in the same scenario.

In the comfort of my own home, while sitting in my chair in front of this computer, I have all the time in the world to dissect an issue and determine the best course of action. I do this all the time with me college homework (by the way, thank you to all you tax payers for supporting my college education via the gi bill). Just like all of us do.

During timed tests, however, I see my classmates get anxious, nervous, and often make simple mistakes they wouldn't make on homework. It's a minor version of a stressful situation. Imagine what kind of simple mistakes such a person would make in an extremely stressful situation. Such a thing could cost someone their life. Perhaps in such an extreme situation, you pull a fire-arm instead of a taser, and kill someone. Or you mis-identify an object as a weapons, and you fire. Or you honestly believe that item someone is pulling out of their inside jacket pocket is really a pistol, and you shoot first. Or the opposite happens, and you're now dead. Or you believe that the pothole on the ground you saw out of the corner of your eye is innocuous, and the next thing you know, your friends are dead from the IED.

And yet, we somehow feel justified in condemning and criticizing those on-the-spot decisions, because we believe we would have acted differently; but in reality, would we?

The only way you can answer that is to experience it.

Posted by: Susan | April 5, 2010 9:29 PM

They hate us for our freedoms. [H/T Glenn Greenwald] Good on you for getting this out there more, PZ. I feel sick, too.

Posted by: VermelhoRed | April 5, 2010 9:31 PM

"I wasn't arguing or discussing whether we should be at war (or whether it is right), I was talking about those who criticize on-the-spot decisions in a time of extreme stress, while at the same time never having experienced such a thing themselves, and somehow believe that they would have acted differently or better in the same scenario."

"And yet, we somehow feel justified in condemning and criticizing those on-the-spot decisions, because we believe we would have acted differently; but in reality, would we?"

That's no excuse... yes they are under pressure, but they've been trained to keep cool in those circunstances. Hear their voices again. Do you hear despair? Those shooters were calm, that was just another routine occurence.

How many situations like that happened and didn't leak out?

Posted by: octopod | April 5, 2010 9:33 PM

Thanks for boosting the signal for statesiders, PZ.

$50 to Wikileaks from me. Worth it, even from a grad student's budget.

Posted by: Jarred C. | April 5, 2010 9:35 PM

@frog #198,

I think you are arguing against a point I didn't make. My post at #204 expands slightly.

I was not commenting on whether we should be at war, or whether it is right and just. I was not arguing that civilians should not be involved in decision making in regards to war. Hell, I live in America, and swore to protect a republic/democracy. If the population doesn't want to be at war, then we shouldn't be at war. I am a part of that population that doesn't want to be at war.

This is different from the point I was making, and by reading my post at #204, I believe you'll see that.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/o30.x9duv_EuLh6A2BOYwc3u8WzOVw--#2a57d | April 5, 2010 9:37 PM

I am writing this and identifying myself as veteran who served in OIF and OEF, because apparently this gives you more credibility or something when you are commenting on the atrocious behavior or military members.

I am writing this simply to say that any American citizen has every right to comment on any action taken by any military member at anytime that is representing the United States in an official capacity. This is our country and military members serve the nation. It is a sacrifice that one makes when they wear the uniform and that necessarily makes their life subject to greater expectations of higher performance. Each and every mistake will be scrutinized and criticized and that is tough but it's part of the chosen life. If you don't like it then you are free to not renew your contract with the government when that time comes.

The military is an extension of America whether we like it or not. For some reason people act as though it is some autonomous entity that's above critique from the average citizen. How dare anyone say that American citizens don't have a right to judge their military, especially someone who should know what service is about.

This is a representative democracy and we make the collective decision to go to war together even if we all don't support it. We are the owners of this war and we ultimately sanction it with our vote. We have every right to be armchair generals all we like, and members of the military must serve all the same.

Posted by: Maslab | April 5, 2010 9:39 PM

Sickening. Just sickening.

The bastards even had the gall to say that everything was being done for the children.

Even if they had done everything they could, that wouldn't have mattered.

Posted by: TheMoodyOne | April 5, 2010 9:41 PM

While I do think this is Horrific I dont think the Helicopter pilots/Gunners were totally wrong.

I watched it a few times and I saw what appeared to be 1 AK 47 and 1 RPG held at ease (never pointed anywhere but at the floor) my guess would be these were "bodyguards" for the newsreporters.

As the helicopter circles around I can quite clearly see someone kneelying at the corner (when the gunner says he sees shooting) since the people i saw with weapons hadnt reached the corner yet I think this was the photographer taking photos of the circling helicopters (a good shot to have)

With weapons seen and what they misinterpreted as shooting I can understand why they opened fire

I can remmeber a quote from a BBC reporter who was being airlifted by a helicotper and asked what the constant banging noise was - the pilot laughed and replied "Thats the bullets bouncing off the hull", helicopters came under regular attack at this point (and maybe still do) and this has to put the pilots on edge

The problem is all they had were the eyes from 2 cameras constantly moving - when they decided to shoot they couldnt even see the targets due to cover - why air support is allowed to engage withhout eyes on the ground confirming hostiles is just beyond me and is an utter recipe for more horrifcaly bad situations like this to happen - the pilots wernt at fault - the system which allowed them to fire with no confirmation of hostilities from the ground is at fault (ground troops wer ein the area but hadnt even seen the group)

Posted by: amk.myopenid.com | April 5, 2010 9:43 PM

The draft wouldn't cause any of the jingoistic assholes to think differently, they'd enjoy going off to kill.

The "jingoistic assholes" are chickenhawks.

Posted by: Jarred C. | April 5, 2010 9:46 PM

@ #214

"We have every right to be armchair generals all we like, and members of the military must serve all the same."

I'm assuming this is directed at me, since I brought it up.

Of course you have the right to judge another's on-0the-spot action during violent and extreme situations from the comfort of your own home, never knowing what it is like to experience a similar situation. I was not arguing that you should not have that right.

I was arguing that a person should not engage in such an activity, because it does not help the situation; it only makes it worse.

Yes, we should evaluate what happened, determine if there was fault or not, determine if punishment should be administered, and determine if (and what type of) further training is necessary for the soldiers involved.

But it doesn't really help to say, "you did that? you're a vile and contempt evil person, and I would never do such a thing in your shoes."

There is a difference.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | April 5, 2010 9:46 PM

@JarredC: I think you are arguing against a point I didn't make. My post at #204 expands slightly.

No, I think I am arguing the same point. It's not enough to judge the overall strategy -- to judge the generals and politicians.

We have to judge the actions of the soldiers on the ground. Now, I understand that many of the situations are difficult, people fuckup, hell, people are dying and killing -- we can't judge soldiers in battle the same way we judge our neighbors cutting the lawn.

That's understood. War is hell, and all soldiers must do things that outside of war would be monstrous.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't and can't judge the limits of what is acceptable. If that's too onerous for the soldiers -- if we're demanding something unrealistic -- then the soldiers shouldn't fight.

If society isn't willing to accept the moral responsibility for what the war entails, then the war shouldn't be fought.

You talked about what you saw in Kosovo. Shouldn't the Serbians see what soldiers did in their names? Shouldn't they take responsibility? Shouldn't they say -- if you can't fight within these bounds, we don't want you fighting for us at all? If they don't do that, aren't they consenting to those acts?

War is an evil mess. Sometimes it's unavoidable and necessary. When a society chooses to go to war, they should do it with a clear mind on what are their limits to the war. It should be clear to everyone -- soldiers and civilians alike. If the moral price is too high too bear, if winning requires acts which we are unwilling to do for that victory as a society, then we shouldn't fight.

If we did that, we'd only fight defensive wars. Atrocities that are often necessary in war can only be justified if you are defending your survival and independence.

Posted by: Jarred C. | April 5, 2010 9:53 PM

@ Frog #224

"No, I think I am arguing the same point. [and all the rest]"

I agree with you on these points. And, as I mentioned probably while you were writing that post, there's a difference between evaluating a situation in order to determine what happened, and what should be done (what type of further training, what to look out for next time, etc) - and complaining with the idea that you could handle it better (general you, not you specifically).

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 5, 2010 9:58 PM

I was arguing that a person should not engage in such an activity, because it does not help the situation; it only makes it worse.

I disagree completely. While it may not be helpful to the military or anyone in the short term I disagree on these counts:

1- When faced with disturbing information people may react emotionally. People who do not have the experience will be more prone to this.

2- The only way to ensure that the information gets looked into however is exposing it to the public. This was covered up. It would have remained covered up if the public did not get emotional about it.

Following your logic then the only way to keep the public and armchair generals like "us" I guess from doing what people do when confronted with upsetting facts is to keep those facts from them.

Thus the second step can never happen.

It's all left to the experts, no scrutiny. Of course we can trust them can't we?

Well really, so far I would say no we can't. We most certainly can not. We can trust them to torture people, kill civilians, rape each other.... and we can count on the government and military to cover it up to keep people from talking about what they don't know.

Now I can believe those soldiers really did think they were being shot at, and I can accept that they made a mistake, and I can accept that their nasty attitudes are a product of ignorance and hyper-exposure unique to soldiers.

However, that does not make it ok. It does not mean we need to shut up about it. It does not make the lies and cover up ok either.

So yeah... and by the way I'm sitting in a little hard spindle chair. The kind that aren't really made for sitting in. It hurts my rear.

Posted by: thedarwinreport | April 5, 2010 10:01 PM

Why do we coddle and worship our military without question?

When the enemy steals it's called looting, when the US military does it, it's politely called souvenir collecting.

In the not too distant past soldiers caught looting or raping were hanged.

The troops must be kept in line, and if the only to accomplish that is executing a few of them, well I can live with that.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 5, 2010 10:08 PM

erutheone.eric @ # 1: I only wish that the government hadn't tried to cover up the indecent.

Inspired freudian typo of the month. (And are you sure that's the only thing you wish regarding this incident? C'mon, wishes are cheap, and I can think of a few more, more appropriate...)

Posted by: Maslab | April 5, 2010 10:11 PM

Of course you have the right to judge another's on-0the-spot action during violent and extreme situations from the comfort of your own home, never knowing what it is like to experience a similar situation.

But they weren't. These men were sitting behind several tons of military equipment with a good eye on what was going on. They were playing a computer game. They sat there and talked, waited, and then they mowed those people down like blades of grass beneath a lawnmower.

So please, forgive me if I don't entirely agree with your position.

Posted by: cicely | April 5, 2010 10:13 PM

"And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."

Posted by: Cerberus | April 5, 2010 10:23 PM

Becca @237

In my dark heart, I want a law that says if you support a war you get sent to the front-lines, no exceptions, not even for age. Would dramatically cut down the number of wars we fight.

But the reality we live in, the fight isn't just about wars. The attitude this is based in is based in casual racisms, American exceptionalism, military fetishism that is based on being the only true way a boy can become a man, and a toxic masculinity that posits that killing a man makes you more of a man and kissing a man makes you less of one.

There are interconnected aspects of toxic, horrible behavior that leads to incidents like this one and the constant support for war in general.

Things like civil rights activism, feminism, queer rights, education, anti-war activism, global initiatives, etc... will do the work slowly of untangling the crap piece by piece.

But it's nice to dream of how many will be spared the horrors and atrocities by literally scaring the chickenhawks out of their vicarious desire to kill people without suffering personal risk.*

*Though it wouldn't work. Reagan figured out that a great way to get a "good" quick victory was to invade the weakest country possible to get a "win" for the troops to feel good about. So Grenada got to pay the price so wingnut war supporters could feel rock hard about the military. I have no desire to make the nation of Vanuatu suffer the wingnut wars of the future that would result from such a law.

Posted by: Yubal | April 5, 2010 10:26 PM

frog,

I wasn't saying pacifism should be unilateral, it should be universal.

Screw the nations, yours and all the others, too.

The soldier makes the conflict become a war, not a couple of bad guys with bad intents in high positions.

If your country calls you to the arms, don't go. If nobody goes, there will not be a war.

War is always unnecessary, it always was in the past and in the future we will abolish it.

My country had conscription, I didn't go when I had to. They took me to the barracks by force, but I refused to wear the uniform. They punched me, I said nothing. They handed me a rifle and I threw it on the ground. They beat the crap out of me and I cried like a little girl. They took me to a 'doctor' who gave me drugs. But I still refused to wear a uniform or to touch a gun. Then I spent 14 month in prison. I used the time to read Kant and Spinoza.

Y.

Posted by: Professor Farnsworth | April 5, 2010 10:31 PM

I don't often respond to things I disagree with (or agree with for that matter) on the interwebs, and in fact this may be only my second or third post here in quite a few years as a reader. But now I feel compelled to disagree with most of what's been written here, both by PZ and my fellow commentors.

First, I would like to point out what a great leap it is to go from one (or even several, as this is not the first "war crime" we've seen) incident to labeling the American military as "the storm troopers, the murderous invaders, the butchers of children, the laughing barbarians." We're the "stormtroopers?" Whom would that make the plucky rebel alliance? Al Qaeda in Iraq, the ones who deliberately target crowds of civilians? or is it Would-be warlord Muqtada al-Sadr and his merry band of thugs? But I don't want to get too tu quoque here.

"We aren't in Iraq to help those people, our troops are there to oppress them." Interesting that this comes so soon after Iraq experiences its third free election in my lifetime. I did not support the run-up to the war, didn't vote for Bush, and am under no illusions about weapons of mass destruction or aid to Al-Qaeda, however, I think it is pretty undeniable that Iraq has an opportunity for a brighter future, if the violence stops, than it did without Saddam. There is always the problem that one cannot know the counterfactual, but I must inquire about your opinions anyway, what do all those with these harsh words about American involvement in the region think would be the situation and outlook for Iraq without the war? For the Sunnis? The Shiites? The Kurds? Would they all be joining hands and singing songs together?

But these are not the central point of my disagreement with the post and subsequent comments. It is the kernel of hatred that I see here, the designation of those in the video (and even the US military as a whole) as the Others. As somehow inhuman, or at least not like Us. I see far too much of the Fundamental Attribution Error occuring in this thread. The gunner is judged as a bloodthirsty murderer on account of his actions, but no one has asked if perhaps the situation he was in contributed to those actions.

This helicopter was not simply on a patrol where they decided to open fire on what they thought was an armed group. They were called in as air support for ground troops who were pinned down by enemy fire.

The chopper gunner who we're all demonizing here, is some 18-19 year old kid, who probably knows some of the soldiers that are currently engaged in a firefight. He's probably spent months in a war zone risking his life each day he's there, and he undoubtedly knows fellow soldiers who've been wounded or killed. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing belief here, people don't join the military just to shoot something. It's a major life decision that likely isn't made lightly.

In his mind he's doing his job and defending the lives of not just the soldiers currently on the ground, but the soldiers who would encounter those gunmen at a later time as well as all the civilians who are put at risk from the continuing violence.

And let's look at the actual situation, because lacking the benefit of hindsight, those in the helocopter saw (or thought they saw) two AK-47s and an RPG in a region where US troops were under fire and made a decision to fire. I don't believe that journalists should be fair game as military targets, even if they're interviewing militants (as I think could be the case her), however they aren't exactly wearing nametags that can be seen by those on the helicopter.

But even PZ, argued that the initial firing could have been a mistake. What of the firing on the van. Here I would point out that the helicopter's occupants didn't have the benefit of arrows pointing out the children in the van (which itself was likely informed by the following events, rather than something anybody would have seen in the video without such knowledge). Additionally, this was not an ambulance, which they would have been notified about (and we certainly would have heard if several paramedics were killed, as we have with the children and journalists), and it's not just some helpful passers-by as it arrived with intent to aid the survivors. The remaining option is that it was an "militant" vehicle.

Does any of this make the actions of the gunner or anyone else correct. No. I think the initial firing was done with too little regard for collateral casualties, and I deffinitely wouldn't agree with firing on even an enemy "ambulance." Something certainly went wrong here, and I might even agree that the actions were criminal. But I find something extremely disturbing in how everyone here has reacted to this.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 5, 2010 10:41 PM

Yubal, I aplologize. I don't know what country you are from though you may have said it in other threads. I'm curious though, if you don't mind?

Posted by: Garrett | April 5, 2010 10:44 PM

@Cerberus (#59, #121, #129, #180 et al.),

Well said.

But how do we stop going to war? Rather, how do we (those of us with a conscience, who aren't jingoistic and xenophobic) convince others that wars should be prevented?

Posted by: Yubal | April 5, 2010 10:46 PM

Germany

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 5, 2010 10:47 PM

Rather, how do we (those of us with a conscience, who aren't jingoistic and xenophobic) convince others that wars should be prevented?

Teach your children that killing is wrong. But mean it.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 5, 2010 10:55 PM

AccidentalCommentator @ # 118: This incident is definately one of the worst I've seen/heard of from the war in Iraq...

Haven't been paying much attention over the last seven years, have ya?

As noted above, and in conversations with many Iraq veterans, this is routine - except for the video getting out.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 5, 2010 11:05 PM

If we're going to war, we have to accept responsibility for the horrors.

And I would add, understand that since war IS horror, wars of choice are irredeemably immoral.

Posted by: Ruzhyo2000 | April 5, 2010 11:15 PM

I served for 15 months out of FOB Rustamiyah. I almost lost faith in humanity (and in myself) out there. It was there that I decided I would be an atheist for the rest of my life, no matter how difficult it was, and it was quite difficult for me over there at times (no atheist in a foxhole, after all).

I will say this; it is easy to look at these soldiers and the way they treat their 'victims' and proclaim that they are evil beasts, but they are not beasts; they are children. Children who had a gun thrown in their hand and told to shoot at the person-shaped target before they ever had a chance to grow up, before they are even allowed to consume alcohol or even, sometimes, purchase their own cigarettes.

Sometimes laughing after having ran over a human body is the only way to put aside the reality of what it is you are doing and seeing. The less you view your targets as human (and, coincidentally, the more you consider them as merely person-shaped targets) the easier it is to kill them, and the easier it is to kill, the easier it is to survive.

If you honestly think you could have been thrown in a similar situation, after experiencing what these kids experienced and feeling what those soldiers felt on a day-to-day basis, and you still think you would have felt yourself to be in a position to judge their actions, then you simply do not understand what it is to be at war.

This is not a problem with individuals. The guys in those Apaches were any more inherently prone to desensitizing theirselves with human suffering than the next guy or the next guy. The problem is war and the human response to it. It is in essence a human problem.

Wherever there is war, these evils will exist and propagate, now matter how much ignorant and self righteous societies would like to think their own men and women in uniform are honorable, disciplined individuals. They aren't. They are just people; and they are weak and stupid like the rest of us, and they cope with their forced crimes against humanity in ways the average Joe or Jane isn't going to find very polite or honorable at all.

Posted by: windy | April 5, 2010 11:21 PM

it's not just some helpful passers-by as it arrived with intent to aid the survivors.

That's exactly who it was, asshole:

"Reporters working for WikiLeaks determined that the driver of the van was a good Samaritan on his way to take his small children to a tutoring session. He was killed and his two children were badly injured."

And even if you don't believe the reporters for some reason, how the fuck does the video tell you what the driver's 'intent' was before he saw the injured man?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | April 5, 2010 11:30 PM

Steve--Word. The only way to handcuff the criminals in charge is by educating those they would use as their minions.

Posted by: ckitching | April 5, 2010 11:41 PM

Maybe the soldiers had a justifiable reason to open fire, maybe they didn't (I don't have all the evidence). Their callous indifference to taking away other's lives is disturbing, but not really evidence for or against this.

All I do know for sure is that the decision to cover it up does not reflect well on any that were involved. If it were truly an accident caused by a misidentification, the military should've said so in 2007, shortly after it happened. Since this didn't happen, I can only assume there is far more to this incident.

Posted by: RickK | April 5, 2010 11:45 PM

We must openly admit our mistake.

We must see that regardless of our technology, this kind of horror is exactly what happens in war.

We must see that "a lot of war over there" to prevent any hint of "war over here" is actually NOT the answer. The answer is to prevent war anywhere.

Our violent reaction to 9/11 turned a world that was sympathetic to the United States into a world that is horrified by the United States.

If those young men in the helicopters, and all their fellow soldiers in arms were instead at home here on American soil, investigating shipping, working for the FBI, analyzing terrorist financial transactions, shutting down weapons manufacturers and distributors, and helping the poor and victims of natural disasters - then the United States would still hold the moral high ground, fundamentalist Islam would be MUCH smaller than it is today, and we might even have a new tower in place of the WTC.

Instead, we spend our trillions on ways to make the world hate us, we destroy cooperation, we legitimize and strengthen our enemies while handing them the moral high ground.

You can't fight shadowy terrorists with helicopters! You fight them with allies, informers, information, money. You win the hearts and minds of the people supporting them.

Our economy, not our military, was our greatest weapon. Our military didn't end Soviet tyranny, our economy did. We could have used our economy and our open minds and our capacity for global compassion to marginalize the Islamic hate mongers. But instead we used the wrong weapon on the wrong enemy and gave a billion people reason to actively loathe us for generations.

How much safer could we rest at night if we had a billion fewer enemies? How many young men and women will pledge their lives to kill a few more Americans on the strength of this video alone?

Posted by: Tuxedo Cartman | April 5, 2010 11:51 PM

I do not want to wade into this debate, since it seems a lot of people have made good points on both sides. However, there is one thing I would like to address...

Some commenters keep bringing up that the helicopter was in no danger of being hit by the alleged RPG. Now, I can excuse civilians on the ground walking around with AK47's; but what is the excuse for having what appears to be an RPG? It's not home defense. And if he looked like he was aiming it at something (even if it's not the helicopter), that's a bad situation. People just trying to get by the best they can in a war-zone don't tote anti-tank weaponry. So I can see how the gunner's judgement of the group was colored by what he thought he saw.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 5, 2010 11:56 PM

The guys in those Apaches were any more inherently prone to desensitizing theirselves with human suffering than the next guy or the next guy.

I disagree. They were self-selected, then put through an elaborate training process. At many points during that process, it is possible to leave (I did!) or be rejected - you can think of military training as a massively scaled version of Milgram's experiment, and those who come out the other side are, in fact, inherently more prone to desensitizing themselves to human suffering than the next guy. The more expensive (in terms of training cost) military specialties are reserved for the most willing to participate - you will not, for example, get through a special forces school without repeatedly expressing a willingness (and interest in...) killing. You will not be taught to fly a very expensive bomber until they have checked out carefully that you'll drop a bomb, and in training you'll do it in simulation over and over without hesitation or they'll wash you out of the school.

Military indoctrination is a massive winnowing process that is carefully designed/evolved to decouple people's trigger fingers from their brains. It's why those guys were flying an apache and not a helicopter ambulance for Medicins Sans Frontieres or the local hospital.

Read almost any first-person account of warfare and you're almost sure to find an expression along the lines of "eventually, I only cared about not letting my buddies down." That group dynamic is deliberately created and constantly manipulated. (BTW, religion has also been ruthlessly and effectively used as a tool for building armies and pre-selecting the youth with high minion-potential)

Posted by: lisainthesky | April 6, 2010 12:01 AM

The attitudes of the soldiers are appalling...

Its the sort of hot shot attitude that you might take into a computer game or lazer skirmish, NOT the attitude you should take to war when civilians are at risk.

To me it looks like they woke up with the attitude "lets go huntin'n'killin" like a bunch of hicks.

Disgusting. Humans can be so disgusting.

Posted by: halo.lcfr | April 6, 2010 12:05 AM

Seriously? A few guys make a mistake and suddenly the United States is the oppressor? Whoever said war was perfect? Do you not realize that during WW2 many innocent civilians, including *gasp* CHILDREN were bombed indiscriminately? It happens.

Also, if you look at the video, not only can you spot the two guys with Ak-47s (oddly enough not pointed out by the video..this omitting of the facts was obviously done for a good reason) but this is a group of guys walking around with weapons with a guy PEERING AROUND A CORNER (???) and looking all kinds of shady. Also, there are troops nearby for whom this group poses a danger (the AKs and the "RPGs"). They have plenty of good evidence to rock the s out of these guys.

The van is a little different. First of all, the video zooms in on these kids and not even then can you tell that they are kids. We can only "see" them because we KNOW beforehand that they are kids. As I was watching the video in real time for the first time I could NOT identify the kids and I was wondering if they were in the back seat or something.

It's an honest mistake and it's war. S*** happens.

Posted by: Ruzhyo2000 | April 6, 2010 12:05 AM

To the person the replied to me (your name appears as a URL for some reason) I completely agree. These people who sign up for the service are completely willing (I signed up, after all, and I never blamed anyone for signing the paperwork but my own).

When I say 'thrown' I do not mean 'thrown unwillingly.' I mean merely the the process is quick (basic combat training is 9 weeks for a non combat MOS after all, and then you are supposedly ready for war) and with careful consideration for preparing that person for efficiently taking the lives of other human beings (as you say) and little else.

You think you are the same person after basic, but you aren't; you're indoctrinated. The military mentality is instilled in you, and you are ready to kill and even potentially die on command and it only took 9 weeks (at least for the Army, with a 'non combat' MOS).

Posted by: windy | April 6, 2010 12:12 AM

Windy, then I was incorrect that it was not a passer-by. And with the benefit of hindsight and a helpful internet commenter I now know that. Then again, I am not in a war zone, don't have the weight of the lives of dozens of soldiers in my hands, and I meet no repercussions for having initially been incorrect. The gunner was not so lucky.

Neither was the DRIVER OF THE VAN, but that didn't stop you from speculating about his suspicious intent, did it? So excuse me for not being impressed by your 'understanding' of how people behave in war zones.

Posted by: halo.lcfr | April 6, 2010 12:16 AM

Lastly, this is the reason why war is so hard on the soldiers. Because as soon as someone makes a mistake, the media turns on them. And the public turns on them. They are all instantly vilified the second something goes wrong despite the fact that most of these people have no understanding of what it means to be a soldier.

You guys (PZ Myers included, media, general public) need to keep your opinions out of the debate because you are uneducated in the subject and in no position to make any constructive judgments. There are already rules of engagement, these soldiers followed them to the best of their ability and that's all you fools need to know.

Posted by: halo.lcfr | April 6, 2010 12:19 AM

Yes. Peering around a corner is a mortal offense, and he deserved to die.

Hey, good job ignoring the context of the statement.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/o30.x9duv_EuLh6A2BOYwc3u8WzOVw--#2a57d | April 6, 2010 12:21 AM

To all of the people leaving comments like, "It's war" "sh*t happens", you're absolutely right. This is war and this is what happens, and that is the problem. This is what people should take away when they watch this video, and hopefully they will see that war is hell and is almost never worth it.

Posted by: Garrett | April 6, 2010 12:26 AM

Cerberus,

I stand up to those things by educating myself via books by folks such as Tim Wise (on white privilege) and Naomi Klein (on disaster capitalism) and Noam Chomsky (on US imperialism) and Michael Eric Dyson (on structural racism). I don't watch TV--instead, I consume alternative media (such as Democracy Now). I'm a substitute teacher currently, and I have made a point to explain to students why "that's so gay" is offensive, though I admit that I have ignored those remarks quite frequently.

But I rarely have the opportunity to stand up to bigots and jingoists. Sure, I could attempt to engage in conversation the stranger with the "God Bless America" and "Support the Troops" ribbons on his/her car. Or the person I saw this morning wearing a cap that read, "Redneck" alongside a Confederate flag. The person will more than likely tell me to get lost. Perhaps I should organize a weekly town hall discussion forum here in Salem, Oregon, but those who would attend are probably those who are already inclined to expose themselves to reason and facts. Maybe we make it a national requirement, along with a certain number of hours of community service?

When schools are teaching to the test and the mainstream media is owned and operated by a handful of giant corporations, we're really fighting an uphill battle. Public education and the media should be weapons *against* ignorance and fear, not weapons *of* ignorance and fear.

Posted by: Professor Farnsworth | April 6, 2010 12:31 AM

Windy, I'm not sure I understand your comment. I speculated on the intent of both the driver and the gunner. Incorrectly in the case of the former it seems, and it's entirely possible that I did so with the latter as well.

But even if my assesment is incorrect it does not validate the comments that dehumanize him.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/o30.x9duv_EuLh6A2BOYwc3u8WzOVw--#2a57d | April 6, 2010 12:36 AM

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement.pdf

These are the rules of engagement in Iraq in 2007. If you read these very carefully, you will see that the Apache gunners did not follow the ROE with regards to Positive Identification of the good Samaritan, as he has been described, who showed up to help.

Positive Identification. Positive Identification (PID) of all targets is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the object of attack is a military objective in accordance with these ROE

Posted by: truebutnotuseful | April 6, 2010 12:36 AM

halo.lcfr wrote @ #272:

Seriously? A few guys make a mistake and suddenly the United States is the oppressor?

A mistake? A mistake is when the kid at McDonald's gives you a small fry instead of a large fry. This is a fucking atrocity.

Whoever said war was perfect? Do you not realize that during WW2 many innocent civilians, including *gasp* CHILDREN were bombed indiscriminately? It happens.

So two wrongs make a right? The fact that senseless violence was perpetrated against innocent human beings in the past justifies this senseless violence? Show me one person here who is speaking out against the atrocity in PZ's post but who thinks that past war atrocities were OK.

Also, if you look at the video, not only can you spot the two guys with Ak-47s (oddly enough not pointed out by the video..this omitting of the facts was obviously done for a good reason) but this is a group of guys walking around with weapons with a guy PEERING AROUND A CORNER (???) and looking all kinds of shady.

That's a fucking joke, right? Peering around a corner and looking "all kinds of shady" (whatever the fuck that even means) is license to be gunned into bloody pieces?

The van is a little different. First of all, the video zooms in on these kids and not even then can you tell that they are kids. We can only "see" them because we KNOW beforehand that they are kids. As I was watching the video in real time for the first time I could NOT identify the kids and I was wondering if they were in the back seat or something.

I don't care if the van had 20 kids or no kids at all. It was a random passer-by stopping to help a wounded person, and the gunner opened fire on them for daring to come to the aid of a fellow human in agony.

It's an honest mistake and it's war. S*** happens.

Fuck you and your fucking callous disregard for human life.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 6, 2010 12:45 AM

@ 263:

Caine, Ted Zissou, I won't presume to tell you how to react or how to feel, but you can't throw logic and reason out the window when you're upset. That's exactly how things like this happen. Do you not see that?

Who says I threw out logic and reason? I didn't. You obviously didn't read every comment of mine in this thread, many of them well before you decided to grace us with your presence.

So, soldiers committing murder, the reason it happens is because people's reactions are emotional? Yeah, I know what you're trying to say, you fail. There is zero excuse for such barbarism, and you have no business attempting to relate people's reactions by claiming the "soldiers were emotional!, just like us!" That's an idiot take on the situation.

I'm suggesting that if you sat that young man (the gunner) down and spoke with him he wouldn't seem like a bloodthirsty murderours villain and, in fact, he probably is not. The point I'm trying to make, and seemingly failing utterly, is that the responses in this thread have been trying to dissociate from this man and the military in general, as if they don't share our humanity.

Yeah, yeah, doing a play on the old poem, I see. Look, I saw enough (and know enough) Vietnam vets, that yes, they got good and haunted by their actions some time later. The gunner might not be a bloodthirsty asshole, that does not excuse his actions in any way, shape or form. As for those of us in this thread attempting to disassociate, how about addressing the disassociation of the soldiers busy murdering people? Where, exactly, was their humanity? Where was their compassion, thinking about "oh, if this man weren't an enemy, we might sit down and have a drink together?" For fuck's sake, you don't get it both ways here.

I am trying my best to ask the commenters not to become what they're arguing against (reading this back it sound far more dramatic than I was aiming for, but I'm not really eloquent enough to resolve that).

Oh, right. Like I'm going to run off and dehumanize myself to the point I think it's fun to murder innocent people. You've been idiotic in every post, all you're doing now is digging that hole deeper. Much earlier in the thread, when comparisons to Vietnam were taking place, I noted that there was mass outrage over the My Lai massacre, and that it is, indeed, sad that we in the U.S. no longer seem to have that outrage in regard to war atrocities.

I am not about to "cut a break" to the men who committed this atrocity. They did wrong and they, along with those who gave their behaviour a pass should be held accountable. Full stop.

Posted by: Jadehawk OM, Hardcore Left-Winger | April 6, 2010 12:50 AM

Interesting that this comes so soon after Iraq experiences its third free election in my lifetime.

It is the kernel of hatred that I see here, the designation of those in the video (and even the US military as a whole) as the Others. As somehow inhuman, or at least not like Us. I see far too much of the Fundamental Attribution Error occuring in this thread. The gunner is judged as a bloodthirsty murderer on account of his actions, but no one has asked if perhaps the situation he was in contributed to those actions.

I'm suggesting that if you sat that young man (the gunner) down and spoke with him he wouldn't seem like a bloodthirsty murderours villain and, in fact, he probably is not. The point I'm trying to make, and seemingly failing utterly, is that the responses in this thread have been trying to dissociate from this man and the military in general, as if they don't share our humanity.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal | April 6, 2010 12:52 AM

halo:

You guys (PZ Myers included, media, general public) need to keep your opinions out of the debate because you are uneducated in the subject and in no position to make any constructive judgments. There are already rules of engagement, these soldiers followed them to the best of their ability and that's all you fools need to know.

Oh, do tell. No one is allowed an opinion except you, right? I have news for you - we are allowed an opinion, assclown. "Rules of engagement" don't mean a fucking thing if they endorse murdering civilians. These "soldiers" took delight in murder. That is not right, no matter how you slice it.

Take your assholism some where else. It's not welcome here.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 6, 2010 12:56 AM

You guys (PZ Myers included, media, general public) need to keep your opinions out of the debate

No actually we don't. Our opinions are part of the debate because we're talking about the military our tax dollars pay for and that is our national face across the world. Every US citizen has a right to voice and act on their opinions in this case because as has been said before our military represents us all. We have a right to demand a trial and a real investigation and that's where the experts come into play. So long as you're just talking on a blog your opinion is as good as mine.

When they invite you onto a congressional investigation committee then you can come back and tell us out opinions don't matter.

Posted by: Notkieran | April 6, 2010 1:00 AM

It's been over two hundred comments, but nobody's pointed out the obvious yet:

This is exactly the kind of atrocity that occurs when you deploy soldiers to do police actions.

Soldiers have one set of reflexes and training, optimised to kill the enemy before they get killed, and those selfsame reflexes simply do not make for good patrolling, the same way that a flamethrower may make for a credible threat but is not what you want lighting your cigar.

And you can't train a soldier into someone who can do that, because you can't overlay the reflexes needed to be a policeman over the reflexes needed to be a soldier.

Note that this does not excuse the soldiers; it doesn't. I'm simply saying that the situation is analogous to letting a known mass murderer free because you think he's repented; when he kills again, he is still to blame but so is th judge who let him out. Likewise, the soldiers are at fault, but so are the idiots who put them in a police action in the first place.

The soldier's job is identical to that of a gun: his job is to kill quickly and efficiently. You don't wield a gun to "protect yourself"; you wield a gun to kill. Likewise, you send soldiers to war to kill the enemy. That's all a combat soldier is good for.

Any other use of an army is like standing around posing with two M-60s.

________

Disclaimer: I'm not a full combat soldier; just a signaller.

Posted by: FoxholeAtheist | April 6, 2010 1:01 AM

@ Jarred C:

Thank you times a thousand. You said what I wanted to say, only better. And welcome home, brother.

- Yet another vet.

Posted by: Meathead | April 6, 2010 1:09 AM

Farnsworth, what the fuck are you talking about? The Apache was called in to support ground troops pinned down by enemy fire?!? WTF? The only ground troops I see arrive at the end - in support of the APACHE it would seem. They saunter in casually and survey a bunch of corpses.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/o30.x9duv_EuLh6A2BOYwc3u8WzOVw--#2a57d | April 6, 2010 1:18 AM

@ halo.lcfr

What's the point in stating the obvious? Saying 'It Happens' isn't useful if you believe that 'It' is immoral. What if I say, "People get Aids and die people, get over it"? That's a stupid comment if I regard the scourge of Aids as something that is not useful to humanity. The fact that I see Aids as negative implies that it's something we should eradicate, at least if I label myself a humanist.

Your implication in all of your posts is that War is hell, even though you don't like it, but as a realist you'll deal with it. I just don't think anyone is going to take you seriously with that position, when at the same time, you call yourself a humanist that presumably values human life.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | April 6, 2010 1:19 AM

But remember American is a Christian Nation^TM.

Posted by: Travis | April 6, 2010 1:22 AM

@Ol'Greg #309

When I first saw the video that is exactly what I thought. These seem like really different events. The description being given vs. what we see seem rather disconnected and played up. If I closed my eyes my imagination would have filled in the blanks with a rather different picture. It makes me wonder what the people on the other end of the radio were imaging when these requests were being made.

Posted by: Maslab | April 6, 2010 1:26 AM

You guys (PZ Myers included, media, general public) need to keep your opinions out of the debate because you are uneducated in the subject and in no position to make any constructive judgments.

I just watched men from my country beg to hit a dozen plus human beings with what is essentially a meat grinder. I then watched them beg for a man to look like he was reaching for a weapon just so they'd have an excuse to hit him again. As a final atrocity, I watched a good Samaritan, only doing what should be expected of me, you, and any decent human being, get mowed down. Knowing that his kids were forced to watch their father get slaughtered like a cow for trying to help a wounded man is just the last nail in the coffin.

How can you expect me to not be angry at that?

Posted by: halo.lcfr | April 6, 2010 1:31 AM

What's the point in stating the obvious?

Because some people act as if children should never die in a war. Ideally that is a great concept but war being what it is, it happens. And as I said in a previous comment, that's the perfect argument against war.

"People get Aids and die people, get over it"

My point is that this is not a reason to call a war unjustified--you know, an event that rarely occurs and is in the very definition of war--but I am by no means saying that it isn't sad or to "get over it." If those were my kids, i'd cry probably for a while and I'd spend the rest of my life in the worst mental condition imaginable. "Get over it" is really the wrong phrase to use. "It happens." When I was 16-17 I got rammed by the driver of an SUV that never stopped to help me or face their consequences. "It happens" but I still felt the pain.

it's something we should eradicate

War is not good and I agree. We can all work hard at eradicating it but it's not just up to us. There are other people in the world and they disagree highly with the idea of war not being an option and until the whole world agrees on no war, war is going to be around.

I just don't think anyone is going to take you seriously with that position, when at the same time, you call yourself a humanist that presumably values human life.

What does my being a realist have to do with how I value life? I am not naive enough to think that this world is perfect and/or that war can be perfect so therefore I don't value life as highly as others?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 6, 2010 1:32 AM

For the last damn time, being in war and being shot at does not justify random and/or over eager shooting.

I'd like to encourage you to consider another possibility - namely that it's never "justified" to return fire.

I think one can make a plausible argument that self-defense can be justified. But how do we justify defending ourself against someone who is defending themself? I'm serious - "self defense" is not an acceptable justification coming from an aggressor; it's just "more aggression."

Militarists have long offered the doctrine that "it's OK to kill someone in war because you're both shooting at eachother" but does that really make sense? Isn't it always the aggressor's responsibility? It seems to me that "he attacked me and wouldn't stop and was endangering my life, so I had to defend myself" carries some weight - and it's why, if someone attacks you in your home, you can't just say "I defended myself" you need to show that you tried to negotiate a resolution before you resorted to violence.

The obvious conclusion is that, since the Iraqis don't want us in Iraq, didn't ask us to come to Iraq, and are trying to make us leave, they are defending themselves against us. If I were dealing with Iraqi troops driving around my yard here in Pennsylvania, I might be able to claim self-defense. But the fighting is not in Pennsylvania; we are not defending ourselves, we are trying to prevent them from defending themselves.

The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is morally dubious. It's not even sufficient to show ability, stated intent, and plans to attack before pre-empting someone because if you have that information you've got a recipe for a successful ambush. If someone started emailing me telling me they were going to come kill me next friday at 2:00pm, and I thought it a credible threat, it might be good strategy to be having a cookout for my lawyer and a few members of the State Police (or on a plane to someplace else) but it doesn't justify attacking them first because they might have just been trying to sucker me into a losing strategy (like we did to the Japanese in WWII with economic warfare that convinced them they had to try to pre-empt us. Looking at the history if warfare, it seems to me that strategic surprise is very seldom achieved and it doesn't have a vast affect on outcomes anyway. Aggressors seldom attack thinking "this has a chance of working, only if I take them by surprise..." which, of course, reveals the ridiculousness of Bush and Blair's claims that Iraq was a clear and present danger to anyone. Militarists sell events as sudden and surprising, like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (that was clearly in the works for a year before it got heavy) or Pearl Harbor (which was a reaction to deliberate strategy attempting to bring Japan into the war) - pre-emption presupposes surprise might be dangerous and ignores the reality that surprise is practically impossible to achieve.

Posted by: Jadehawk OM, Hardcore Left-Winger | April 6, 2010 1:37 AM

My point is that this is not a reason to call a war unjustified--you know, an event that rarely occurs and is in the very definition of war

Posted by: skeptifem | April 6, 2010 1:40 AM

post 261 got me thinking- I am not exactly responding to it so much as giving my impressions of the american style military:

"Let's be honest with ourselves, for a minute. The way that soldiers are trained has been carefully designed/evolved to promote sublimation of the will to authority, group-think, and to hijack human's pack hunting/raiding behaviors. The military carefully inculcates "esprit de corps" and reliance between peer-groups to socialize its members to form bonds of interpersonal loyalty that facilitate the function of exactly the kind of behaviors that several people in this thread put forth as an excuse for killing: "they shot at my buddy" When a young person comes out of military training (me: summer class of Ft Dix, 1983) they're part of a "band of brothers" that has been programmed to behave as a pack; they're a weapon ready to be used. "

In "Homange to Catalonia" George Orwell talks about the military he belonged to in the spanish civil war. It was a volunteer military devoid of hierarchy, where underlings annoyed the hell out of the people training them by asking tons of questions before agreeing to engage in violence. The equiptment was shit, it was freezing, and food was not abundant. It still worked, and without a bunch of bs where people can pass the responsibility for actions up the chain, or be suckered into doing inhuman things. The idea that top down, authoritative style military operations are the 'evolved' version simply isn't true. It is only evolved in the sense that it is compatable with the extreme level of inequality in our society. I am not even sure that unthinking pack animal like soliders are the best kind for military operations; I would think that any task requiring thought would be more difficult to accomplish with the weapon-people. I know that people who have had their psyche altered in the way you describe are ideal for comitting atrocities without hesitation. Defending our communities when it is needed can be accomplished in different and interesting ways.

Posted by: Maslab | April 6, 2010 1:50 AM

Not a spelling error, but I did use the wrong word. Caught it as soon as I clicked Submit and waited to see how long it took for someone to find it. :)

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmVT1LBhwmO9ej9LNg7a5e9d-AVJ8ezfmE | April 6, 2010 2:01 AM

You know, where they use children as human shields, ambulances as offensive military vehicles during a battle, civilian taxis as troop and weapon transportation etc.

They don't have regular troop and weapon transportation because we blew them up, and took them away. They're not fighting us on the battlefield because they tried that and we threshed them like wheat. They're hiding in civilian areas and using civilian gear and looking like civilians because - they're fucking civilians. By definition, since we put the Official Iraqi Army out of business. Hello?

If Iraqi troops were stationed all over my little area of Pennsylvania I'd be an insurgent that looked like a civilian because I'm a fucking civilian and I wouldn't feel obligated to send an engraved invitation to the invaders asking them to name their seconds and meet me in a convenient child-safe battlefield of their choosing.

Militarists are so fucking stupid; they're actually offended that the losers in a war aren't behaving the way they ought to. But they're behaving exactly the way anyone behaves when there are under a military occupation by a foreign invader, where they live. I'm guessing that the Iraqis considered "perhaps if we ask them nicely to 'please leave'?" as an option and discarded it because they're just really, really mean people. Or maybe it's that they're pissed off because we've killed hundreds of thousands of their friends, bombed the fuck out of several of their cities, and not even had the courtesy to say "oops, sorry, you were right about the WMDs" gosh, I'd be a bit resentful of that, myself! Especially if I was dealing with people who were so stupid that they think they can shoot the fuck out of you until you become their friend.

Let me try another perspective: in the US we all laugh at "we're from the government and we're here to help" but when we say that to an Iraqi that joke probably is going to fall on its face.

Posted by: Maslab | April 6, 2010 2:04 AM

Thread's sapping my comment!

Meant to say that that should have been a "poor choice of words."

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | April 6, 2010 2:14 AM

#319:

We cower in deference before your monstrously tumescent e-penis.

ROFLMAOELEVENTY111!!!!11

Thank you, thank you. I needed to bust a gut laughing. :) Hopefully he'll not torment us any longer with his punishing dildo mallet, either.

Posted by: monado | April 6, 2010 2:25 AM

It may be uncharitable of me, but I suspect that the pilots and gunners make self-justifying comments, "Ooh! he's got a gun!" as a matter of habit to ensure that any recording, and thus the official version of an incident, includes plenty of ass-covering.

Posted by: ryk | April 6, 2010 2:33 AM

I'm a bit late to this, so apologies if I'm hitting on topics that have already been beaten to death...

I read through the first couple dozen posts, and skimmed a few of the recent ones at the end...

First off, I am very much anti-war, and against our presence in Iraq and the middle east in general. secondly, while I generally despise the military, and a large portion of the people in it, I did an enlistment, for what that's worth.

So, when I was watching the video, it did look like 2 of the people in the group were carrying weapons, and also that person poking around the corner did look like they were aiming an rpg or something similar. - granted, this wasn't some sort of critical examination or anything, just a quick reflexive-sort of look at the video.

But, also, when you are in the military, you are trained to protect yourself and (more importantly) your vehicle/position/fellow troops, and in so doing, you are quickly scanning an area, looking for weapons (kinda brings to mind that old adage about everything looking like a nail when you have a hammer...)
Also, I have no idea of what the rules of engagement are, or what there orders were going into the situation. my best (not-too-educated) guess is that the helicopters were providing route reconnaissance/support for the ground convoy/whatever. maybe they were told to clear out anything that could be a threat, maybe they weren't, I don't really know, but that plays an important part in this.

Now, before everyone jumps on me, I want to say that I don't agree with the gunner's comments coaxing the wounded to pick up a weapon, or the requests to open up on a vehicle that appeared to be evacuating the wounded (and furthermore, the comment about it 'bringing weapons' sounds to me like they were trying in advance to cover their asses for shooting civilians and wounded.)

Next complaint - I'm of mixed feelings about what should happen to the gunner and the others on the radio, I don't feel that I have quite enough info to make any judgments on that. However, if there is anything that comes down on this, it should come down on the heads of the higher-ups -those who planned the mission, who distributed the intelligence about it, who cleared the fire orders, who wrote the rules of engagement, and, more importantly, those who attempted to contribute to this being covered up. The military trains people from their first day to instantly obey orders without thought and consideration, and while I may not agree with this, I feel that if this is the standard practice, then by default, and responsibility for wrongdoing (so long as it was not done in direct disobedience to orders) falls squarely on the heads of those in command. - This was one of my biggest complaints with how the whole Abu Ghraib (sp?) bit was handled; I'm not going to say the enlisted peoples actions were right or even defensible, but I feel the upper echelons of the command should have taken the hit for it. -In those sort of messes I can only really see 3 possible scenarios: 1; the command knows what's going on and either actively endorses, condones, or even commands it, 2; the command knows what's going on, and either doesn't care, or fails to properly control and discipline their troops, or, 3; the command has no clue what the hell is going on, and as such, has no place being in charge, and is criminally negligent.

I'm not on here a terrible lot, but I will try to keep an eye on this thread, but if you want to discuss/question/argue/whatever any specific part of my post (or at least expect me to respond to it...) please include my name (ryk) -either as a quote, or whatever, but I'll be doing a search for my name when I catch up on this thread.

-I'll try to keep up and respond to whatever I catch, but I may not have the time to read all the posts.

Posted by: Notkieran | April 6, 2010 2:41 AM

Sorry, pressed "enter" too soon. The asterisk was for this footnote:

*I'm not talking about the morality of this, but simply the whole point of making someone into a soldier. An army is a weapon you point at the enemy. The immorality comes from the intent that you have in pointing the weapon, not the way that the weapon kills the target, the person behind the target, everyone in a fifty-foot radius behind the target, and sends a mushroom cloud up into the sky.

Posted by: efrique | April 6, 2010 2:45 AM

Thanks, PZ, for at least giving it this forum.

Posted by: SaintStephen | April 6, 2010 2:58 AM

Wow. One of the most incredible things I've ever seen, PZ.

(Apologies in advance... haven't read any of the thread yet.)

I will have to admit that early in the clip, that person DID look like he was taking cover with an RPG behind the corner of that building. It seems like that was the match that lit the fire.

And then fear, a little cowardice, and a LOT of bloodlust took over from there. Tragic beyond belief.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | April 6, 2010 3:06 AM

CNN has the story:

The U.S. investigation into the attack found that the helicopter gunship's crew mistook the journalists' cameras for weapons while seeking out insurgents who had been firing at American troops in the area. The fliers estimated they killed 12 to 15 Iraqis in the attack.

The Army's 2007 report on the incident found the crew had "neither reason nor probability to assume that neutral media personnel were embedded with enemy forces," according to a copy of the document released to CNN.

Posted by: desertfroglet | April 6, 2010 3:37 AM

They've just shown some of the footage on the early evening news on Channel 10 (commercial network) in Queensland. The commentary certainly wasn't supportive of the action.

Posted by: Colin | April 6, 2010 3:45 AM

@PZ

They want to murder a wounded man, and are hoping he'll pick up a gun to give them an excuse.

This is the part that puzzled me in the video. If they're quite happy to inflate the number of armed men and make claims about guns that don't exist, why the sudden attention to the ROE at this point?

Posted by: ryk | April 6, 2010 4:02 AM

>SaintStephen
>Just a few quick photos of the Commander-In-Chief:

I'm not sure what all is going on there, but...

I'd imagine secret security and all that wouldn't let a president come that close to someone who didn't all but worship him. And, I don't know much about this (so feel free to correct me...), but I would guess that after some event that would scar you up like that, most people would take some sort of 'sacrifice for the greater good' type mentality or something, and of those few who didn't... I'm guessing they are on all sorts of TSA watch-lists now....

Posted by: grim.redeemer | April 6, 2010 4:54 AM

To all the people who are surprised that soldiers laugh and congratulate themselves upon successfully destroying what they believe are the enemy: have you never read a book that presents a soldier's perspective of war?

From the Iliad to Generation Kill, any of them would have disillusioned you on this point. Most soldiers do not break down and cry when they kill someone. Killing people is what soldiers do, and without some mechanism for dealing with that they would be completely useless.

Fortunately, evolution has bestowed upon us humans several such mechanisms. The dialogue of the crewmen ("look at those dead bastards", laughing at driving over a body, etc.) shows them in action, and could just as well have been lifted off of hoplites at Marathon, longbowmen at Agincourt, or GIs at Falaise.

If you think such an apparently casual approach to killing other human beings is unacceptable, your issue is not with this helo crew, or even with the US military in Iraq. Your issue is with war. "As well ask men what they think of stone."

That is not to say I don't think what's shown in that video is horrible, knowing what the Apache crew didn't. I just don't find it surprising, and I don't have any simple solutions.

Posted by: John Morales | April 6, 2010 5:15 AM

That incident was no fight; that was no battle.

It was an extermination.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 5:36 AM

This is where I apologize for what I assume to be my failure to communicate my thoughts. I wasn't excusing or trying to excuse anything. I was attempting to explain how a decent human being can commit an such an "atrocity" without being "evil" for lack of a better word.

Once you commit an atrocity you are no longer a decent human being.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawla5nj1O0eiU5F7Kc0P1IIxAwZFGnBVZ6w | April 6, 2010 5:49 AM

Killing a father who wants to help the wounded in front of his children? This is a GREAT way to make terrorist, suicide bombers and generally people who hate USA.

By the way this is not the first time things like this happens. Was there anybody hold responsible for these kid of things ever?

Posted by: scooterKPFT | April 6, 2010 6:16 AM

I need to get me one of them helicopters.

Posted by: Tronzu | April 6, 2010 6:27 AM

Sorry, but I simply cannot care about any muslims getting killed, civilians or not.

Probably because they are anti-reason, anti-science, anti-human rights and anti-democracy.

In fact most muslim civilians would not hesitate slaughtering a gay person.

So, it is impossible to care for them getting killed because the image of them "civilians" torturing gays always pops up.

Muslims are vermin.

Posted by: Ellie | April 6, 2010 6:34 AM

Seconded

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 6:37 AM

I'm a humanist and I value life very highly.

You have proved otherwise. You may value some life very highly, but not the lives of civilians in a country under occupation by the U.S., which invaded it illegally and under false pretenses. If those civilians were relatives or friends or even from the same country as you, you would have a very different view. In any case, you are an extremely vile and stupid person. Even if some element of this event can be interpreted as "A few guys make a mistake", most of it is, as John Morales says, "an extermination", and it was followed by a deliberate coverup and lies about the events.

you fools

Extreme Dunning-Kruger Effect. And aside from your evident lack of intelligence, you display a parallel form -- such a lack of moral judgment that you are unable to recognize that lack.

Posted by: Jérôme ^ | April 6, 2010 6:47 AM

This is really making the news -- right now it is the #1 title on Arte, and it is also on Libération.

Probably the fact that two of the victims are journalists played a role in this.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 6:53 AM

If you think such an apparently casual approach to killing other human beings is unacceptable, your issue is not with this helo crew, or even with the US military in Iraq. Your issue is with war.

False dichotomy; all three deserve criticism. And your handwaving about the first is sheer sophistry -- many soldiers display consciences and kill reluctantly and with remorse, unlike those in this video.

That is not to say I don't think what's shown in that video is horrible, knowing what the Apache crew didn't.

Nice dodge, scumbag. The Apache crew committed murder and the military brass covered it up.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 6, 2010 7:08 AM

Tronzu,

please leave and take your hate with you.

Posted by: John Morales | April 6, 2010 7:17 AM

Tronzu, your anti-Muslim hate-mongering trolling is futile (your metaphorical spittle notwithstanding).

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 7:29 AM

this wasn't some sort of critical examination or anything, just a quick reflexive-sort of look at the video.
But, also, when you are in the military, you are trained to protect yourself and (more importantly) your vehicle/position/fellow troops, and in so doing, you are quickly scanning an area, looking for weapons

What's with you rationalizing pukes who can look at a very deliberate process where people had plenty of time to make evaluations -- and we can hear them do it -- and turn it into something else entirely?

Posted by: John Morales | April 6, 2010 7:38 AM

Colin,

Um, does it really make a difference to the victim, or their family?

Not to the former, almost certainly yes to the latter.

It's only a few degrees worse than the right-wing US Christian attitude, though; the difference being the same as between theory and practice...

I think it's much the same, as fatwa-envy demonstrates — besides, I suspect religion is more of an enabler than a cause.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 6, 2010 7:39 AM

It's on the front page of the NY Times now (or rather, the home page of the Times online).

Posted by: John Morales | April 6, 2010 7:43 AM

tm quite rightly alludes to the topic being derailed, something to which I've just been complicit.

As penance, I repeat for emphasis:

Nothing any Iraqi death squad did has anything to do with the Reuters journalists and others who were gleefully and remorselessly killed in this video.

Posted by: truthspeaker | April 6, 2010 7:45 AM

Posted by: The ghost of Rod Serling | April 5, 2010 5:29 PM

I don't know enough about the war to know whether it was (In theory) a good idea or not.

Have you been living in a cave for the last seven years?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 7:48 AM

Not to the former, almost certainly yes to the latter

The point was not whether it makes the dead any less dead, but rather about the morality of the action. As you said, this was an extermination, not a battle. As PZ said,

This was a completely unnecessary massacre committed by a bunch of American hot dogs spoiling for a fight, as if it were some kind of video game -- and it was to them. Yes, these soldiers were murderers and butchers.

That's a relevant fact, even if people like Colin are too morally blind to see it.

Posted by: inkadu | April 6, 2010 7:55 AM

Jimmy-Bob @43 -

Yep. I'm Jack's complete lack of surprise. I always assume things like this are going on in war. It's inevitable.

Just think about what cops can be like, in the United States, with people who speak English, share a culture, and live a few miles away from where they live. They shoot, torture, taze, beat, plant evidence, etc. Now take those cops and put them in a war zone where they are being shot at constantly by people they can't understand. Now give them more right to kill without review, give them better training to kill, give them better weapons to kill and make them all nineteen years old. What did you think would happen?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 7:57 AM

I know that many senior (and not so senior) British military personal were appalled at the lack of training US soldiers had in policing an insurgency. Even things that can seem quite trivial matter, such as removing your sunglasses when talking to the public.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 8:02 AM

Well there are reasons other than Oil and the one's you laid out too Rorschach.

Like it's no coincidence we now have active military forces / bases in two countries bordering Iran.

But keeping one of the worlds largest oil supplies out of the hands of a maniac was surely one of the main reasons as well.

Posted by: Rorschach | April 6, 2010 8:08 AM

But keeping one of the worlds largest oil supplies out of the hands of a maniac was surely one of the main reasons as well.

Yeah, how who you consider a maniac changes though, once he was Rumsfeld's and Bush's best mate....

Posted by: ChrisD | April 6, 2010 8:14 AM

After watching the full video, the one not all gussied up, it does appear there was a legitimate reason to open fire. The person did have an RPG, and I apologize for denying that they did have weapons. There's the possibility that they would have engaged the illegal occupiers in an ambush that should not have happened, so in order to save the lives of people they care about more, they decided to kill people they don't care about much.

Firing on the van at first seemed extreme, but the rationale behind firing upon it, after further review of the video, leads me to believe it was the right thing to do. They had troops about to head into a hostile situation, having a possible enemy combatant on the field prior to the troops arrival could have led to the loss of American lives. There could have been anything in that van, from IED to RPG. It's unfortunate that there was a child in there.

I'm going to give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt in this one. But they're still callous husks of human beings and they have to be that way. The alternative is crippling guilt for them. I sympathize with that plight, but I think the guilt is somewhat justified since everyone over there is obeying illegal orders to occupy.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 8:19 AM

And Saddam wasn't really a friend to Rummy et al as much as a tool to use against Iran.

Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com | April 6, 2010 8:20 AM

I didn't watch the video because I've seen enough footage of atrocities over the years.

What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?

Not a hell of a lot. In all wars govenments send young men out to kill, after filling their heads with bogus idealogical reasons to treat the enemy as subhuman.

The big difference is this generation of young soldiers grew up playing first person shooter video games, and some are unable to differentiate the the enemy characters in the games they played from the reality of innocent people going about their business.

Posted by: Tronzu | April 6, 2010 8:25 AM

The more muslim vermin exterminated the better for the human civilization on this planet.

Posted by: Anri | April 6, 2010 8:26 AM

Sorry, but I simply cannot care about any muslims getting killed, civilians or not.

Probably because they are anti-reason, anti-science, anti-human rights and anti-democracy.

In fact most muslim civilians would not hesitate slaughtering a gay person.

So, it is impossible to care for them getting killed because the image of them "civilians" torturing gays always pops up.

Muslims are vermin.

Hey, Tonzu, couple of questions.
At what stage in the conversion to Islam does one lose one's humanity? Please be as specific as possible.

If one de-converts from Islam, can one be a human again, or is it kind of like virginity?

If one is investigating what appears to be the murder of a human being, what level of evidence that the corpse was a moslem is required to dismiss the crime? Or at least reduce it to something more appropriate, such as animal cruelty (given that moslems are, according to you, sub-human)?

Should the state actively pursue the killing of those that have converted to Islam, or should it merely support civilian efforts, domensticly?

When converting to Islam, does a US citizen retain citizenship, even though they have become sub-human? Or is it only brown-skinned, foriegn moslems that are sub-human?
(If so, you're using the wrong term. What you mean, and should say is: Sand Niggers instead of moslems. It really would be a more honest description of your feelings and beliefs.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 8:34 AM

The more muslim vermin exterminated the better for the human civilization on this planet.

And the more gigantic bigoted idiots who can't separate stereotypes of populations from individuals acting as individuals, like yourself, that succumb to long slow painful deaths from testicular cancer the better.

See!

It's fun isn't it?!?!

Posted by: Truckle | April 6, 2010 8:40 AM

Tronzu @400

The more muslim vermin exterminated the better for the human civilization on this planet

Ah see i was going to respond to your arguments, but i see there is no need to... your just a twat with a keyboard.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 8:48 AM

First off, Tronzu, take your hatred elsewhere and, while you're at it, go fuck yourself. Just because we do not share the beliefs of Muslims and find many practices associated with Islam to be anywhere from disagreeable to outright abhorrent, does not wish we would wish subjugation or death upon Muslims. We make our disagreements with their and other religions known through speech but never through violent action. Like I said, go fuck yourself.

With that out of the way, I next have to apologise for probably repeating what has already been said many times; I have only read a subset of the comments. Even granting the Apache crew the greatest leniency for being on edge during some of the worst violence of the occupation, it is hard to find any justification for what happened here.

Firstly, the identification of weapons is extremely questionable. I tried as best I could to try to view this without the knowledge that there were journalists present carrying camera equipment. All I could see were a few guys milling around with stuff in their hands. There was nothing suspicious in their behaviour until the point where we see someone with would could be legitimately be mistaken for a RPG peering down a street. However, at this point, there is no indication he is targeting the helicopter, nor that he is an immediate threat to other US forces in the area. The sensible response at this point would be continued observation until it was clear whether or not the group were insurgents with hostile intent.

From this point, things completely fall apart. The Apache crew seeks permission to engage on the basis of an inflated number of "armed" men. I disagree with the commenter above who blamed the controllers who gave permission to fire. They did so at this point on the basis of falsified information from the aircrew who wanted to start shooting.

Where this progresses from being a typical horror of occupation into the territory of being utterly debased is when the makeshift ambulance arrived. What possible justification could there be for opening fire on it? This is inhuman, and this point the controllers are complicit in the atrocity as they gave permission to fire following an accurate report of the situation from the Apache crew.

I should note that I could not clearly see the children in the van even though I was looking for them. In the video enlargement at the end, it was still not clear there were children present. This, to me, is not of primary relevance as none of what led to the Apache crew destroying the van should never have happened.

I'm not sure what I find more horrifying: this act of murder or the fact I am not really surprised. Such events are to be expected unless you are inexcusably ignorant of the actions of armed forces during this and any number of occupations through history. The one good thing is that this is now in the public domain and people will get better idea of what really happens in war.

It would be nice to be able to think that this might bring us one step closer to bringing the warmongers Bush, Blair, Cheney, et al to justice, but sadly I am not naive enough to do so.

Posted by: MultiTool | April 6, 2010 8:50 AM

yup between..2:10 and 2:28 you can see one RPG that could have been mistaken for an AK.

Posted by: scooterKPFT | April 6, 2010 8:51 AM

I'm pretty sure that's a dick with a keyboard.

Posted by: Tronzu | April 6, 2010 8:55 AM

LOL, like no polls on any issue have ever been made with muslim populations.

You truly are blind morons.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/26Pka6RqgOrv5dnPO9sLAHTXFKAjHg--#15934 | April 6, 2010 8:56 AM

@Becca #237

�?Universal service might be a good thing *if* there was an option to serve in something like AmeriCorps, rather than traditional military... by all means, get the chickenhawks into the service - make them put up or shut up. But leave my kids, and other people like my kids, out of it. “

This just wouldn’t work. It would defeat the whole point, you’d essentially end up with an all volunteer military and you would be right back to square one. It has to be universal conscription. Exceptions can be made for people with severe mental or physical defects of course, but for the most part, everyone should have the possibility looming that they may have to serve. After all, we don’t ask that only people who vote for certain kinds of legislation are the ones that have to follow that legislation. If anyone is made a protected class then they could ultimately end up sending other people’s children into harm’s way, perhaps in some kind of humanitarian effort that requires military protection. The true conscientious objectors can serve in combat as unarmed medics.

I really see it as the only fair solution here.

Posted by: Kevin | April 6, 2010 8:58 AM

@PatrioticAmerican #415:

It's like it's trying to communicate. I think we need a 'stupid-to-English' translator over here!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 9:00 AM

#417...

Wow... pharyngula has been graced by former president George W. Bush! What an honor... hold on, there, Mr. President... I have a few questions for you...

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 9:08 AM

#417

When do you miss the part that they weren't actually armed? There was no RPG supposedly they mistook the guys camera for an RPG.

Did you even go to the Collateralmurder site and read any of the details?

Posted by: R. Schauer | April 6, 2010 9:12 AM

War is the sword leading us to the panopticon we ALL find ourselves locked in today. I've had enough of this shit.

Posted by: LaTomate | April 6, 2010 9:14 AM

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan

This is shocking...

Posted by: Tronzu | April 6, 2010 9:15 AM

When you see a muslim civilian getting killed, just think this-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is a 90% chance that the same muslim civilian would cut a gay person's throat for being gay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, problem solved.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 9:19 AM

#417 poe

Are you sure, Rev?... after reading #427 I am absolutely convinced it is none other than GWB...

Posted by: LaTomate | April 6, 2010 9:21 AM

#427 dude stop talking about false worshippers and other bull... most of us here are atheists.

Patriotic American my arse. You're just a flamer, or extremely stupid. To you the World is quite a simple place, isn't it? Ever been outside our wonderful United States? Turns out, the US is quite a backwards and violent place compared to other more civilized countries out there... if we acknowledge that we may be able to make the US a better place.

Until then, blind ignorant bible thumpers like you just make this place worse. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Posted by: Shala | April 6, 2010 9:22 AM

Celtic, you are assuming GWB is able to even use the Internet.

You're giving him too much credit!

there is a 90% chance that the same muslim civilian would cut a gay person's throat for being gay.

You realize that even if this were true, there would still be 10% of muslims who don't deserve to be gunned down stupidly, right?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 9:24 AM

Are you sure, Rev?... after reading #427 I am absolutely convinced it is none other than GWB...

Good point

Posted by: Tronzu | April 6, 2010 9:26 AM

When you see a muslim civilian getting killed, just think this-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is a 90%/very high chance that the same muslim civilian would cut a gay person's throat for being gay.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There, problem solved.

Posted by: PatrioticAmerican | April 6, 2010 9:26 AM

The US Army did say that they found an RPG with spare ammunations on site. If this is true, it invalidates the accusation of unprovoked mass murder for we know that Innocent civilians don't fool around on the street with an freaking Bazooka on their shoulders.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 9:27 AM

Celtic, you are assuming GWB is able to even use the Internet.

You're giving him too much credit!

I'm sure he's got Dick Cheney working the keyboard. He's not aware of it, of course... he just yells shit at the screen and stuff he yells types up on it.

He can see Dick Cheney over on the side playing with some sort of keyboard, but probably figures he's just playing with his Speak and Spell again. Stupid Cheney never puts his toys away when he's done playing with them.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 9:29 AM

PatrioticAmerican @ #417:

You guys cry foul over our soldier killing a dozen of false-god-worshipping 'suspected' insurgents, and when they blew up our men with IEDs

You have proof that the individuals slaughtered in this video were planting IEDs? Please produce it or shut up.

Also, do you think it is justified to take the lives of those you merely suspect of a crime. I 'suspect' you are a moron - a great crime IMO - as insist you are gunned down immediately using an advanced weapons platform from which you have no hope of defending yourself.* Like that?

Why do you hate America you dirty liberals

Absent further qualification as to its meaning, the "why do you hate America" question instant reveals the questioner to be an unthinking fool. Yes I am liberal, and proud of it, but I like to think my personal hygiene is pretty good.

These limey reporters

They were Iraqis, or do all foreigners look the same to you?

god knows who they were

I doubt it, but carry on...

were hanging out with a bunch of men armed with AK47s and RPGs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At most there was one guy with an AK47 and no RPGs. As has been stated here more that once, and is known to everyone who can be bothered to learn a little about Iraq, gun ownership is common. AKs will be found in many households.

Maybe these limey reporters hate freedom and america JUST LIKE YOU

Interesting that you can't see that the victims in this video have been robbed of the most basic freedom of all: the right to life.

GOOD RIDDANCE

Looks like Mr Internet Tough Guy isn't tough enough to stick around to defend his position.

* Yes this is hyperbole before anyone gets a case of the vapours. I'm not really advocating murdering dumbfucks.

Posted by: Kevin | April 6, 2010 9:30 AM

@PatrioticAmerican #440:

Yes, and the US Army also said that civilians weren't harmed. This is also the same US Army who claims that 5 people they murdered in another raid had participated in 'honor-killings' of a few pregnant women and a teenager.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 9:31 AM

Oh good grief.

Tronzu you have now passed from bigoted dumbass to the lowest of all forms.

Bigoted dumbass who sucks at the internet.

Posted by: ragarth | April 6, 2010 9:34 AM

Contacted my local news station: WDBJ7. I sent the bureau chief an email about this.

Posted by: PatrioticAmerican | April 6, 2010 9:35 AM

Turns out, the US is quite a backwards and violent place compared to other more civilized countries out there... if we acknowledge that we may be able to make the US a better place.
___________________________________________________
European is more CIVILIZED????? You mean more SOCIOLIZED!!!!! That's why all liberal fancys europe like its sum Hippy-DIPPY utopia where it's all 'rational thinking' and kittens. If you like europe so much then don't stay in America and bug us god-fearing conservative patriotic honest american people!!!!!!!!!111111

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 9:36 AM

Anyone else think it is time for Tronzu to be plonked?

Posted by: R. Schauer | April 6, 2010 9:37 AM

Tronzu,
panopticon...look it up fucktard. Also called the dungeon...where PZ is bound to throw you in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Posted by: negentropyeater | April 6, 2010 9:38 AM

I am not convinced oil was the driving force for this war

I don't know if it was "the" driving force, but it was one of them.

Also, a nice costly and destructive war abroad always seems to temporarily help getting out of recessions.
It's strange that so many people are opposed to a large debt financed government stimulus when it is used for peaceful means but have no problems when it is used to buy a war and convince "consumers" that they will exercise their patriotic duty by spending more.

Human lives seem to count very little for those warmonggers who see wars as a tool to safeguard a country's supply of critical resources and a means of economic developement.
I am afraid we haven't seen the end of this.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 9:41 AM

I sense a plonkhammering soon.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 9:50 AM

It makes me wanna puke...

Don't let us stop you. Just make sure you aspirate well.

Posted by: broboxley OT | April 6, 2010 9:52 AM

Tronzu STFU its apparent you cannot separate a religion from a culture. I would point out that there is hardly any sufi's in bhagdad but you wouldnt know the fuckin difference

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 9:57 AM

I don't see "one of the main reasons" and "largely the reason" as the same thing.

Sigh. I paraphrased the former with the latter because it fit the grammar of my sentence. "largely" means "in great part" -- something that is only a small part of the reason for something would be a minor reason. To complain that these aren't quite the same is to engage in pointless semantic quibbling.

Which I'm sure you'll not disagree is not uncommon for my comments.

Indeed I won't.

Posted by: Colin | April 6, 2010 10:03 AM

truth machine

One more time. Please note my comments have all been polite. I would really appreciate if you would respond in the same vein.

All this garbage about what is (people claim) common among soldiers does not relieve these soldiers of moral culpability.

I agree completely that it does not resolve these soldiers of moral culpability. I'm not defending these soldiers. Based on the often surprisingly good and technical analysis provided by other commenters (some of whom, it appears, have military experience), their actions were completely unjustifiable.

Okay?

I was just saying that's how soldiers speak (I was specifically referring to their comments in the video) and although there are many other things that point directly to their culpability their cheers at successfully completing their fucked up beyond belief mission are not something you can use to distinguish between amoral and moral soldiers.

And could I be wrong about that? Yes, of course I could. And if I am, please correct me. But do so politely, please.

I have to say I'm very glad its not MY taxes paying for those 30mm cannon shells, otherwise I would have to feel some form of vague shared guilt.

And Tronzu, I'm sorry, your further posts have shown you have no ability to comprehend simple logical points, even from those sympathetic to the outrage you feel (although not to the conclusion you draw from that outrage).

You're a troll.

I've enjoyed the time I've spent on Pharyngula, but it seems I have a bad habit of typing comments that at the time seem fine, but apparently my meaning is never, ever clear; as a writer, I can only blame myself for that, obviously. These comments are then taken to mean something else entirely.

I'm tired of the arguments, particularly when they descend to name-calling, and imputations of amorality.

So keep on fighting the good fight, guys (particularly Josh!) I honestly wish all of you the best.

Posted by: LaTomate | April 6, 2010 10:10 AM

Patriotic blablabla said:
__________________________________________________
European is more CIVILIZED????? You mean more SOCIOLIZED!!!!! That's why all liberal fancys europe like its sum Hippy-DIPPY utopia where it's all 'rational thinking' and kittens. If you like europe so much then don't stay in America and bug us god-fearing conservative patriotic honest american people!!!!!!!!!111111

Yes Europe is more civilized. I lived in France for years and now live in Scotland. I pay 20% taxes (more or less in both countries). I make about 60k dollars / year, and I actually get about 48k. and in exchange I get:

* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of / from religion (especially yours)
* Freedom to sleep with (and have a civil union with) whoever I want.
* The vote. More democratic here than in the US by the way.
* Freedom to travel without fear of being shot in the face
* Freedom to travel and communicate using a good infrastructure - roads / bridges / trains that are maintained and of good quality - and which EVERYONE gets equal access to.
* Freedom from the fear of being left bankrupt because I get cancer or some other shit disease.
* Freedom from the fear of being abandonned to rot by my society because I'm going through a tough patch in life.
* Freedom from the worry of what will happen to me when I'm too old to work.

I have one friend here (an Englishman) who has had 7 (SEVEN) pacemakers put in, from when he was a baby till now. You cannot imagine how much it costs to keep him alive. He has never had to pay a dime after taxes. Indeed, "who will pay" has never EVER been an issue.

I have another (a scottish woman) who has advanced Crones disease. She has spent a total of one year and a half in hospital and again, fees were never an issue.

Europeans are civilized because they take care of each other. I am NEVER EVER going back to the US. You people are mad.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | April 6, 2010 10:12 AM

To those bogged down in an argument over the minutia of who saw what and what could have looked like what, fog of war, armchair generals shouldn't judge, etc.

Please explain why the U.S. occupies Iraq.

Back in 2002-03 I and other peacenik types stated to any who would listen (and those who would not) that incidents like this will happen in all wars. Handing out automatic weapons to teenage males never ends well. Debating and bogging down in the details of the why and the how of any specific incident draws our attention away from the elephant in the room. Why occupy that country in the first place?

All of the Bush administrations reasons for invading Iraq have proven lies. All of them. Trace the evil back to the source.

Posted by: Weed Monkey | April 6, 2010 10:14 AM

Not to make any excuses for killers, but this is what I saw: there is, in fact, an RPG in the hands of one of the two men near that telephone pole in this video at around 2:08-2:13. You can see it quite clearly as he turns and swings that object around. It's too long and nose-heavy to be a rifle. The other man a step or two further back seems to carry an AK rifle in his right hand.

The two reporters carrying cameras have passed this point already, they are now closer to the wall. Unfortunately the decision to kill them has been made about 30 seconds prior, when the soldiers mistook cameras for weapons. Obviously they failed in identifying their targets correctly, which means they broke their ROE.

And shooting that van is despicable. There is no threat, just someone trying to help a fellow human being.

Posted by: Kevin | April 6, 2010 10:15 AM

@LaTomate:

Can I live with you?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 10:17 AM

So TM, do you think that Iraq's oil has anything to do with the reasons we were pushed into war with Iraq?

If so do you think that if it was a different leader than Saddam it would have made a difference in their reasoning for war?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 10:22 AM

A lot of you mentioned that the people on the ground seem to be at ease and unalerted to apache's presence. This can be easily explained by the ambience noise of the battlefield and the fact that helicopter is probably hovering several hundred meters away that they didn't notice it.

Come on... look, I've refrained from getting involved in this debate... I've enjoyed following it and have tried to listen to both sides... but I'm still gonna call bullshit on a bullshit argument made by either side. And this is a bullshit argument.

The point wasn't that the people on the ground were at ease despite the presence of the apache... it's that they were at ease, period and did not seem to be acting in any way or engaging in any way that should have been interpreted as combative. Now, I've already heard the arguments on both sides of this and I'm not supporting nor opposing that viewpoint, simply refuting this "excuse" as presented by michelleM as irrelevant to the point.

And they were talking on the phone. Who were they talking to? There are several well-known cases of insurgents disguising as civillians to surviel US forces movements, and alarm their comrades via cellphone.

Again... come on... who the fuck knows who they were talking to? Maybe his wife or son. How the fuck do you know? Absent actual evidence that they were conducting terrorist activity over their cell-phone, it's a pretty horrific reason to open fire and kill them all on the off chance that they might have been.

Again, I'm not making a case for or against the actions by the soldiers on this video... I'm simply addressing these specific arguments by michelleM as ludicrous.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 10:24 AM

I have another (a scottish woman) who has advanced Crones disease

To spare you some possible embarrassment: that's spelled "Crohn's disease".

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/26Pka6RqgOrv5dnPO9sLAHTXFKAjHg--#15934 | April 6, 2010 10:27 AM

@Colin in #468:

One more time. Please note my comments have all been polite. I would really appreciate if you would respond in the same vein.

It’s just the way it is around here. I don’t like it either but folks ability to survive and stomach the invective around here is something that seems to be lauded. In any case, my advice is to take the high road, shrug it off, and stay polite, or get dirty yourself, either way works.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 10:28 AM

Another point that needs to be addresses is the wisdom of using a weapon platform such as the Apache in an urban area for not only looking for insurgents but then killing anyone you think is a bit suspicious.

If you are fighting insurgents you do not want to be killing civilians. You need the civil population on your side, or at the very least not hostile to you. Killing people does not endear the families and friends to you. The 30mm ammunition as used in the Apache's chain gun packs a hell of a punch. The type of walls typically found in Iraqi houses is not going to stop it. Fire off 30mm in an urban area and you are going to kill civilians. It is a dumb move.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 10:35 AM

So TM, do you think that Iraq's oil has anything to do with the reasons we were pushed into war with Iraq?

Of course. What a stupid question.

If so do you think that if it was a different leader than Saddam it would have made a difference in their reasoning for war?

What a bizarre question. It depends on what the difference was. Different name? Parted his hair in a different place? ...? If the Queen of England had been the leader of Iraq (by virtue of it being a member of the Commonwealth), it's unlikely that the U.S. would have invaded.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 10:36 AM

By 'at ease', I mean they were just strolling down the street, not running and taking cover. The incident happened in Sadr city, which is a active insurgent stronghold, anyone walking on the street was suspectable of being a insurgent. The fact that they were carrying weapons, or objects that resemble weapons, doesn't help.

In an urban area suspecting someone of being an insurgent is not justification for opening fire. It is not how you beat an insurgency. Opening fire and asking questions later is going to kill civilians. Killing civilians is not a good move if you want to beat the insurgents. This is pretty basic counter-insurgency doctrine.

You need people on the ground to defeat an insurgency, and you are going to have some of those people killed. But unless you take that risk, you will lose.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 10:42 AM

By 'at ease', I mean they were just strolling down the street, not running and taking cover. The incident happened in Sadr city, which is a active insurgent stronghold, anyone walking on the street was suspectable of being a insurgent. The fact that they were carrying weapons, or objects that resemble weapons, doesn't help.

Whatever... my point is that it makes no difference whether they noticed the apache or not... that was the argument you were making... that they were just walking around casually cause they didn't notice the apache. So what? It's a terrible argument.

The incident happened in Sadr city, which is a active insurgent stronghold, anyone walking on the street was suspectable of being a insurgent.

So if that's the justification for opening fire on any casually walking person or group of people, why not just carpet bomb the whole fucking city while they sleep? Seems if you're going to hold every person in the city as suspect, why bother making distinctions at all?

It's a terrible argument, michelleM.

My very, very personal and certainly not unassailable opinion on this (I did serve in the Navy 1990-94, FWIW), having read through all the comments and looked at both sides of the argument, is that at the end of the day, whatever these guys were carrying, weapons or not, I would like to have seen far, far more in the way of combative or aggressive behavior from this crowd before opening fire and then hunting down and killing the wounded. I just didn't see it.

I understand what the rest of you are saying who might disagree with this, but that's what my conscience tells me, and I'm going to carry this sick feeling in my stomach over it regardless of any justification anyone attempts.

Posted by: Kevin | April 6, 2010 10:47 AM

@negentropyeater #493:

Well, to be fair. He was a brutal, murderous dictator. The terrorist thing and the WMD thing, though - those are probably not true at all.

Posted by: michelleM | April 6, 2010 10:48 AM

Even to this point there are still no conclusive evidence to prove that these people with the reuters reports were not insurgents. And an RPG were recovered at the scene where this supposed 'massacre' took place. Let's face it: walking around in the hot zone with weapons are no different from writing 'insurgent' on one's forehead, and anyone foolish enough to do that will be put down for the safety of everybody else.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 10:49 AM

This can be easily explained by the ambience noise of the battlefield

What "battlefield"?

the fact that helicopter is probably hovering several hundred meters away that they didn't notice it

FAIL. In the soldiers minds, they pointed an RPG at it, so failure to notice the helicopter is not available to the soldiers as an explanation of why the men are not running for cover or even alarmed by its presence.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 10:51 AM

Even to this point there are still no conclusive evidence to prove that these people with the reuters reports were not insurgents. And an RPG were recovered at the scene where this supposed 'massacre' took place. Let's face it: walking around in the hot zone with weapons are no different from writing 'insurgent' on one's forehead, and anyone foolish enough to do that will be put down for the safety of everybody else.

The case needs to be made that they were insurgents. Otherwise the rule must be do not fire.

What part of that can you not comprehend ? And why are you so ignorant of counter-insurgency doctrine ?

Posted by: defides | April 6, 2010 10:53 AM

@ LaTomate:

Scotland was always famous for its Crones.

Oh, wait: you meant Crohn's. My bad!

Posted by: Shala | April 6, 2010 10:55 AM

Refresh your fucking mind browser already.

I suggest you delete system32 IRL.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 10:56 AM

Even to this point there are still no conclusive evidence to prove that these people with the reuters reports were not insurgents.

And there is also no evidence that they were in fact insurgents... and given the fact that they were gunned down and are now dead, is that not the more important lacking evidence?

Again, michellM, you seem to be making the argument that it's OK to gun down people who are just walking around a neighborhood, because that neighborhood is known to harbor insurgents and for all you know everyone is an insurgent.

For the last time, this is a terrible argument. Please stop making it.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 6, 2010 11:00 AM

Even to this point there are still no conclusive evidence to prove that these people with the reuters reports were not insurgents.

I'm sorry, but if this is the logic you employ then nuclear weapons should be used, and all of the human beings who happen to be in Iraq at the time should die. Let's just pick a day. Thurs looks good.

After all, there is no conclusive evidence that any of them aren't insurgents.... especially after they're dead.

After that we should move on to countries that are sympathetic to the people who were killed that day.

Thinking helps some times.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 11:03 AM

Celtic_Evolution:

Maybe just a quibble, because in general I agree with you, but I do think many, many senators were perhaps "pushed" into voting for the invasion for fear of backlash if they didn't, given the climate at the time.

I understand your point but would suggest that if you don't have the spine to required to speak out against something that was so obviously wrong from the outset, you should not have run for public office in the first place.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 11:07 AM

True, and a fair point in re my "no one", but BDC said "we", and I don't think any of us are Senators.

Fair enough.

Dragged in to the Iraq war?

Posted by: defides | April 6, 2010 11:11 AM

Oh, and by the way: compulsory re-education for the fuckwit who thinks that the natural opponents of stormtroopers are the rebels from Star Wars.

Posted by: Sili | April 6, 2010 11:28 AM

If we invaded countries run by brutal murderous dictators why not start with Burma, or China ?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 11:31 AM

Belarus? Texas? Lichtenstein? The Vatican?

I vote for the Vatican.

Posted by: Gryphin | April 6, 2010 11:39 AM

After reading thru the first couple of hundred replies, and scanning the rest as I scrolled, I have to add to it. Yes, it's crappy that they had collateral damage. But as I watched and listened to the beginning, I can't really fault the guys for opening fire. There was reports of armed men, a block or two away from an armored personnel carrier, with AKs and an RPG. Then the guy diving for the corner of the building to get out of sight of the helicopter, and peeking around. My first thought was "RPG!" as well, when I saw him crouching, peeking around the corner, and saw the tube under his arm. Then by the time the helicopter comes around the building, you've got a bunch of guys huddling around another. This screams "trying to hide the guy with the rpg." At that point, opening fire on a group of people who are trying to conceal someone with a weapon that can toast the soldiers down the block before they can see him standing in the shade of a doorway is totally justified under the ROE. I've been over there, it's hell deciding who out every single person on the street is trying to blow you up/put holes in you. The Apaches were protecting the soldiers coming up the street. The first few days of the iraq invasion, (and I'll use the word invasion, even after fighting over there, I don't truly agree with our reasons, but I fought.) we lost a lot of good men because we held back and thought we could just concentrate on the uniformed soldiers. What you thought was a mother with a baby was a bundle of explosives tossed from a doorway under a Humvee. The idea that the guy could be an international reporter with several thousand dollars of camera equipment on him, and not an RPG/AK-47 doesn't even come to mind after being on the ground over there. A guy on a cell phone standing in a doorway is a triggerman for an IED down the block, or a spotter for RPG's laying on rooftops, or warning his buddies around the corner to hurry up with planted the IEDs under the trash on the street.

This is not the Napoleonic Wars, where everyone wore bright colors and lined up on big battlefields. Nobody thought the farmer with a pitchfork was going to shoot at them because it looked like a musket from distance. Every single person walking down the street in Iraq, has the capability to kill you. Be it with a cell phone triggering an IED, or a handful of grenades in their pockets, or an AK-47 tucked into their robes. If you spot someone that you can actually go, "hey! that looks like a weapon, and he's acting shady!" you are actually having a good day, because for the one time out of 20, you spotted him first. You don't have the joy of being able to go back, talk to the survivors, or call up Reuters and ask where their reporters are in a warzone. It's a decision right then and there on if that man is going to kill your men or not. It's a decision that hey, a van just pulled up to the scene, and wouldn't they just love to down a US attack helicopter for the jihad with whatever they have stashed in the van, like maybe a shoulder fired missile brought over from Syria.

As far as the comments while shooting by the gunners, there's not a single guy over there that doesn't have that mindset. It's a mental health and physical health self defense mechanism. I was once told, "a soldier's default mode should be looking for any way to kill someone within the ROE.It's the only way you stay alive." If you can't turn it into a joke and laugh about it, it will kill you by being in your head. You guys think that the revulsion you feel at watching people get gunned down is bad, try being the guy who just got in country, who might actually be old enough to drink,(but probably isn't,50% of my platoon wasn't) and is laying there at night in his bunk after his first day in-country and he just gunned down 8 guys from the side of a helicopter. You really quickly learn the release of gallows humor. I've seen it in every person who's ever been in a combat zone, and I've seen it in every cop back in the real world who has seen his share of murders scenes and traffic accident fatalities.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 11:54 AM

Gryphin,

How about deciding that since the situation is unclear that it would be unwise to open fire as the risk to civilians is too great ?

Which was sort of the point I was making above... understanding the nuances of a "warzone" and that soldiers often react and collateral damage is often inevitable, and also not being in the easiest position to judge after the fact and with time and distance from the situation, I still come back to the simple visual evidence I witnessed, that showed a brutal attack on a group of people that, whether possibly armed or not, was not justified given the pure lack of combative or aggressive behavior by the people being shot. I just can't square with it... YMMV

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 11:57 AM

I feel a bit inconsistent, though. Tronzu was open about his hatred.

Yes, but he set himself apart by spamming the thread with the same repeated post over and over again... that's a clearly stated no-no... he needed to go.

Posted by: Multicellular | April 6, 2010 12:02 PM

halo.lcfr

You guys (PZ Myers included, media, general public) need to keep your opinions out of the debate because you are uneducated in the subject and in no position to make any constructive judgments. There are already rules of engagement, these soldiers followed them to the best of their ability and that's all you fools need to know.

Please, halo.lcfr, enlighten us as to your qualifications that enable you to be so wise at labeling us fools.

As a retired Air Force Major here are my "uneducated" comments: I understand the uncertainty that exists in war and that ROEs are established to minimize casualties. At a minimum these pilots (who weren't young 18 or 19 years old but older, trained officers) knew they were operating over a city with civilians and therefore the default position should be to with-hold fire until they are certain their target is hostile. Ensuring they are firing on a legitimate target is something that I know many pilots agonize over. I did not get the sense that these guys were so concerned about engaging the correct target as they were about just engaging. I won't pretend to fully understand the mind-set of the Apache crew but I do question their decision to fire, and so should the Army.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 12:09 PM

I'm not taking you to task, Celtic_Evolution; I guess I object to the way in which the U.S. media so easily accepts the dehumanizing language of the government/military, and how that language attains widespread usage in our culture. "Collateral damage" sounds so much more acceptable than "massacred civilians" to our U.S. viewing audience, after all.

No worries... upon re-reading I wish I had left that particular phrase out...

I agree...

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 12:15 PM

Immediate danger? Please.

The rounds take about 2-3 seconds from firing to impact. That puts them 1600+ to 2400+ meters from the civilians. They have time to orbit a few times, too.

The footsoldiers arrive about 8 minutes after the slaughter. While we don't see what happens prior, it's clear that the group was no immediate threat, and certainly were NOT, as the aircrew claimed lied, firing on anyone. The PROPER action, if truly suspecting these guys were evildoers, would be to continue surveillance while ground troops approach.

We might also note that we see ZERO soldiers securing weapons from the ground. All those AKs and RPG just laying around....

Posted by: ktesibios | April 6, 2010 12:23 PM

Ted Zissou Author Profile Page | April 5, 2010 7:26 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

If McCain/Lieberman get their way, it can happen here.

Deiloh Author Profile Page | April 5, 2010 8:58 PM [kill]​[hide comment]

Reminds me of some of the problems police departments have had. Prejudice, plus inexperience, plus adrenaline fuck with the brain. Even worse, the greater the number of people pumped up in the situation, the less likely critical thinking.

Something that might be worth mentioning- when the people who committed this atrocity come home they will, as veterans, be given preference in hiring by your local police department. And they will bring to it precisely the same mindset of "anyone who isn't one of us is fair game".

It will happen here, and I'm damned thankful that I probably won't live to see it.

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 12:31 PM

Durnit, I'm having browser issues, and almost every time I submit (ooh, whip me) it posts my comment twice - and yes, I am single-clicking the "submit" button*.

*Sexxxxxy

Posted by: jloxton | April 6, 2010 12:42 PM

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this or not (I scrolled through, but there are A LOT of comments), but there are very clearly at least two men walking right behind the journalists carrying machine guns (the crosshairs travel over them at about 3:40-3:45). Subsequent news reports also confirmed weapons on the scene. This may or may not change things (I don't know the rest of the context or the nature of the mission, e.g., is it a hunt and kill operation?), but it worth correcting an error in PZ's commentary.

On a different note, while I feel the same revulsion at the gallows humour and cavalier nature of the slaughter, this is just the (awful) reality of warfare. This is how human beings psychologically adapt to the horror of the task they are asked to carry out, i.e., murder in the national interest: by dehumanizing the victims.

It is the same necessary callousness you find in operating rooms. Awful to listen to, but I imagine that thrust into the insanity that is war, there is a very good chance I would cope the same way (either that or go insane). I expect everyone would.

So, I would not be so quick to judge the character of the gunners or the pilots.

Posted by: Maslab | April 6, 2010 12:57 PM

there are very clearly at least two men walking right behind the journalists carrying machine guns

That and the men were not acting in a hostile manner in any way.

Posted by: mistermuz | April 6, 2010 1:32 PM

I'm a little late for this I guess but I'm a little hazy on the relationship to where the sight is pointing and what the guy is actually seeing. The main speaker is the gunner, I assume, and the other guy the pilot, right? Presuming the radio is timed correctly, the guy identifies "weapons" in the centre view which clearly aren't (they're camera bags or any shoulder bags), he starts at sight of an "RPG" that clearly isn't (it doesn't even resemble one) nor is it being aimed anywhere by someone trying to conceal himself. That's a coincidence of the corner of the building and where he is standing/crouching (and any shooting is taking a picture of the street).

There's one thing that looks like an RPG tube and the guy might be posing with it. It's never loaded. But this is only identified as a "weapon" when on centre screen. The other guys near him hold a couple of thin things that could be rifles or shotguns. If they're AK47s they have no magazines.

Yet plenty of people here are confirming these weapon sightings, including the threatening RPG. Where is it?

The thing is, these vagaries are all confirmed when he circles around the building again to see some guys casually milling around, not terribly interested in him. The initial barks suggest terrible spatial recognition. The subsequent behaviour, a real lack of what I guess they'd call situational awareness.

I think this is a total disgrace, for the record. But even making a few War Allowances for the situation I'd say this guy was really badly trained in threat identification and spatial matters and his poor confirmation and reassessment abilities mean he should never in the air or behind a gun ever again.

Posted by: Yubal | April 6, 2010 1:40 PM

sorry,

weapons of mass destruction

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 1:45 PM

Couple of Issues I have noticed anyone address:

1. Considering we are talking about Iraq where it seems everyone owns an AK47 (notice I said seems!) Is it normal that that non-insurgents could/would be carrying weapons? Obviously if it were New York City a person carrying an AK47 is a pretty good bet to be a bad guy, but is this the case in Iraq?

2.Is the Fact that the Soldiers reported Gunfire the key to there Exoneration by the military? Without the reported gunfire would they have been allowed to open fire? would it be against the Rules of Engagement? It seemed to me that they reported gunfire simply as a formality to allow them to open fire.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 6, 2010 1:51 PM

Considering we are talking about Iraq where it seems everyone owns an AK47 (notice I said seems!) Is it normal that that non-insurgents could/would be carrying weapons? Obviously if it were New York City a person carrying an AK47 is a pretty good bet to be a bad guy, but is this the case in Iraq?

Part of the US policy to defeat the insurgents was to make use of unofficial militia. There were often groups that had been part of the insurgency but had been persuaded (for which read bribed most of the time) to switch sides.

I defy anyone to easily tell the good militia from the bad militia.

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 2:02 PM

This may be a bombshell to some of you...

Iraqi law, once we took over, allowed every family to own one AK47 for self defense. Apparently unless actually seen with one.

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 2:08 PM

Thus it seems Arguing over if they had weapons or not should be moot. which brings back to the claim of Gun fire ... I wonder if that is what the key to this is?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 2:22 PM

which brings back to the claim of Gun fire ... I wonder if that is what the key to this is?

I suspect (although of course I am not by any means 100% certain) that the key to the soldiers being exonerated had less to do with the actual events and more to do with internal political workings...

Posted by: Sili | April 6, 2010 2:27 PM

True Bob,

To us 'civilians' submachine gun = machine gun. In fact I wouldn't hesitate to call an AK-47 a machine gun.

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 2:31 PM

Sili,

That's why I posted. A real machine gun is a heavy thing. They've made single-person machine guns (submachine guns), but nowadays they fire the same rounds as the next guy's rifle (commonality, just faster output). It's important in of the aircrews, ground pounders and the ROE.

BTW, I'm a civilian, always have been. I just accumulate a lot of mental detritus.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlZ5SUf0_EmBhfJBKb8y48djZ8Xyyzo3_Y | April 6, 2010 2:39 PM

Upon viewing the video a second time, on high resolution and fullscreen, I clearly identify two men carrying assault rifles and one carrying an RPG. So I change my mind in this regard.
Firing upon the van is still a crime.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 2:39 PM

Photogs get paid to get pictures of boom; wanna guess what was about to happen?

And you can support this scenario in this particular incident how?

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 2:46 PM

S. Sev, the helos were orbiting at least a mile out. They had to use the optics capability to identify and survey. The video is what one aircrew was looking at through the optics system.

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 2:54 PM

S.SEV #559

"Note that at least an RPG and an AK can be seen at around the 3:50 mark"

You See an RPG? I see the guy carrying something but there is no way that you can conclusively say that what he is carrying is an RPG.

And as I have previously Noted the fact that anyone is carrying an AK47 is not relevant.

Even if he was carrying an RPG would it not be better to hold fire until you could be sure? such as if he starts putting it on his shoulder? or showing some sign of an attempt to use it?

I am still not sure if the mere fact of carrying an RPG would be a strong indication that the person was an enemy Insurgent? I am not familiar enough with the area to make that assumption.

The Bottom line is that This Video needs to be addressed, It raises many questions and at the very least the Military should be releasing the "Investigation" that they performed and justify their decision.

Posted by: KevinS | April 6, 2010 3:00 PM

My message to the Pentagon..

Welcome to the information age.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 3:18 PM

S. Sev,

I've watched the unedited video in the best resolution available and do not share your certainty over the identification of weapons (and I know perfectly well what AK47s and RPG-7s look like). I accept there's one guy with an assault rifle that's probably an AK. The alleged RPG looks more a camera tripod to me. *If* someone is strolling the streets of Sadr City with an RPG, that is as good holding a placard that says "I'm an insurgent." Carrying an AK47 does not however; it could simply be for self defence.

Maybe this video only provides part of the picture, but given the distance the Apache was from the scene, the crew would not have been able to observe the situation with the naked eye and would have been reliant on whatever sensor gadgetry available to them. Other than the gunsight camera, which is what we're seeing, what else is available to an Apache to observe distant ground targets?

Regardless, I don't see how anything you've said excuses the aircrew of the following:

1. Repeatedly passing on false situation reports to their controllers.
2. Gleefully willing a critically injured man to reach for a weapon so that they can open fire again.
3. Destroying a makeshift ambulance.
4.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 6, 2010 3:24 PM

More pics http://www.collateralmurder.org/file/photos/5.jpg.html

There's more info on wiki links about this. Including the photograph taken by the man (all kinds of shady) leaning around the corner with the "RPG" that he... uh.. somehow took a picture with.

There is also a picture the foot soldiers took with the "RPG" as well.

It also has information on the other "possible insurgents" now people.

There are no more excuses here.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | April 6, 2010 3:27 PM

sorry, lots of people posted before my last comment showed up. It was aimed at folks who obviously didn't read the thread but felt like telling us all the things they saw in the video that we CLEARLY didn't consider.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | April 6, 2010 3:29 PM

Photogs get paid to get pictures of boom; wanna guess what was about to happen?

Bullshit.

You know nothing about journalism.

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 3:32 PM

And don't forget the Lies by the Military that they were clearly in Combat with a Hostile force!

If it were that clear we wouldn't be having this conversation!

The Worse part may not be the actions of the soldiers but the actions of the military after the fact. They CLEARLY misled/Lied to the public of what actually transpired.

I won't judge the entire military on the actions or mistakes of some soldiers, they are human and humans make mistakes. But I will judge the military on how they react to mistakes when they happen and they way they reacted to this is just not acceptable.

I will trust/respect a person/Organization way more if they Identify when mistakes are made and take the right actions to try and prevent them in the future. I have zero trust/Respect for anyone that misleads/Lies and covers up their mistakes.

Its the same as the Catholic Church, If they had just been honest and reported/punished the Priest that abused then I would have (Some)trust in the church but instead they chose to cover it up. Most people will not hold an Organization responsible for the actions of a few of their members if they do the right thing when it happens.

Posted by: acr228 | April 6, 2010 3:47 PM

Owning a AK is common in Iraq, walking around the streets with one is not.

Machine guns can be fired from unmounted positions accurately, all it takes is another person's shoulder.

As I said way back up at post #67 they violated the ROE's they should have continued to observe and should have never engaged the van. In addition there is no way they could have known there were kids in the van, we know they are kids because they are pointed out to us as kids. Had they not been pointed out would you have recognized those few pixels to be kids?

OEF6 OIF 8

Posted by: Kevin | April 6, 2010 3:54 PM

@Yubal #581:

The Wikileaks website - http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html

Down near the bottom of the page you can see the kids.

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 4:10 PM

Lets forget about the weapons for a moment.

How does the military in Iraq identify Insurgents?

IF they Identify them as anybody carrying Weapons...then the Soldiers could be just following the guide lines that they are given. Even if this is so When are they allowed to "Attack"? (I haven't read the Rules of Engagement) You must also remember that they are not fighting a "WAR" as we usually define one. They are Fighting an Insurgency which is different.

I assume that if they are fired upon or feel that they are in imminent danger then they are allowed to engage. Under what circumstances do the guidelines actually allow them to engage? If it is based on Defense or imminent danger then the Video clearly shows this not to be true.

Lets also say that there is absolutely no doubt that they were insurgents then what are the Guidelines to Engaging? Wouldnt Attempting to capture them seem like the more appropriate option? Especially when they certainly were not an immediate threat?

Posted by: RodM | April 6, 2010 4:16 PM

Horrible typing habits..... :(

It is why my wife usually proof reads anything I type! :)

Posted by: ThorGoLucky | April 6, 2010 4:18 PM

Such viscousness!

I venture to guess that the people who approve of such action are those that want the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings.

Posted by: Jadehawk OM, Hardcore Left-Winger | April 6, 2010 4:24 PM

d'oh!

nevermind youba1, I so totally missed you were talking about the East.

to which I can only say that I'm glad the Polish bureaucracy was inept, because my dad dodged the draft there, and no one noticed...

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | April 6, 2010 4:42 PM

I also do not take the 1st paragraph as being offered as support for the pilots' actions. acr228 states clearly that s/he does not see their actions as justifiable (see #67), so I am not sure that there is a substantive disagreement between you.

Some of the statements in his post did seem contradictory to me... I'll allow that I've very possibly misread it, in which case I'm willing to retract my criticism.

Posted by: Kagehi | April 6, 2010 5:16 PM

This is the sort of crap you get when a) no rational people want to join the military and b) all the ones that do are so called "patriots" from pro war families, many of which hate Muslims so badly they find accusing the standing president as one a *massive* insult, and even *criminals*, some of them *killers*, who where given it as an "option" instead of jail time. Its also likely no where near as bad as what the various private armies Bushy funded to go over there as "contractors" have done, and continue to do, many of them having the same insane reasons that some of the right wing "patriots" have as a reason (i.e., racism, and religious bigotry).

By comparison, even the bombings in Japan where more justifiable, in as much as there is a *strong* line of evidence to suggest that, if at least one hadn't been dropped (perhaps both, as evidence of having more than just the one weapon), there might not have been a Japan left, by the time we defeated them. Which is worse, extermination of a people that won't stop fighting, or nukes dropped on two cities? I am not real clear on why belief that the former wouldn't have happened, against all evidence to the contrary, makes the other one somehow worse. Its not like we wouldn't have been dropping bombs like at Dresden on them instead, in a final offensive, since it *was*, oddly, a more acceptable tactic.

But, in either case, ***we where supposed to have promised not to do this shit in wars any more***. Only, we have, we do, and the only difference seems to be how willing the clown in charge at the time is willing to break those rules, and build concentration camps, along with illegally shooting non-combatants. Oh, and, as usual, the only power the UN seems to have to enforce anything seems to be directed at preventing interventions where they are needed, whining uselessly, and cowering when those interventions involve one of the nations with veto rights on their council. Not that their own troops seem to do any better, when they actual *do* end up some place "keeping peace". Grrr..

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 5:29 PM

Tronzu: Innocent civilians don't fool around on the street with an freaking Bazooka on their shoulders.

Bazooka. RPG Any questions, you bigoted fuck?

That was PatrioticAmerican, not Tronzu. And from your first link:

Due to the novelty and easy recognition of the name, the term "bazooka" continues to be used informally as a genericized term to refer to any shoulder-launched missile weapon.

and your second link:

A rocket-propelled grenade (also known as RPG or Rocket Launcher) is any hand-held, shoulder-launched anti-tank weapon capable of firing an unguided rocket equipped with an explosive warhead.

(Not that anyone in the video had a weapon on their shoulders.)

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 5:39 PM

there is a *strong* line of evidence to suggest that, if at least one hadn't been dropped (perhaps both, as evidence of having more than just the one weapon), there might not have been a Japan left, by the time we defeated them

No there isn't; nor was that a motivation, or ever offered as a motivation, for dropping the bombs. For a less nonsensical take, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito#Last_days_of_the_war

Posted by: maureen.brian#b5c92 | April 6, 2010 5:45 PM

toffeecime,

Well within the capacity of the US military. They've had plenty of practice.

Posted by: True Bob | April 6, 2010 5:46 PM

rr, there's no way an RPG was a threat to that helo. Learn some facts about the weaponry involved. It would be a SAM that could be a threat to the helo, and that has never been alleged.

An RPG cannot plink a moving target out of the sky at a mile. A single 30mm round can just about cut a person in half. Consider how big 300mm is in diameter, and that they are flying around Mach.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 6:00 PM

What did you folks think the guy was going to do with the ROCKET LAUNCHER?

I see no clear evidence of a rocket launcher/RPG/anything capable of taking down an Apache gunship, especially at the range it appears to be observing the scene. What are you talking about?

This is the 6th(!) in a series, set to music: [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=806_1268227926[/url] Where is the outrage?

False dichotomy. Just because we condemn the actions of American service personnel in the video in the OP does not be we don't also condemn the actions depicted in the video you linked to. For the record, I found its celebration of killing abominable and could only stomach a couple of minutes.

There are a couple of differences between the two videos that you seem to have overlooked:

1. The atrocity shown in the OP is the result of an illegal invasion funded by American taxpayers (like PZ) and British taxpayers (like me). It is therefore incumbent on us to speak out against unjustifiable acts being carried out in our name. The acts of Iraqi insurgents are not (directly) attributable to us.

2. Iraqi insurgents have some degree of justification in attacking American forces and their allies since they are there through no legitimate authority. I reiterate, however, that I think the video you linked to is a disgusting celebration of violence for which there is no justification. (Cue the "liberal anti-American scum" accusations...)

Posted by: toffeecime | April 6, 2010 6:07 PM

True Bob #602: the journalists and other men were around the corner from US ground forces, who claimed to be under fire. The Apache was something like 1-2km away from their target, so I doubt the guys on the ground would have even seen it, so nobody is saying the Apache was doing anything but supporting ground forces.

Posted by: Jadehawk OM, Hardcore Left-Winger | April 6, 2010 6:17 PM

so, "when in doubt, trust the military"?

what a fucked up logic. as I already said about police, when you give people more rights, you need to subject them to hightened scrutiny and doubt. so it should be "when in doubt, distrust the military"

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | April 6, 2010 6:28 PM

Of course, there was no Collateral Murder on 9/11, or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, carried out on Iraq's behalf.
Not that I was ever a supporter of the Iraq war. Vietnam should have taught us one thing: wars that drag on become unpopular, and a democracy cannot commit to an open-ended conflict, because governments can change. Where a coalition is involved, the problem of long-term commitment is exacerbated further.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 6, 2010 6:31 PM

@610

Of course, there was no Collateral Murder on 9/11, or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, carried out on Iraq's behalf.

wait

What?

@611

How easy it is to watch a short video and heap condemnation upon soldiers and all from the comfort of our padded lounge chairs.

It is when the video shows them doing what they did.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 6:32 PM

My only point is that this video (I've watched the entire ~40 minute version) is not enough evidence to accuse US forces of murder

Jesus Haploid Christ on a Motherfucking Bike. Were you not paying attention to the part where they gunned down people coming to the aid of a gravely injured man? Is there something wrong with you? What is this if not murder?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 6, 2010 6:33 PM

How easy it is to watch a short video and heap condemnation upon soldiers and all from the comfort of our padded lounge chairs.

How easy it is to snipe at the end of a thread without having read enough of the preceding comments to realise others have said the same thing.

Your bumper is just positively covered with stickers, isn't it?

Posted by: Steven Mading | April 6, 2010 6:38 PM

Posted by: truthspeaker | April 6, 2010 2:16 PM

Posted by: Rorschach | April 6, 2010 7:58 AM @ 383, And, IPads depend on Iraqi oil? If you are advocating this then you're more insane then Tronzu.

The cases of iPads are made of plastic, and plastic is made from petroleum. They are also manufactured in factories, which takes electricity, some of which comes from petroleum, and they have to be transported from factory to wholesaler to retailer, which uses petroleum. So yes, iPads, like all consumer products, depend on oil.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 6:41 PM

Of course, there was no Collateral Murder on 9/11

Of course no one has claimed that, asshole.

or the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, carried out on Iraq's behalf.

What? Fuck ... WHAT? Even if that nutty claim were correct, that doesn't make every single Iraqi guilty of it and deserving to be shot down.

Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | April 6, 2010 6:43 PM

The point was - does the oil these things are made from come from Iraq?

Not directly relevant IMO. The availability of Iraqi oil affects global oil prices - that's the real issue.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | April 6, 2010 6:53 PM

You dropped the word "Iraqi" from the phrase "Iraqi oil" and responded dishonestly as if Rorschach had said just "oil"

You're being a stupid ass. The original claim was

Do you live in the US? Do you drive a car? Do you buy consumer items like IPads? Do you buy your food at the supermarket? Do you understand that all of those things depend on one thing and one thing only. OIL!

I know, I know, you have to have a brain and some intellectual scruples to actually go back and look at the thread.