Wikileaks video: two Reuters journalists and a dozen civilians gunned down in Iraq

[aphemix]

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. For further information please visit the special project website www.collateralmurder.com.Wikileaks (http://www.wikileaks.org)

the action starts about 3 minutes 45 seconds in

5rXPrfnU3G0

[bass_n_treble]

Whoa WTF--I just viewed this independently like 10 minutes ago. Did this come out today?

I am a world citizen. I am not an American.

[aphemix]

yeah, it did come out today. It was announced maybe a week and a half or so in advance.


aphemix: you see this?
aphemix: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=40737
somebody: oh my. O.O what dya think of that?
aphemix: I dunno. Unaffected. Not surprised. Apparently this video was heavily suppressed by the Pentagon and Wikileaks was targeted by US agencies for trying to release it. This is what press releases prior to the posting of the video claim. I already figure we're doing some fucked up shit over there, I already figure all sorts of powers are complicit in enabling it and covering it up, I already figure this information will slowly seep out and contribute to a climate of dissent in some way or another. So, nothing new. I just wonder if Wikileaks is a CIA plant or something to help ensure it happens.

[stuck]

Yeah, wikileaks is being called a threat to to army.

Has it been proven that these are the same journalists? Not that it actually matters, but it would be different if the guy was shouldering an rpg.

In any case, we shouldn't have started a war there, we conducted it with criminal negligence, and we shouldn't be there now.

[bass_n_treble]

I hope this makes you feel better (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020100714.html)

[aphemix]

I happen to think the faulty premises upon which our engagement with Iraq is based were concocted exclusively to elicit suspicion of sensationalist warmongering in our future engagement with Iran in the mind of the public. We could've said Iraq did any fucking thing in the world and the Ministry of Truth would've confirmed it, easily. We could've found Bin Laden there for fuck's sake. We didn't.

[stuck]

I happen to think the faulty premises upon which our engagement with Iraq is based were concocted exclusively to elicit suspicion of sensationalist warmongering in our future engagement with Iran in the mind of the public.

huh?

So Bush 2 said Iraq had ties to Bin Laden in order to make us not want to go to war with Iran? Does not compute.

[aphemix]

So Bush 2 said Iraq had ties to Bin Laden in order to make us not want to go to war with Iran? Does not compute.in order to make us believe war with Iran is criminal, its basis falsified, and its proponents corrupt. Yes.

particularly, the illegitimacy of our war with Iraq has been accepted by the mainstream for this reason.

[Qfwfq]

I think I'm gonna be sick...

[MadamI'madaM]

in order to make us believe war with Iran is criminal, its basis falsified, and its proponents corrupt. Yes.

particularly, the illegitimacy of our war with Iraq has been accepted by the mainstream for this reason.

I'm not following here.

Spill your thesis.

[Neville]

It's war. What do people expect?

[Qfwfq]

Will this not make it to mainstream news? edit: Nevermind, it's front cover on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/. Wow, Fox news too.



It's war. What do people expect?

Did you not watch the video? They shot at people collecting the dead.

[Anonymous]

It's war. What do people expect?

War involves armies on both sides. This is occupation.

[Bking]

I wonder if they have any video tapes of a suicide bomber blowing up his favorite grocery market with a bunch of kids buying candy and some old chick in the middle of checking the tomatoes for their ripeness. I bet that happend at least once.

[jyng1]

It's war. What do people expect?

People expect an occupying force who invaded a country on moral grounds to conduct itself in a moral way.

Just because someone flew a few airliners into the World Trade Center, it doesn't justify the maltreatment of a mainly innocent civilian population and the perpetration of atrocities in retaliation.

[Neville]

Did you not watch the video? They shot at people collecting the dead.

They weren't collecting the dead. They were trying to save a survivor.


War involves armies on both sides. This is occupation.

War involves armed enemies on both sides. Whatever I called it, you would have taken the other road.

Occupation, war, conflict, they don't mean shit, people are still fighting.


People expect an occupying force who invaded a country on moral grounds to conduct itself in a moral way.

Just because someone flew a few airliners into the World Trade Center, it doesn't justify the maltreatment of a mainly innocent civilian population and the perpetration of atrocities in retaliation.

Atrocities? A dozen people and a couple kids, really? When did life become so valuable? An Apache fired on armed individuals not a playground.

[MadamI'madaM]

People expect an occupying force who invaded a country on moral grounds to conduct itself in a moral way.

Just because someone flew a few airliners into the World Trade Center, it doesn't justify the maltreatment of a mainly innocent civilian population and the perpetration of atrocities in retaliation.

I think he was just calling those people out as naive.

I would have to agree.

It isn't retaliation, it's just what primates do with sticks.

[bass_n_treble]

There is no justifying this. There's this thing in military protocol called "The Rules of Engagement".

This was bloodlust against Iraqis, plain and simple.

[bass_n_treble]

Atrocities? A dozen people and a couple kids, really? When did life become so valuable? An Apache fired on armed individuals not a playground.

It's obvious you didn't really watch the video.

Those were cameras. Nobody was armed.

Not only that, but the soldiers were laughing when they did it.

[aphemix]

Not only that, but the soldiers were laughing when they did it.not only that, but even after the ground troops got there and ascertained the group wasn't a threat, civilians were there trying to take pictures of all the chaos and the helicopters came by and fired on them again.

[MadamI'madaM]

There is no justifying this.

This was bloodlust against Iraqis, plain and simple.

You're absolutely right, but these are the images that should've been flashing through everyone's minds in '03 when they were selling their horseshit in front of the UN.

To say it's "bloodlust" in the same way as when some dude brutalizes a hooker, though, I think is incorrect.

I don't think conscious decision making accurately describes everything that happens in combat zones.

The average soldier is not a man of mind or of means, and he finds himself in shitty situations very often. It's enough to change people.

The war pigs are the ones who need to be held accountable.

[Neville]

It's obvious you didn't really watch the video.

Those were cameras. Nobody was armed.

Not only that, but the soldiers were laughing when they did it.

Uhhhhh, sure you're watching the same vid? You can clearly see them holding weapons, unless of course you have no idea what a weapon looks like. Those things dangling off their shoulders, weapons!

So? People aren't allowed to enjoy their job?

[Bking]

You have to keep in mind that at the moment in which this was happening they were under the impression that they were the people that they are there to kill. So from their perspective at the time, it wasn’t cruel. It was a bunch of people that wanted to kill them. And the van was nothing more than an enemy van filled with more people that want to kill us as much as we want to kill them. Personally, I think it’s all very sad. I don’t agree with any part of it. But it was only sad until after it happened.
What the video did was set you up with the truth behind the matter before you saw the actual video. If they would have shown you the video, you would have thought that there was a group of dudes, some with guns. One of them crouches on the side of the building like something out of Gears of War and is preparing to fire an RPG. In reality, it was the guy with the camera. But at the time, it was a dude with an RPG.

I bet the guy that shot everyone deeply, deeply, regrets it.

[stuck]

I bet the guy that shot everyone deeply, deeply, regrets it.

Yes, and rather than scapegoating the soldiers who are instructed to do their job, we should end the war. It's not just, we fucked it up, we're not making it better.

[avolkiteshvara]

That'll show fucking Reuters for trying to report unpatriotic news footage.

[fripping]

the military? killing journalists? huh????????

next you'll be telling me they rape women

[Neville]

they're cameras, and it was confirmed


3:43 Those aren't cameras.

Where's this confirmation?

[Gchrist]

Are you all really surprised by this? Were you also surprised that torture actually does happen?

Rules of engagement have traditionally served as a public face, but not the whole story. A nation is not supposed to let its population see the underbelly of war. Yet, war and killing has always been war and killing. The only difference now is that the media has a lot more means of reporting it.

This is just a glimpse. I'm sure there are plenty of things to be morally outraged about from every side of this (and any) armed conflict.

[aphemix]

I bet the guy that shot everyone deeply, deeply, regrets it.lol there's a good one. Yeah, maybe if he lost his job he regrets it. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of US forces just firing into crowded Iraqi intersections laughing as cars plow into walls. I used to run a purposefully obscene website where the people who purportedly participated in these videos would send them to me all excited about it trying to make my front page. Seen the trend gain and lose popularity many times over a period of years. Maybe go look on Liveleak or TheYNC because I'm sure they all still exist in plain sight. Fucking please.

[stuck]

in order to make us believe war with Iran is criminal, its basis falsified, and its proponents corrupt. Yes.

particularly, the illegitimacy of our war with Iraq has been accepted by the mainstream for this reason.

I'm going to guess here...

What you mean is that the war was manufactured to split the american public into two camps, one who thinks "that damned government, but we can't do anything about it" and the other who thinks "thank god the army is working outside the bounds of the government."? And in the international community, we're just meant to be seen as a monster with no rhyme or reason?

[awesome]

What's sad is how disturbed people are by this video...did you think they were playing with hula hoops over there? Did you think it was all "duck duck goose" for them? How come it takes one fucking video for people to go "Oh, my" when there's been war there for 7 years? A hell of a lot worse shit than this has happened, except there hasn't been a nice "bloodthirsty Americans taking out unarmed locals and innocent little journalist fathers" motif to give it a nice media hue. I hate how people rise up in arms over media crap...can't you figure out the horrors of war without sitting in front of your TV?

[Faust06]

lol there's a good one. Yeah, maybe if he lost his job he regrets it. I can't tell you how many videos I've seen of US forces just firing into crowded Iraqi intersections laughing as cars plow into walls. I used to run a purposefully obscene website where the people who purportedly participated in these videos would send them to me all excited about it trying to make my front page. Seen the trend gain and lose popularity many times over a period of years. Maybe go look on Liveleak or TheYNC because I'm sure they all still exist in plain sight. Fucking please.

Agreed. This kind of behavior happens without fail, every time. I'm sure there have been plenty of rape incidents as well.

[Blackhole_turnpike]

Agreed. This kind of behavior happens without fail, every time. I'm sure there have been plenty of rape incidents as well.

KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones, and the DODs complete denial until the water broke.


Nothing new, as many have already said its surprising to hear how abhorred people are.

[bass_n_treble]

This is still inexcusable. I will hang my American flag upside down now, thanks.


What's sad is how disturbed people are by this video...did you think they were playing with hula hoops over there? Did you think it was all "duck duck goose" for them? How come it takes one fucking video for people to go "Oh, my" when there's been war there for 7 years? A hell of a lot worse shit than this has happened, except there hasn't been a nice "bloodthirsty Americans taking out unarmed locals and innocent little journalist fathers" motif to give it a nice media hue. I hate how people rise up in arms over media crap...can't you figure out the horrors of war without sitting in front of your TV?

+1

[joft]

zlol did anyone else think that video was so funny because i did because that's how cold and desensitized i am and anyone who didn't laugh is a naive idiot

[bass_n_treble]

zlol did anyone else think that video was so funny because i did because that's how cold and desensitized i am and anyone who didn't laugh is a naive idiot

It's about as funny as a bullet in the head. :jesus: Zombie Jesus would be ashamed of you.

[Neville]

I chuckled when his gun wouldn't fire.

[Blackhole_turnpike]

Derrick Jensen- Endgame

Premise Four: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

[Lurker]

Disgusting, but not surprising.

[bass_n_treble]

Uhhhhh, sure you're watching the same vid? You can clearly see them holding weapons, unless of course you have no idea what a weapon looks like. Those things dangling off their shoulders, weapons!

So? People aren't allowed to enjoy their job?

Neville, I'd like you to meet Dr. Stupid, the Air Force optometrist.

"This will only take a minute.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/eye_exam.jpg

What do you see?"

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/RPG.jpg
Easy! Rocket Propelled Grenade Launcher!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/RPG3.jpg
It's a camping thermos attaché case for a sniper rifle!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/RPG4.gif
That's a Desert Eagle!

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/RPG2.jpg
That's uh... a... submarine heat-seeker missile... thing.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/MrMagoo.jpg
How'd I do, doc?"

:facepalm:

[aphemix]

http://aphemix.com/randomwhat/canon.png

[TheNilesEdge]

LOL!!!

[Neville]

oEFOO'ef;OIDN;ONON

There are more people than the two journalists.

This is kinda small, I hope you can figure out what it is.

http://wilybadger.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/ak-47_type_ii_part_dm-st-89-01131.jpg

[bass_n_treble]

I wanna work for Reuters. They give out AK-47s. Pretty bad ass.

[foodeater]

Shit happens, you know? I say live and let live, end of story.

[Blackhole_turnpike]

Shit happens, you know? I say live and let live, end of story.

Premise Fifteen: Love does not imply pacifism

[Lurker]

Shit happens, you know? I say live and let live, end of story.

They would be, if only those meddling soldiers hadn't been so eager to "engage."

Engage sounds almost positive. "Let us engage the children!" Nice choice of euphemism.

[Neville]

I wanna work for Reuters. They give out AK-47s. Pretty bad ass.

I want you to work for Reuters too. Then you get the privilege of being shredded by an Apache.

I'll make some calls. I'll see what I can do.

[bass_n_treble]

I want you to work for Reuters too. Then you get the privilege of being shredded by an Apache.

I'll make some calls. I'll see what I can do.

:wub: You're the best! :highfive:

[elfsprin]

i work for reuters. they didn't give me any weapons, i had to bring my own.

[ApeTheDog]

Wikileaks released this video because it is in a spot of danger. Their site has been down for the last months except for a "We need your donations" message.

I'm not sure they are all that necesary. It is good to have a place where things can be leaked to (though this video serves no point whatsoever) -- but can't the internet as a whole serve that function? We don't need a separate site for spreading illegal copies of windows 7, and yet those are out there.

As for this video... stuff like this happens. Mistakes always happen in war because there is no time to think about matters and discuss the situation, like you can do after the facts. That is why you opt not to go to war (and the US has absolutely no legitimate reason to still be in Iraq. That is the major crime in this video -- for which no heads will fall, as usual).

[YHWH]

That is why I support the so-called terrorists.

[bass_n_treble]

Wikileaks released this video because it is in a spot of danger. Their site has been down for the last months except for a "We need your donations" message.

I'm not sure they are all that necesary. It is good to have a place where things can be leaked to (though this video serves no point whatsoever) -- but can't the internet as a whole serve that function? We don't need a separate site for spreading illegal copies of windows 7, and yet those are out there.

As for this video... stuff like this happens. Mistakes always happen in war because there is no time to think about matters and discuss the situation, like you can do after the facts. That is why you opt not to go to war (and the US has absolutely no legitimate reason to still be in Iraq. That is the crime in this video).

Don't you know the only way to get things done in the U.S. is by "moral panic"?

[ApeTheDog]

Don't you know the only way to get things done in the U.S. is by "moral panic"?

I know. That's the reason for the moral decay in your society. Too much misinformation and people crying "wolf". (Isn't a US only phenomenon, by the way. It happens everywhere there is media and people trying to get elected)

[Qfwfq]

Wikileaks released this video because it is in a spot of danger. Their site has been down for the last months except for a "We need your donations" message.

I'm not sure they are all that necesary. It is good to have a place where things can be leaked to (though this video serves no point whatsoever) -- but can't the internet as a whole serve that function? We don't need a separate site for spreading illegal copies of windows 7, and yet those are out there.

As for this video... stuff like this happens. Mistakes always happen in war because there is no time to think about matters and discuss the situation, like you can do after the facts. That is why you opt not to go to war (and the US has absolutely no legitimate reason to still be in Iraq. That is the major crime in this video -- for which no heads will fall, as usual).

wait, what do you mean "mistakes happen"? They shot people collecting the dead or a wounded. The guy was begging to shoot him. "Oh please please just let us engage".

If this video doesn't serve its purpose as evidence for war crimes, then it sure as hell serves one to sensitize people to the reality of "war". Maybe videos like this, by revealing our cruelty, will help us progress as human beings.

[bass_n_treble]

wait, what do you mean "mistakes happen"? They shot people collecting the dead or a wounded. The guy was begging to shoot him. "Oh please please just let us engage".

If this video doesn't serve its purpose as evidence for war crimes, then it sure as hell serves one to sensitize people to the reality of "war". Maybe videos like this, by revealing our cruelty, will help us progress as human beings.

We live in a country where the results of what our military does to other countries endangers our civilians.

They sure don't do it because they didn't like what breed of dog Obama chose.

[Neville]

It's not like watching people getting shot up is all that bad. You've seen one you've seen them all.

[YHWH]

wait, what do you mean "mistakes happen"? They shot people collecting the dead or a wounded. The guy was begging to shoot him. "Oh please please just let us engage".

If this video doesn't serve its purpose as evidence for war crimes, then it sure as hell serves one to sensitize people to the reality of "war". Maybe videos like this, by revealing our cruelty, will help us progress as human beings.

Eh, I do believe most people are psychopaths, closeted of course.

Most would just find this awesome, as in IRL counter-strike. Or would be revolted by it, only based on their preexisting list of values. (as in, them being liberals, opposed to the war on iraq, or other political/social crap)

[LongSilence]

I'm refraining from joining in on the discussion until there's a bit more of a consensus on what went down.

First up, this quote:

WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. For further information please visit the special project website www.collateralmurder.com.

does not say that there weren't guys with AK-47s. I watched the start carefully and while I couldn't see any RPGs it definitely appeared that people had AK-47s in the group and some guy does crouch by a wall weirdly. The pivotal issue here for me is if we can agree there were some guys with rifles walking in the street with the pointer on them around 3:45 oe not. On the grainy footage it looks very much like they are and they are NOT the camaramen who have walked on to the corner.

Yes, the wounded Reuters guy and some people plus children who tried to pick him up were slaughtered. But the pilots thought they were helping an enemy escape and therefore on the side of the insurgents. Ideally, soldiers should allow the wounded to receive treatment but technically good practice says that they only shouldn't fire on recognised non-combatants [like the Red Cross] tending to the wounded. It's a muddy issue when fighting a rebel army however who tend not to obey the rules of warfare themselves.

Anyway, I just want to know whether there were actually some weapons down there. It hasn't seemed to be confirmed or denied by any sources I've read yet.

[jyng1]

It's not like watching people getting shot up is all that bad. You've seen one you've seen them all.

Neville!! You should stop playing "Grand Theft Auto". Or move neighbourhoods...

[YHWH]

I'm refraining from joining in on the discussion until there's a bit more of a consensus on what went down.

First up, this quote:


does not say that there weren't guys with AK-47s. I watched the start carefully and while I couldn't see any RPGs it definitely appeared that people had AK-47s in the group and some guy does crouch by a wall weirdly. The pivotal issue here for me is if we can agree there were some guys with rifles walking in the street with the pointer on them around 3:45 oe not. On the grainy footage it looks very much like they are and they are NOT the camaramen who have walked on to the corner.

Yes, the wounded Reuters guy and some people plus children who tried to pick him up were slaughtered. But the pilots thought they were helping an enemy escape and therefore on the side of the insurgents. Ideally, soldiers should allow the wounded to receive treatment but technically good practice says that they only shouldn't fire on recognised non-combatants [like the Red Cross] tending to the wounded. It's a muddy issue when fighting a rebel army however who tend not to obey the rules of warfare themselves.

Anyway, I just want to know whether there were actually some weapons down there. It hasn't seemed to be confirmed or denied by any sources I've read yet.

Cut the bullshit mate.

[Neville]

Neville!! You should stop playing "Grand Theft Auto". Or move neighbourhoods...

Three people, two different neighborhoods. It's always the same.

[ApeTheDog]

wait, what do you mean "mistakes happen"? They shot people collecting the dead or a wounded. The guy was begging to shoot him. "Oh please please just let us engage".

If this video doesn't serve its purpose as evidence for war crimes, then it sure as hell serves one to sensitize people to the reality of "war". Maybe videos like this, by revealing our cruelty, will help us progress as human beings.

I am against hype and manipulation. I know what the aim of this video is - it is to make these soldiers appear as psychopaths. You're buying into it. Wikileaks is getting it's free advertisement. Nobody is hearing the whole story because everybody is reporting from an angle.

I am saying: try to think of the whole picture. I don't think those soldiers in the helicopter wanted to be there at that moment. Nobody wants to be in a warzone. I don't know why they fired on those people in the van - and the video doesn't explain it. Is the information unknown? Is it held back to make the shooters appear bloodthirsty? We don't know. I won't draw conclusions unless I hear more sides of the story.

[YHWH]

I know what the aim of this video is - it is to make these soldiers appear as psychopaths.

They are, most people are psychopaths actually. It's about time the non-psychopaths realize that is the norm.

[LongSilence]

Cut the bullshit mate.

You're telling me my question isn't important? Were there guns down there?

[ApeTheDog]

They are, most people are psychopaths actually. It's about time the non-psychopaths realize that is the norm.

It's about time people who think psychopathy is the norm stop mimicing what they see on television and start using their mind. It is not the norm. It is fiction.

[YHWH]

It's about time people who think psychopathy is the norm stop mimicing what they see on television and start using their mind. It is not the norm. It is fiction.

I don't watch television.

[aphemix]

It's about time people who think psychopathy is the norm stop mimicing what they see on television and start using their mind. It is not the norm. It is fiction.gonna have to vote for all people are psychopaths here boss......I mean, fuck, what's the alternative, they're all conscientious and mindful? LOL.

[LongSilence]

You guys know that soldiers are saddled with the responsibility of being judge, jury and executioner in life or death situations, right?

You've wounded someone you believe had a weapon, or at the very least, was openly standing with a group of men with weapons. A black van drives up soon after to take him away. Do you let him escape and 'fight' another day? Can you say with any certainty that the people in the van aren't friends of this wounded rebel and that the guy didn't want them to 'get away'?

the point is: at no point can you say that this soldier thought he was firing on anyone who wasn't 'collaborating' with the 'enemy'. Disregarding the issue of whether these soldiers should even be there or not, there's not much to say when we're watching a grainy video with a pointed blurb telling us what's going on and who some of the victims were confirmed to be.

[ApeTheDog]

I don't watch television.

So you've picked it up elsewhere. They have it from television. Or the news. There are lots of sources. You're right that the zeitgeist is one of cynicism and not giving a crap - but if everybody was really psychopathic and unaffected nobody would need prozac or psychiatric help or self-help books.

You're welcome to buy into the idea but to me it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and fiction.

[YHWH]

So you've picked it up elsewhere. They have it from television. Or the news. There are lots of sources. You're right that the zeitgeist is one of cynicism and not giving a crap - but if everybody was really psychopathic and unaffected nobody would need prozac or psychiatric help or self-help books.

You're welcome to buy into the idea but to me it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and fiction.

Where the fuck did I say "everyone"?

[ApeTheDog]

Fine. Let's argue over numbers we can't verify.

If most people were psychopaths most people wouldn't be emotional idiots. And they are.

[aphemix]

You guys know that soldiers are saddled with the responsibility of being judge, jury and executioner in life or death situations, right? lol. Maybe these guys shouldn't have volunteered as lifeguards without knowing how to swim then.

[LongSilence]

lol. Maybe these guys shouldn't have volunteered as lifeguards without knowing how to swim then.

End result. People drown more withou any lifeguards.

[Qfwfq]

I am against hype and manipulation. I know what the aim of this video is - it is to make these soldiers appear as psychopaths. You're buying into it. Wikileaks is getting it's free advertisement. Nobody is hearing the whole story because everybody is reporting from an angle.

I am saying: try to think of the whole picture. I don't think those soldiers in the helicopter wanted to be there at that moment. Nobody wants to be in a warzone. I don't know why they fired on those people in the van - and the video doesn't explain it. Is the information unknown? Is it held back to make the shooters appear bloodthirsty? We don't know. I won't draw conclusions unless I hear more sides of the story.

They are psychopaths, didn't you hear them? The only context excusable for laughing at death, running over a dead body, pleading to shoot unarmed men for pleasure, is if they raped your mother and fed your baby to a gorilla.


What context are you looking for? how is that not sufficient?

[esthim8]

I am against hype and manipulation. I know what the aim of this video is - it is to make these soldiers appear as psychopaths. You're buying into it. Wikileaks is getting it's free advertisement. Nobody is hearing the whole story because everybody is reporting from an angle.

I am saying: try to think of the whole picture. I don't think those soldiers in the helicopter wanted to be there at that moment. Nobody wants to be in a warzone. I don't know why they fired on those people in the van - and the video doesn't explain it. Is the information unknown? Is it held back to make the shooters appear bloodthirsty? We don't know. I won't draw conclusions unless I hear more sides of the story.

This.

[aphemix]

End result. People drown more withou any lifeguards.yeah, well I do agree that can be a valid justification for instating a lifeguard (war, in this metaphor), but it still doesn't justify the asshole taking the job (enlistment).

[Neville]

They are psychopaths, didn't you hear them? The only context excusable for laughing at death, running over a dead body, pleading to shoot unarmed men for pleasure, is if they raped your mother and fed your baby to a gorilla.


What context are you looking for? how is that not sufficient?

Fucking hell, and I'm the feeler.

[Qfwfq]

Fucking hell, and I'm the feeler.

you base more of your actions on feeling. if you have no empathy, that's not a positive thing.

[Faust06]

Decided to actually watch the video seeing this debate. Looks like assumed killing of a few "possible terrorists" along with civilians, knowingly. If military men on the hunt for terrorists find men wandering with what looks to them to be weapons, I guess they don't need to ask questions. I can barely make out anything in that video and I have no idea what their policy is on verification of weaponry, but it sounds like all they need is a hunch.

I remember friendly fire incidents before on our Canadian troops, among others, so I can only imagine how often this trigger-happy stuff happens. Funny how it's only embarrassing when it's friendly fire.

[Qfwfq]

There's a quote from The Thin Red Line which sums these soldiers up perfectly:

"War doesn't ennoble men. It turns them into dogs, and poisons the soul."

[foodeater]

I blame violent video games.

I also don't know how they were able to determine those people were carrying weapons or not, if I didn't know better I'd say they were guns too. The video points out the children as a couple of pixels in the zoomed in image. These people are trained to shoot at anything that could potentially be a threat, and I think that's the issue here more than human nature. I don't know how that can be fixed though. Better technology and impulse control training?

[ApeTheDog]

They are psychopaths, didn't you hear them? The only context excusable for laughing at death, running over a dead body, pleading to shoot unarmed men for pleasure, is if they raped your mother and fed your baby to a gorilla.

What context are you looking for? how is that not sufficient?

I'm not saying they're definately not psychopaths. They might be. They could have become desensitized from their training. They could have been acting tough for the rest of their squad. They could be experiencing shellshock. They could be utterly wrong for the army. Maybe the army recruiters were too eager for fresh blood they let people in who should never be allowed near weaponry. There are lots of possibilities. I just don't know and I'm reserving judgment because this only one side of the story.

[ApeTheDog]

I blame violent video games.

I also don't know how they were able to determine those people were carrying weapons or not, if I didn't know better I'd say they were guns too. The video points out the children as a couple of pixels in the zoomed in image. These people are trained to shoot at anything that could potentially be a threat, and I think that's the issue here more than human nature. I don't know how that can be fixed though. Better technology and impulse control training?

No more war?

[Faust06]

I'm not saying they're definately not psychopaths. They might be. They could have become desensitized from their training. They could have been acting tough for the rest of their squad. They could be experiencing shellshock. They could be utterly wrong for the army. Maybe the army recruiters were too eager for fresh blood they let people in who should never be allowed near weaponry. There are lots of possibilities. I just don't know and I'm reserving judgment because this only one side of the story.

Those all sound like pretty shitty reasons to kill innocents.

I don't believe they're psychopaths either. That is, anymore than the average soldier. They're trained to kill, they dehumanize the enemy, and that's normal. Those same guys might as well have a loving family at home; it wouldn't forfeit their ability to kill some random men without remorse, or worse.

[jyng1]

Dr. Stjepan Mestrovic, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M University has meticulously documented how the US Army, as an institution, has become dysfunctional, and how illegal rules of engagement (ROE) are issued by officers and politicians at the top of the Army’s hierarchy, but only low-ranking soldiers are punished for carrying out those same rules and orders.


This mindset is rooted in American history and might be peculiar to it. By way of metaphor, it might be characterized by a line from a You Tube video, “Startrekking Across the Universe,” wherein the fictional Captain Kirk says: “We come in peace, shoot to kill.” In the classic work, “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville captured this seeming contradiction in American “habits of the heart” with regard to Native Americans, slaves and all those deemed as “other.” Tocqueville points out that unlike the Spaniards, English or French conquerors, the Americans went out of their way to pass laws and enact treaties to justify their mistreatment of others. So, for example, slavery was considered immoral, but was legal. Similarly, extermination of the Indians was immoral, but the government signed treaties before it broke them. So-called “witches” were executed only after they were given trials and assigned lawyers. And so on. It seems that Tocqueville captured an important aspect of American culture that continues to this day.

Fast-forwarding to World War II, the US engaged in numerous acts that some historians and lawyers believe could have been called war crimes had the US lost that war. Examples include the firebombing of German and Japanese cities, and of course, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fast-forwarding further to the Vietnam War, the US established policies of “search and destroy” missions in “free-fire” zones. The important point is that these acts were justified by all sorts of legal jargon about “status-based” targets (which apparently means that the target is considered “hostile” simply by existing, and therefore constitutes a potential threat).

This sort of legalizing of acts that otherwise might be considered atrocities has continued in the current, long war on terror. For example, it is no secret that John Yoo and other White House lawyers went out of their way to make torture seem lawful. In this and other acts, the government continues to behave in the manner described by Tocqueville.

Focusing directly on the incident in question, there is no doubt that the Army regarded the killing of the unarmed Iraqi man as lawful. The ROE for that mission was to kill every military-aged Iraqi male on sight, and that is what the soldiers did. The victim was pre-designated as a “status-based” and “hostile” target based upon existing American military law. Some may regard the killing of the man as murder, because he was unarmed and did not show any signs of hostile intent. None of that matters from the point of view of the mindset we are discussing here. In fact, all the military as well as civilian attorneys with whom I have spoken agree that had the soldiers carried out their ROE that day and killed on sight all the Iraqi males they encountered that day, no charges would have been pressed against any of them. Their “mistake,” from the mindset being discussed here, is that they showed mercy and took some of the Iraqis as prisoners, and then killed them. From their point of view, they were still carrying out the original ROE by killing the prisoners. In fact, they were told not to take any prisoners. But from the legal standpoint of the American cultural mindset, there are legal rules for treating and killing prisoners, which are different from killing “status-based” or pre-designated targets.

[ciphersort]

Anyone justifying these murders is scared little bitch. All publicly paid for gun cam footage should be publicly available.

[ApeTheDog]

Anyone justifying these murders is scared little bitch. All publicly paid for gun cam footage should be publicly available.

Scared of what?

(Because tone doesn't carry over the internet... Don't imagine the former said in a defensive way. I'm just curious as to what there is to be afraid of - in your mind - that justifying these murders would make go away)


Dr. Stjepan Mestrovic, a professor of sociology at Texas A&M University has meticulously documented how the US Army, as an institution, has become dysfunctional, and how illegal rules of engagement (ROE) are issued by officers and politicians at the top of the Army’s hierarchy, but only low-ranking soldiers are punished for carrying out those same rules and orders. <snip>

That is interesting. This man has thought about what he said - which makes it unfortunate that his words are going to be buried in a shitstorm of shit if this thing does get any media airplay at all. Which I do hope it does, for the sake of ending that illigitimate ten year long joke of an occupation.

[INThoughtPolice]

sad.

[bass_n_treble]

I blame violent video games.

I also don't know how they were able to determine those people were carrying weapons or not, if I didn't know better I'd say they were guns too. The video points out the children as a couple of pixels in the zoomed in image. These people are trained to shoot at anything that could potentially be a threat, and I think that's the issue here more than human nature. I don't know how that can be fixed though. Better technology and impulse control training?

The military uses video games to train their soldiers. The censorship of video games, in case you haven't noticed, never happened. Mortal Kombat still sold a few million copies, Grand Theft Auto is in its prime, Call of Duty 4 had one of the best opening weekends of all time. They want you to play these games.


Anyone justifying these murders is scared little bitch. All publicly paid for gun cam footage should be publicly available.

Yes, they'd likely urinate and defecate themselves in basic training. But in the safety of a little internet forum, you appear pretty bad-ass if you act like that video didn't affect you. You guys got INTP street cred! I want to be just like you all when I grow up!

I see psychopaths projecting their own behavior onto the military. It's hilarious.

Did it occur to any of you that these could be normal people who snapped during the war? Ever hear of something called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

Please, I welcome any one line bullshit coward asshole answers. We could use more threads filled with those.

[Lurker]

Shooting from a helicopter makes it much easier to distance yourself from your targets. I do think the soldiers were too eager to shoot with too little information, and that the laughing, joking, and comment about the kids were indicative of something twisted. Whether war desensitized these guys (which I'm doubting), or they came into the service fucked up isn't clear.

I have a pet theory that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars tended to attract bottom of the barrel recruits (people already in service, blindly patriotic, or just looking for an escape from poverty excepted - although these categories can overlap. I realize there are plenty of caveats.) There was no draft; there were volunteers. This theory extends to street cops.

[Chunes]

There is no justifying this. There's this thing in military protocol called "The Rules of Engagement".

This was bloodlust against Iraqis, plain and simple.

No one ever said it needed to be justified. It clearly does not. Just that you're naive.

[Resonance]

War has never been so much fun...

[bass_n_treble]

No one ever said it needed to be justified. It clearly does not. Just that you're naive.

No, it's called being idealistic, which unfortunately has gotten a bad rap lately.

This means you should always strive towards the concept of perfection. The minute you say, "Oh, well... that happens" and just let it slide, you are actually lowering the bar and allowing for a standard of conduct that is even further from the intended goal.

Of course it happens. But not caring about it is offensive in and of itself. If you don't have idealism, nobody will want to better themselves.

[Gchrist]

Have you ever been in an armed conflict before?

I haven't. I just assume that idealistic behavior usually gets ground out after months/years of patrolling bombed out streets, seeing friends get killed out of nowhere, killing other people, watching out for bombs, etc...

Being able to do the job from the safety of a helicopter probably feels pretty damn good after months of having your life endangered.

[LongSilence]

yeah, well I do agree that can be a valid justification for instating a lifeguard (war, in this metaphor), but it still doesn't justify the asshole taking the job (enlistment).

Someone's got to. Otherwise it will be conscription time in order to make sure a nation still has military capabilities when it needs them. The real issue is who gets to decide when they are 'needed'.

I blame violent video games.

I also don't know how they were able to determine those people were carrying weapons or not, if I didn't know better I'd say they were guns too. The video points out the children as a couple of pixels in the zoomed in image. These people are trained to shoot at anything that could potentially be a threat, and I think that's the issue here more than human nature. I don't know how that can be fixed though. Better technology and impulse control training?
I don't think the gun cam is necessarily the best visual that the pilots can get from an apache, is it?

The Wikileaks account is written very much focusing on the viewpoint of criticising the killing of the Reuters guys and the van people, plus kids, who came to help them. It was most unfortunate that the van did not / could not do enough to demonstrate it wasn't a hostile or rebel-supporting group. I am personally surprised that Apaches, a distant ground intel-lacking artillery weapon, don't wait for land units to scout stealthily and confirm the nature of the targets and the presence of innocents. But yes, they [said they] thought they were about to be fired upon and rather than ask questions first then shoot they took the other approach. I mean, it is much safer for the unit to deal with threats from a helicopter but still...


Anyone justifying these murders is scared little bitch. All publicly paid for gun cam footage should be publicly available.

Justifying them is impossible. But there is little justice in 'war'. Allied men who are sent there to help at least ostensibly prevent a nation from falling into lawlessness and doing their job well means staying alive in a hostile situation. We cannot blame the Iraq war on individuals who sign up to follow orders which are supposed to protect their nation's interests.

They are not mostly psychopaths. They are not mostly people who would commit rape or murder in their own peaceful country. They are mostly people trying to cope in some of the most harrowing circumstances a First-world relatively well off person can place themselves. True, they're usually not the most sensible bunch for doing so but like I said a nation in this current world needs a military force of at least some size and someone has to be trained to be a part of it. And it's not one of those jobs that lets you decide you don't like the work. You do what you're paid to do, plain and simple.

If people can open their mind to the hypothetical of being a person who had to be in that sort of situation- how would you cope?

[Chunes]

No, it's called being idealistic, which unfortunately has gotten a bad rap lately.

Idealism is synonymous with naivety. That's the way it works.


This means you should always strive towards the concept of perfection. The minute you say, "Oh, well... that happens" and just let it slide, you are actually lowering the bar and allowing for a standard of conduct that is even further from the intended goal.

The bar? No. Your bar.


If you don't have idealism, nobody will want to better themselves.
Everyone has idealism. Otherwise, nobody would ever do anything. Thing is, it often conflicts.

[Resonance]

ok, after watching the footage, I think they are maybe stupid but just following instructions. If we're going to get into the ethics of it, they shouldn't even be there. But they were, and the rules are: you see people with weapons, you shoot the people and all their friends.

Is there anything wrong with the soldiers? No. It's unfair to label them as mentally ill based on this footage. The giggle at the beginning was clearly something which had been an issue in the past (shooting error). The giggle about driving over bodies was slightly hysterical - the sort of giggle that someone makes when they accidentally scratch a stranger's pristine porsche. Perfectly normal.

On the other hand, is there anything wrong with the situation? For sure. War is still fucked up. If you hadn't heard.

[Resonance]

gonna have to vote for all people are psychopaths here boss......I mean, fuck, what's the alternative, they're all conscientious and mindful? LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

[kali]

On the other hand, is there anything wrong with the situation? For sure. War is still fucked up. If you hadn't heard.

Yeah, this. I would have been disheartened by any other footage of murder, collateral or not.

Watching this vid was like watching Polonius get stabbed behind the arras. Dramatic irony at it's finest.

It's such a popular video because the feeling of helplessness is inevitable when watching it.

[ApeTheDog]

A gun camera is an idiotic, symptomatic invention because the real crime here isn't shooting somebody who is "innocent" - it's going to war. The real criminals are the ones who greenlight this thing.

This has been in and out of the news for us for the last eight years but it has been REALITY OF LIFE for them. There are kids born there, now, who are seven years old and who have never known anything else. A whole generation of young people hasn't been able to spend the best years of their lives progressing their nation because a couple of sick enron twats greenlighted this thing and shoved it through.

The problem is not that some innocents got shot. Everybody who goes to fight in a war, and who lives in one, is innocent. The real bad guys with the money never go near danger. And discussions about insignificant details like whether or not the six pixels on the camera looked like an RPG or like a camera detract from the real issue. There is no legitimate reason to go to war.

Sorry. Last post. (Half the ones today have been by me, it seems). I'm done with this thread now.

[MadamI'madaM]

As to the "psychopath hypothesis": psychopaths are defined as people who can't keep a lid on the dark side during peace time in functioning society.

If these soldiers were to come home and do foul shit, then, either through war or a revelation of latency, they would be psychopaths.

However, when people revert to their base existence as predatory mammals in situations encouraged by society or deemed necessary to survival, then they are not necessarily psychopaths (although, it could be asserted that the entirety of the military is comprised of sociopaths).

If you forgot that people are only a few thousand years removed from shitting in the woods, then you've just lived in Pax Romana too long.

[Resonance]

As to the "psychopath hypothesis": psychopaths are defined as people who can't keep a lid on the dark side during peace time in functioning society.

If these soldiers were to come home and do foul shit, then, either through war or a revelation of latency, they would be psychopaths.

However, when people revert to their base existence as predatory mammals in situations encouraged by society or deemed necessary to survival, then they are not necessarily psychopaths (although, it could be asserted that the entirety of the military is comprised of sociopaths).

If you forgot that people are only a few thousand years removed from shitting in the woods, then you've just lived in Pax Romana too long.
umm

Psychopathy (pronounced /sa??k?p??i/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal. Neither psychopathy, nor the similar concept of sociopathy, are nowadays defined in international diagnostic manuals, which instead describe a category of antisocial/dissocial personality disorder.

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD or APD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."[1]
The individual must be age 18 or older, as well as have a documented history of a conduct disorder before the age of 15.[1] People having antisocial personality disorder are sometimes referred to as "sociopaths" and "psychopaths", although some researchers believe that these terms are not synonymous with ASPD.[2]

[greenblob]

I thought the main issue here was freedom of information.

[Resonance]

I thought the main issue here was freedom of information.

Not necessarily. The issue, for some, is what information is being concealed, and why. People will always try to conceal information, no matter the laws against it.

[MadamI'madaM]

umm

Well, since they aren't favored as technical diagnoses anymore, we're using them colloquially here.

Empathy is a relative thing. Should I be considered a psychopath because I indiscriminately squash bugs in my house? I don't think so.

Should these men, all legally employed to do things they may or may not fully understand the implications of, be expected to extend empathy to people who they may or may not believe to be trying to kill them?

Sociopathy implies a disregard for others for personal gain, without the necessary joy of violence.

Like: we need to sell more helicopters, btw, what's Saddam up to these days?

I'm not too good in math or reading, I think I'll just carry a gun for the man instead of getting a cube job.

The whole "conduct disorder" stipulation, in the sense that one has to have been prosecuted by our complete joke of a justice system, is a joke.

[Rogue]

It's war. What do people expect?

It is war and REALLY what do people expect? Innocent people will die on both sides.

I do remember when the World Trade Center went down, and their news showed hundreds of their people dancing in the streets...big party. I don't think there was anyone carrying a gun in the Trade center.

It is not really retaliation on both sides it is war.

I do wonder why we don't see more videos of suicide bombers killing innocent people ....and it happens frequently. No one cares about the innocent then.. Why not?? That is kind of hypocritical really.

[Chunes]

I spend too much time around INFJs. They're rubbing off on me.

[YHWH]

Ahaha, what's with all the INFJs being desensitized douchebags?

[joft]

we can't control the suicide bombers

we can control our own military, for example, by not deploying it

and in fact, that would even influence the suicide bombers to do fewer suicide bombings! win win

[Chunes]

Ahaha, what's with all the INFJs being desensitized douchebags?

They're all like that, and have been forever. You're just now noticing..?

I wouldn't call them douchebags for it, though. Their stance is valid.

[Resonance]

Well, since they aren't favored as technical diagnoses anymore, we're using them colloquially here.

Empathy is a relative thing. Should I be considered a psychopath because I indiscriminately squash bugs in my house? I don't think so.

Should these men, all legally employed to do things they may or may not fully understand the implications of, be expected to extend empathy to people who they may or may not believe to be trying to kill them?

Sociopathy implies a disregard for others for personal gain, without the necessary joy of violence.

Like: we need to sell more helicopters, btw, what's Saddam up to these days?

I'm not too good in math or reading, I think I'll just carry a gun for the man instead of getting a cube job.

The whole "conduct disorder" stipulation, in the sense that one has to have been prosecuted by our complete joke of a justice system, is a joke.

you seem very intent on showing how much you know about psychopathy for someone who doesn't know very much about psychopathy.

[MadamI'madaM]

you seem very intent on showing how much you know about psychopathy for someone who doesn't know very much about psychopathy.

You seem very intent on showing your leet psych knowledge for someone who collects pokemon (MBTI).

[Rogue]

Ummm suicide bombers are a part of their military...
Anyone who has been in the US military knows that communication is not always accurate so mistakes and wrong decisions will be made.
Did you cry when thousands of Innocent American people died at the Trade Center. If someone is a world citizen they will care about the death that happens on both sides.
To have a heart and an opinion for innocent people that die in a war doesn't make someone a DB, it makes them human.
When the videos came out about our reporter that got his head sawed off...I didn't hear many crying then...Hypocrite

[YHWH]

Ummm suicide bombers are a part of their military...
Anyone who has been in the US military knows that communication is not always accurate so mistakes and wrong decisions will be made.
Did you cry when thousands of Innocent American people died at the Trade Center. If someone is a world citizen they will care about the death that happens on both sides.
To have a heart and an opinion for innocent people that die in a war doesn't make someone a DB, it makes them human.
When the videos came out about our reporter that got his head sawed off...I didn't hear many crying then...Hypocrite

O god.

[ApeTheDog]

Iraq had nothing to do with the world trade center.

[Resonance]

You seem very intent on showing your leet psych knowledge for someone who collects pokemon (MBTI).

I choose you! ENTJmander!

But seriously I'm not the one who keeps talking out my tush about what it is defined as or what it implies. I copied and pasted from Wikipedia to suggest that you reconsider how much of an authority you would like to pretend to be, but you just kept on about it. That needs to stop if this discussion is to take any meaningful direction.

I also don't see how any MBTI-type attack could possibly be super effective, but I guess even an 8-year-old can feel powerful if they use the standard cliché loadout, right?

[YHWH]

Rogue's posts are idiotic on so many levels. It's been a while since I read something that inconceivably retarded on this forum, and that's saying something.

[Rogue]

Iraq had nothing to do with the world trade center.

My point is war.

[ApeTheDog]

My point is war.

I understand where you're coming from. Your heart is in the right place. But you have to be accurate about what you say because this topic deserves that.

The world trade center had nothing to do with the war in Iraq, so don't mention it (twice!). Nor is this a normal war, because the reason the USA had for invading has been proven false and the dictator you meant to supplant has long been removed. This is nothing other than theft.

[LongSilence]

A gun camera is an idiotic, symptomatic invention because the real crime here isn't shooting somebody who is "innocent" - it's going to war. The real criminals are the ones who greenlight this thing.

This has been in and out of the news for us for the last eight years but it has been REALITY OF LIFE for them. There are kids born there, now, who are seven years old and who have never known anything else. A whole generation of young people hasn't been able to spend the best years of their lives progressing their nation because a couple of sick enron twats greenlighted this thing and shoved it through.

The problem is not that some innocents got shot. Everybody who goes to fight in a war, and who lives in one, is innocent. The real bad guys with the money never go near danger. And discussions about insignificant details like whether or not the six pixels on the camera looked like an RPG or like a camera detract from the real issue. There is no legitimate reason to go to war.

Sorry. Last post. (Half the ones today have been by me, it seems). I'm done with this thread now.

Well... yeah. The problem is that every action after this have been doomed attempts to make good / paper over the fucking awful decision that was made years ago. Some people said 'We have to go invade Iraq and we have to go NOW.' And it was done. Everything since is just evidence of people trying to make the best of a bad situation in some cases and royally screwing it up even more in others.

People only show their own distance from the harshness of reality when they see evidence of this and are shocked. "OMG, how can we let this happen? What monsters! Someone must be vilified and hopefully punished!" they say without considering that these are examples of the shit that goes on in all wars / occupations and this is how people respond to another people invading their country and being part of an invading force.

How many atrocities a thousand times worse than this have been committed by enemy or occupying forces in the last century? Hell, by troops on their own civilians? In the end, the 'best' examples of occupying forces tend to be multinational peacekeeping forces and even they fuck things up.

It all goes back to that one moment where the argument for going into Iraq 'won / powered itself through' with bullshit justifications of Saddam's dictatorship, WMDs and Taliban harbouring. Like Ape says- buffered by still smarting wounds of 9/11 and the wild goose chase after 'evil mastermind' Bin Laden and sped through and past just consideration and research by false fears of WMD attack the rather baseless Iraq venture was formulated and plugged.

[SensEye]

Are you all really surprised by this? Were you also surprised that torture actually does happen?

Rules of engagement have traditionally served as a public face, but not the whole story. A nation is not supposed to let its population see the underbelly of war. (emphasis mine - SE)This may be typical administration policy of warring nations, but I think it is a mistake. Exposing the nation to this kind of thing can often make people think. And in many conflicts, a lack of people thinking is a major part of the problem, at least among the general populace. It seems the only ones who are thinking are mostly to be focused on - how can I personally profit from conflict? - mainly these people include politicians, military leaders, and military/industrial complex leaders.

So I think it's good this kind of thing is exposed to the public. Then people can make up their own minds.

Myself, I thought it was pretty much understandable behavior under the circumstances (soldiers cavalier attitude or not, weapons or a case of camera equipment misidentity or not) up until they cut loose on the would be rescuers. Those guys didn't have any weapons and it seemed pretty much obvious to me they were trying to help the wounded. That should be a definite no-no.

From a broader perspective, I can see how this kind of episode breeds more resentment among the populace, not less, and I remain convinced the whole military engagement in the middle east is counter productive to the goal of American safety (the "supposed" driver behind said engagement). I don't understand how people think otherwise.

[Stryfe]

What bothers me is that it takes a couple journalists getting killed for most people to get riled up about civilian casualties. Incidents like this in the two warzones are the norm, not the exception. It's just that normally it's only poor Iraqis or Afghans who wind up dead so no one gives a shit. This has been happening on a regular basis for 9 years now.

Someone thought this was video game like? Check out this control booth for one of the many UAVs that are used everyday. It's not at all uncommon for an operator of one of these to kill 20 civilians in one rocket strike while sitting in his comfy chair sipping his morning coffee.

http://defense-update.com/images/UNIVERSAL-CONTROL-S.jpg

EDIT: I just noticed that guy is actually using the exact same keyboard I use for gaming.

[aphemix]

DRGL_KWCkjk

[MadamI'madaM]

I choose you! ENTJmander!

But seriously I'm not the one who keeps talking out my tush about what it is defined as or what it implies. I copied and pasted from Wikipedia to suggest that you reconsider how much of an authority you would like to pretend to be, but you just kept on about it. That needs to stop if this discussion is to take any meaningful direction.

I also don't see how any MBTI-type attack could possibly be super effective, but I guess even an 8-year-old can feel powerful if they use the standard cliché loadout, right?

All character attacks aside, what I was getting at is that while that behavior may be psychopathic, society typically does not evaluate actions during official military combat to be psycopathic where chain of command is involved.

Unless there's something we're missing here, and there may be, I doubt any mental health professional would diagnose them aspd/psychopathic.

[Resonance]

All character attacks aside, what I was getting at is that while that behavior may be psychopathic, society typically does not evaluate actions during official military combat to be psycopathic where chain of command is involved.

Unless there's something we're missing here, and there may be, I doubt any mental health professional would diagnose them aspd/psychopathic.

Oh.

Well, you're not the first to say that.

I somehow doubt I was, either.

[esthim8]

Iraq had nothing to do with the world trade center.

false.

[Stryfe]

false.I don't suppose you'd care to backup your statement?

[awesome]

Is there anything wrong with the soldiers? No.
I think it's kind of wrong to get an orgiastic pleasure out of murder, but that's just me.

[foodeater]

I know the military uses video games to train people, they made America's Army to help train and recruit soldiers. Games like CoD probably help make war seem fun, and then they get to sit back and play video games when they join and forget they're actually hurting people. I know two or three people who are younger than me who went into the military as huge FPS fans (not that that was why they joined) and now fly unmanned aircraft from the US. You definitely gain a few degrees of separation that way.

[doob]

didn't read the entire thread, an interview I heard this (04-06-10) morning....

http://www.democracynow.org/

[Karl]

I know the military uses video games to train people, they made America's Army to help train and recruit soldiers. Games like CoD probably help make war seem fun, and then they get to sit back and play video games when they join and forget they're actually hurting people. I know two or three people who are younger than me who went into the military as huge FPS fans (not that that was why they joined) and now fly unmanned aircraft from the US. You definitely gain a few degrees of separation that way.

And most people think I'm nutty when I say things like that the vast majority of first person shooters promote violence and militarism, becuase "it's just a game" and "people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes." I honestly cannot play them anymore and haven't been able to for the last few years, they just make me sad. Culture ends up being a material thing, too.

[fripping]

And most people think I'm nutty when I say things like that the vast majority of first person shooters promote violence and militarism, becuase "it's just a game" and "people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes." I honestly cannot play them anymore and haven't been able to for the last few years, they just make me sad. Culture ends up being a material thing, too.

counterpoint:

http://bluntobject.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/violencegraph1.jpg

[dubbeltop]

Wikileaks video: two Reuters journalists and a dozen civilians gunned down in Iraq

Counterpoint 2.0:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJPPQ4wJ2So
(The Running Man Opening Scene, start at 0:50)

[HoneyCyclical]

counterpoint:

http://bluntobject.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/violencegraph1.jpg

Or did they simply join the military?

[LongSilence]

At what point do the pilots have any idea they are firing on innocent civilians?

[Karl]

Yes fripping, I was clearly talking about domestic violence in relation to violent crime. That is clearly what this topic is about.


Wikileaks video: two Reuters journalists and a dozen civilians gunned down in Iraq

Counterpoint 2.0:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJPPQ4wJ2So
(The Running Man Opening Scene, start at 0:50)

"This video contains content from Lionsgate, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

[Qfwfq]

At what point do the pilots have any idea they are firing on innocent civilians?

Guilty until proven innocent, I agree. Until you all disprove your involvement in Al Qaeda, this forum is hereby under quarantine.

[HoneyCyclical]

At what point do the pilots have any idea they are firing on innocent civilians?

I don't know about pilots....but I live in a military town and when I first arrived here I went out with a friend to get a few drinks. I met a guy who asked me out/hit on me and we struck up a conversation wherein he mentioned being employed by the military. No problem. I asked what it was that he did in the military and he said something very very vague like 'target operations'. I asked what that meant and he said he's the dude who gets a command from a higher up and keys in the location of the target for the missiles. I asked if he knew who/what he was targeting at any time and he replied,"No". I asked if it bothered him that he could be killing anyone. He said, "No, because I'm not...really. I just put in the information into the computer and don't ask questions. I do what I'm told to do." *paraphrased*
"So it doesn't bother you that you could be potentially killing non-combatants/women/children?"
"No, because I don't know if I am. I just send the missile. Other people take care of the rest."

I said, "I don't think we're a good match." (that and he kept attempting to physically remove my glasses to "see my face". Dude, get your paws off of my glasses.)

What he said in terms of his reactions to the subject matter didn't surprise me though as it falls right in line with Stanley Milgram's electrocution study. It's their job. They are told to do their job.

Another story: I lived on barracks for a while in 2004 and we had a neighbor that came back from tour with a disc. He gave it to my sister saying, "I've got some really great pics on there".
She thought they were going to be pics of him and his buddies or something but they were literally all pics of slaughtered children's bodies in a variety of positions of dismemberment. It was his trophy disc. This was also coming from a man that refused to let his wife breast feed because, and I quote, "Those are my titties!". He didn't want to "share" his wife's breasts to nourish his own children.

There are psychos everywhere. The military is not exclusive.

[LongSilence]

Guilty until proven innocent, I agree. Until you all disprove your involvement in Al Qaeda, this forum is hereby under quarantine.

An occupied nation, particularly in a state of great civil unrest, is governed by laws closer to those of dictatorships than democracies. Even communists who want to make the world a better, more equal place tend to agree that ideals will always be twisted or put away for safe keeping while general stability and peace is being achieved.

It always takes quite a while before defeated people get over their desires for revenge and retributive justice of some kind. This is why the people who deserve the biggest :facepalm: are the people who honestly believed that after waging war on Iraq and killing many, many Iraqis they'd be welcomed with universally open arms and smiling faces.

Anyway, there were men with guns on the street. The Apache had been sent out to help deal with insurgents who had been firing on Americans around that area.

[Gnome]

There is no justifying this. There's this thing in military protocol called "The Rules of Engagement".

This was bloodlust against Iraqis, plain and simple.

The only thing unusual about this instance is that the public at large is getting to see the video. Thats it.

How do you think we have racked up hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? Because Reuters put so much pressure on the military for answers, they actually did investigate and concluded that the Rules of Engagement were followed.

THIS IS WHAT THEY DO EVERY DAY. THIS IS NOT AN ABBERATION.

Listen to the audio. They get clearance every step of the way.

[HoneyCyclical]

The only thing unusual about this instance is that the public at large is getting to see the video. Thats it.


Yep.

[doob]

The only thing unusual about this instance is that the public at large is getting to see the video. Thats it.

How do you think we have racked up hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties? Because Reuters put so much pressure on the military for answers, they actually did investigate and concluded that the Rules of Engagement were followed.

THIS IS WHAT THEY DO EVERY DAY. THIS IS NOT AN ABBERATION

Listen to the audio. They get clearance every step of the way.

I think most would agree with your post, I certainly do. What makes it significant is the "investigation" is under review and exposes the lies to the public. I always hope incidents such as this will help us critically think about the information we get and why we're getting it. Doesn't this precede change? Otherwise, why report or discuss anything? There is nothing new under the sun in regards to human behavior, acknowledging the tools we use to complete the tasks are different. I guess resistance will remain futile.

hmm, I wonder if Britney wearing any underwear today?

[Zelda]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

[LongSilence]

The use of the word 'dominate' there suggests they wouldn't.

[Faust06]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

That should be obvious to everyone, though it isn't.. More women = more passivity. A population with a pyramid-like demographic dominated by tons of young males is generally violent. They aren't 3rd world, but the scarcity of women in China these days is pushing up the levels of crime and aggression, among other things, yet despite the government's encouragement to do so the culture is still as such that females are devalued, so the numbers aren't rising much AFAIK.

[MacGuffin]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

Yeah, but we'd still be in the dark ages.

[Gchrist]

That should be obvious to everyone, though it isn't.. More women = more passivity. A population with a pyramid-like demographic dominated by tons of young males is generally violent. They aren't 3rd world, but the scarcity of women in China these days is pushing up the levels of crime and aggression, among other things, yet despite the government's encouragement to do so the culture is still as such that females are devalued, so the numbers aren't rising much AFAIK.

Are you sure this is due simply to a lack of a passive factor in the form of women?

I would assume there are other chemical factors in play such as a lot of young men with no women to have sex with so therefore the hormones and urges are being rerouted into more aggressive practices - gangs, vandalism, violence, underground homosexual orgies, etc...

Reading your post for the second time, it looks like I could be agreeing with you. A healthy presence of women in society does have a pacifying effect - in an indirect manner at the very least.

[Ptah]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

I'm not so sure. Politics are politics, politicians are politicians, power is power. Corruption and hubris are human weaknesses, not male or female weaknesses. These are the things upon which war supervenes, as I see it.

...

Anyhow, just watched the video. Not particularly surprising, to be honest. Inexcusable, unconscionable, etc -- if true (which I don't particularly doubt). But not surprising.

[Stryfe]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.At first I'd be inclined to agree. However, having spent a fair bit of time at, and having heard plenty about, the spa my ex used to work at that had about 50 female and 2 male employees, I'm not so sure.

I think organizational structures are best with a fairly even balance of the sexes. Things get a little crazy with too much of either.

[Zelda]

The use of the word 'dominate' there suggests they wouldn't.

How do you figure that? Not all women are created equally. Some are meant to lead while others are meant to follow.


That should be obvious to everyone, though it isn't.. More women = more passivity. A population with a pyramid-like demographic dominated by tons of young males is generally violent. They aren't 3rd world, but the scarcity of women in China these days is pushing up the levels of crime and aggression, among other things, yet despite the government's encouragement to do so the culture is still as such that females are devalued, so the numbers aren't rising much AFAIK.

Some women are passive while others are not. This is more of a female stereotype, at least in western culture. Perhaps women in other parts of the world are alright with passivity.


Yeah, but we'd still be in the dark ages.

Why? We get things done with some degree of cohesiveness and cooperation when we need to and are more than capable of innovation. Men can take care of the J aspects of implementing these ideas. :D


I'm not so sure. Politics are politics, politicians are politicians, power is power. Corruption and hubris are human weaknesses, not male or female weaknesses. These are the things upon which war supervenes, as I see it.

True to a degree though I think women are less power hungry in general. Ideally, governments would be operated in a thoroughly egalitarian manner, but that will never happen in my lifetime.


At first I'd be inclined to agree. However, having spent a fair bit of time at, and having heard plenty about, the spa my ex used to work at that had about 50 female and 2 male employees, I'm not so sure.

I think organizational structures are best with a fairly even balance of the sexes. Things get a little crazy with too much of either.

I would like to agree with you but women weren't even allowed to vote or own property until fairly recently. I think we've paid our dues and it's time to switch things up by establishing societies in the western world that have a matriarchal bent rather than a patriarchal one.

[LongSilence]

How do you figure that? Not all women are created equally. Some are meant to lead while others are meant to follow.

Some women are passive while others are not. This is more of a female stereotype, at least in western culture. Perhaps women in other parts of the world are alright with passivity.

True to a degree though I think women are less power hungry in general. Ideally, governments would be operated in a thoroughly egalitarian manner, but that will never happen in my lifetime.



I would like to agree with you but women weren't even allowed to vote or own property until fairly recently. I think we've paid our dues and it's time to switch things up by establishing societies in the western world that have a matriarchal bent rather than a patriarchal one.

The bold bits clash with the italics. Your language is still filled with power-based terms of leading and following. I'm not saying that women wouldn't have been less 'testy' and quick to engage in conflict but in a quasi-paradox warfare has actually been a remarkably effective means of encouraging innovation, spreading ideas and casting aside outmoded methods of doing things.

Also, the male of the species has generally had a slightly greater desire to explore and take great and often stupid risks. Exploration is what brought the world together, got it into conflict and then trade and finally co-operation. A more 'feminine' mindset should indeed be appreciated in the modern world but not 'dominate'. After all, part of being a good communicator and innovator is taking the benefits of all and blending them together.

[Chunes]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

Think again..

[MadamI'madaM]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

It's a nice thought, and not completely impossible, but I wouldn't have the confidence to go around saying it.

at least not that large of a decrease

[Faust06]

Some women are passive while others are not. This is more of a female stereotype, at least in western culture. Perhaps women in other parts of the world are alright with passivity.

How are you defining passivity in this context? There's a difference between biological surge of aggression and testosterone given certain circumstances and females being catty or assertive. You don't see female monkeys killing each other; you see males ripping off each others' testicles, raping, and clubbing to death.

The nature is as such that females are more passive. That's the reality.


True to a degree though I think women are less power hungry in general. Ideally, governments would be operated in a thoroughly egalitarian manner, but that will never happen in my lifetime.

Being a government official and helping shape society should not be about power in the first place. We don't need women to "dominate" as you suggested, we need them to be involved and assertive.


Also, the male of the species has generally had a slightly greater desire to explore and take great and often stupid risks. Exploration is what brought the world together, got it into conflict and then trade and finally co-operation. A more 'feminine' mindset should indeed be appreciated in the modern world but not 'dominate'. After all, part of being a good communicator and innovator is taking the benefits of all and blending them together.

Yeah.

[stuck]

I'm sure a gynarchy would have its own horrors, but that doesn't mean it's not worth a try.

/god

[Resonance]

I wouldn't be any happier with a female authority structure than a male one.

However, some might argue that the current authority structures (in the western, middle-east, and oriental spheres anyway) are inherently masculine. What would a feminine authority structure look like? People actually listen to each other?

[Ptah]

As I see it, many of these notions of "men are more (or less) this" or "women are more (or less) that" are culture-bound. And since any culture is heavily influenced by the political control structure over it, there's something of a feedback loop when trying to project a new culture (which is what would result from a new control structure, inevitably) from scratch, starting with female leadership. And/or taking an existing culture and from it draft a new (relatively radical, at least per expectation) control structure already influenced by its predecessor.

I maintain that women and men are not so different in the relevant ways at hand, devoid of any particular cultural preprogramming.

[Zelda]

OK, just one last comment regarding this derail.

As in any society, there will be leaders and followers regardless of who is in charge. Like I said, egalitarianism is much more ideal and is quite appealing to me.

Anyway, unless women continue to use the tried and true method of relying on the weakness of men through plenty of collective dicksucking to get ahead there's little getting past the glass ceiling to obtain any degree of power en masse.

Only recently in history have we been acknowledged in western society for anything other than those dicksucking abilities so no need to be afraid that we'll take over the world anytime soon!

[Stryfe]

Justin Raimondo wrote (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/06/just-another-atrocity/) the following about the video. He says it better than I could.


The video released by Wikileaks showing US helicopters picking off civilians as our airmen chortle with glee is shocking everyone. Everyone but me, that is.

Perhaps I’m suffering from some sort of moral exhaustion: I’ve just about gone numb after living through and constantly writing about the past decade of American war crimes. Abu Ghraib, Haditha, this, or any of a number of other atrocities – this one seems little different from the others. The bloodthirstiness of our "boys," chillingly eager to start shooting; the requisite cover-up, the denials, the expressions of "well that’s what war is" from defenders of US foreign policy. In the end it all boils down to a prosaic routine: another day, another atrocity. The only difference here being that it isn’t being done in the dark, but in the media spotlight for the world to see. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this kind of behavior by our glorious troops is not unusual: it’s the norm. It’s what war and occupation are all about: "collateral damage," dead children, error, malice, and tragedy all rolled into one messy package and marketed as our righteous (and endless) "war on terrorism."

The moral bankruptcy of our foreign policy has been evident for some time, and incidents like these only dramatize what everyone outside of Washington, D.C., already knows, and yet it continues – in our name – because it has by now become part of our lives. We habitually go around invading countries, killing children, and making "mistakes" that result in the grisly death of innocents: an apology is issued, perhaps a family is paid off (a couple thousand for a life), and the death machine grinds on, crushing what’s left of our collective conscience under the weight of our indifference. Oh yes, didn’t you hear, someone died in a far off country on account of our foreign policy – can you please pass the salt? Did you pay the electric bill? Hey, I hear the neighbor down the block got foreclosed….

A morally corrupt country such as ours doesn’t succumb easily to attacks of conscience, and certainly a video – no matter of what – isn’t going to lead to a moral awakening.


Back on topic we go!

[Resonance]

power en masse.
ahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa


In seriousness, though, women and men do have some fundamental differences. And while these differences may not be huge, the effect those differences will have on an organizational structure are going to be as profound as the difference between, say, an INTJ's and an INFJ's ideals.

[LongSilence]

As I see it, many of these notions of "men are more (or less) this" or "women are more (or less) that" are culture-bound. And since any culture is heavily influenced by the political control structure over it, there's something of a feedback loop when trying to project a new culture (which is what would result from a new control structure, inevitably) from scratch, starting with female leadership. And/or taking an existing culture and from it draft a new (relatively radical, at least per expectation) control structure already influenced by its predecessor.

I maintain that women and men are not so different in the relevant ways at hand, devoid of any particular cultural preprogramming.

I agree but would also take into account the not overwhelmingly significant but influential hormonal differences that lead to general prevailing tendencies in each sex's approach to things.


Only recently in history have we been acknowledged in western society for anything other than those dicksucking abilities so no need to be afraid that we'll take over the world anytime soon!

It's not so much a fear of women "violently taking over" but that if they did they'd simply be doing things the same old way and not changing anything really. Smart men don't fear females asserting themselves. We actually just want to make sure they do things "their" way, not ours when they do. When that happens and men listen and appreciate it, then, then, we'll have things governed by gender equality.

[LongSilence]

Justin Raimondo wrote (http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/06/just-another-atrocity/) the following about the video. He says it better than I could.


What do we reckon: Justin's an NF, right?

[jyng1]

If women dominated politics throughout history and held most positions of power I'm inclined to believe there wouldn't be even half the number of wars there have been.

The first woman British Prime Minister. I know it wasn't a "declared" war, but...

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/margaret_thatcher_200.jpg

[Stryfe]

What do we reckon: Justin's an NF, right?That's a distinct possibility.

The rest of that article is worth reading. I only quoted the part that was directly about the video.

[Karl]

I think we've paid our dues and it's time to switch things up by establishing societies in the western world that have a matriarchal bent rather than a patriarchal one.

According to Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm) we already did that one too.

Also I'm with Ptah that the issue isn't maleness or femaleness but one group having power over another and taking on the characteristics of an oppressor.

[MacGuffin]

Why? We get things done with some degree of cohesiveness and cooperation when we need to and are more than capable of innovation.
Yeah, history is filled with equal amounts of feminine innovation.

[Resonance]

Yeah, history is filled with equal amounts of feminine innovation.

history is sometimes pretty accurate.

[joft]

Yeah, history is filled with equal amounts of feminine innovation.

pretty terrible point

history also shows that slaves don't innovate

[Limey]

I watched the video. I thought it would have been better served with a Luka Chuppi soundtrack to make it more Rang de Basanti-esque.

Who'd have thought that reporters that mixed in with the locals would be mistaken in public as enemies and made collateral damage.

[euterpenc]

Fuck this. War is stupid.

There is nothing to fucking fight about. People think there is, but there fucking isn't. There is no justification for war.

Yes I know I am irrational in thinking this. But fuck reason if it justifies this shit. No excuse. And Obama can suck a huge fat dick, so big that when it fucking cums in his mouth, it blows his brain out the back of his fucking head. Lying cocksucker... Bush too... and all the rest of those politician low-life scum and their media fuckbuddies.

Note: I don't actually wish death upon anyone. This is just a way for me to express my anger without actually resorting to violence.

[HoneyCyclical]

Are you sure this is due simply to a lack of a passive factor in the form of women?

I would assume there are other chemical factors in play such as a lot of young men with no women to have sex with so therefore the hormones and urges are being rerouted into more aggressive practices - gangs, vandalism, violence, underground homosexual orgies, etc...

:p


The bold bits clash with the italics.

Not really.



Also, the male of the species has generally had a slightly greater desire to explore and take great and often stupid risks. Exploration is what brought the world together, got it into conflict and then trade and finally co-operation.

They do? How can you measure desire? If you mean that historically men have been shown to be explorers/risk takers more than women you may want to consider the fact that women weren't allowed to explore or take risks. They didn't have rights.


pretty terrible point

history also shows that slaves don't innovate

Yep.

[Qfwfq]

An occupied nation, particularly in a state of great civil unrest, is governed by laws closer to those of dictatorships than democracies. Even communists who want to make the world a better, more equal place tend to agree that ideals will always be twisted or put away for safe keeping while general stability and peace is being achieved.

It always takes quite a while before defeated people get over their desires for revenge and retributive justice of some kind. This is why the people who deserve the biggest :facepalm: are the people who honestly believed that after waging war on Iraq and killing many, many Iraqis they'd be welcomed with universally open arms and smiling faces.

Anyway, there were men with guns on the street. The Apache had been sent out to help deal with insurgents who had been firing on Americans around that area.

I'm not sure what the above had to do with anything, but I agree with it. I'm recalling the media blitz over an agile GW having a shoe flung at him



Yeah, history is filled with equal amounts of feminine innovation.

I agree with Joft, that's a horrible point. But centuries of puritanical suppression probably just slipped your mind, so the benefit of the doubt is granted. This ratio has changed today.


(+women=-war argument) I'm inclined to agree with you, but that entails colossal circumstantial assumptions. It's impossible for us to consider such a radical sequence of events.

[Gnome]

If anyone doubts that whats on the video is fairly typical of how US occupations in Muslim countries go, check out the testemonials of veterans returning from Iraq.


Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than "winning hearts and minds.
"There was also another motive," Ewing said. "If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn't attack. We used the kids as human shields."


"One time they said to fire on all taxicabs because the enemy was using them for transportation.... One of the snipers replied back, 'Excuse me? Did I hear that right? Fire on all taxicabs?' The lieutenant colonel responded, 'You heard me, trooper, fire on all taxicabs.' After that, the town lit up, with all the units Firing on cars. This was my first experience with war, and that kind of set the tone for the rest of the deployment."

http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378

[Ferrus]

It is one of the things that amazes me about the conservatives in the US who harp on so much about government interference, and yet seem such cheer leaders for the armed forces - the military is easily the most tyrannical manifestation of any government with no respect for even the basic premises of a citizen's rights under classical enlightenment princples.

[MountainHiker]

It is one of the things that amazes me about the conservatives in the US who harp on so much about government interference, and yet seem such cheer leaders for the armed forces - the military is easily the most tyrannical manifestation of any government with no respect for even the basic premises of a citizen's rights under classical enlightenment princples.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's found this CONtradiction confusing time and again throughout my adult life. Conservatives constantly bitch about government spending too much money and how it can't do anything right. Yet they have never seen a military boondoggle they didn't love and the military branch of the government can do no wrong, even when killing kids...hey, they're collateral damage...unless killed by an abortion doctor! Then there might be a moral problem with it.

You gotta love the DoD's marketing Dept too. They got all of us used to collateral damage in war. And don't even think about questioning why we are at war. Just support the troops, ask no questions and know that they are fighting for your freedom from those crazy Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 911 and had no WMDs (wasn't that the reason we went there in the first place?). All that matters is putting on a patriotic face, saluting the flag with a tear in your eye and loving your military. After all, freedom isn't free...the military industrial complex spends lots of money to ensure you have no choice but to put their minions into office.

General Smedley Butler was right, war is a racket. People just refuse to see it when blind, stupid patriotism is a lot easier than thinking.

[starjots]

So, we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Yes. Maybe we'll remember that for a generation or two - I sure hope so.

Now we are there. What happens when we leave? Part of me says - yes, GTFO, lost cause, let them sort it out. Another part says - consider the videos you aren't seeing of suicide bombers blowing up dozens of people at a time - do we let these people win? Can anyone put together a reasonable quick explanation of why we are there *now*? I'm guessing yes (otherwise we'd be out by now), but I'm also guessing this would not go over well because it would be based on abstract geopolitical considerations that would not 'sell' to the public.

[Faust06]

do we let these people win?

Win? They're only "winning" by virtue that they exist, and the way I see it there's no way to kill them all off. I think the U.S. has done as much significant damage as they can, and they don't seem too focused on rebuilding the country anyway, so I see no reason why they shouldn't GTFO.

[Resonance]

nukes would kill all of them. save them the trouble of rebuilding, too.

[stuck]

Looking at this war from an objective perspective is kind of like waking up and realizing you strangled your neighbor for her cereal.

The primary driver is, ironically, making sure we have enough oil for a major war.

[Gnome]

The primary driver is, ironically, making sure we have enough oil for a major war.

Obama on a bullhorn from Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan looking at Iran going, "Come out with your hands up. We've got you surrounded."

[MountainHiker]

Looking at this war from an objective perspective is kind of like waking up and realizing you strangled your neighbor for her cereal.

The primary driver is, ironically, making sure we have enough oil for a major war.

Good point. I have also heard it argued that we are fighting both wars as proxies for fighting China and Russia while staking our claim on the world's remaining oil. Going to war with the big boys (Nuclear armed countries) could get ugly quickly, so it's easier to wage these resource wars in smaller, somewhat close countries that can serve as a buffer yet we can still send the message.

For all the smoke blown up our collective asses about American free markets and capitalism being near nirvana, it seems that our current economic model cannot exist without the constant expansion that created it. Thus the perpetual war for perpetual peace we have today. But, it isn't about peace, it's about producing products that get destroyed while keeping the sheep in a patriotic fervor and not noticing the movement of wealth to the top.

My favorite are the folks who live with philosophies based on bumpersticker slogans, like: "Your honor student has freedom because of my soldier." To a lot of lost minds these wars are about our freedom. If we weren't fighting them there we'd be fighting them here, yada, yada. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking this line of reasoning is pure bullshit, but I'm open to any evidence that I am wrong and all wars and skirmishes we've conducted since WWII truly repelled threats to our freedom and weren't just political posturing, profiteering and maintenance of the economic system.

[cripple]

:stupid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Bradley_Manning#Charges

And what's up with this former hacker? why did he turn him in?

Poor guy, 52 years in jail is possible if convicted on all accounts.