Wikileaks: US troops killed journalists in Iraq

I've seen the video. It's horrible and tragic, but I think the guy legitimately believed the camera was an RPG (different from an AK-47, and more plausible). There's nothing to suggest to me that he knew he was targeting an innocent person.

It's war. It's dangerous, bad things happen, and people make bad mistakes.

I'm thoroughly opposed to this war... but if we're going to send soldiers to war and tell them to kill bad guys, and this guy spots what he believes is a bad guy with a rocket launcher, we can't really expect him to weep for humanity as he shoots that guy and those around him.

 

Thought they mistook the cameras for rocket launchers (RPGs). Isn't that was the initial call was? Can't honestly dismiss that thought. In a war zone, these guys aren't thinking, "Oh, wait. That's not an RPG . . . it could be one of those new telephoto lenses!"

Before I assign "BLOODLUST!!!!!" to these guys, I'm going to remember the fact that I've never been in the military or a war zone. Sure, they sounded excited on the tape.

But that could be a product of so many elements. Cabin fever, repeated tours, the standard "laugh so you don't cry" reactions . . . fear, perhaps? When we want to criticize the war, we're always talking about how our troops are going to start to snap if they are at war for long enough. We're always talking about what war does to people mentally and physically.

Yet we're so quick to just assume these guys were "playing a video GAME!!!!" instead of trying to figure out WHY they were so paranoid. Why they react that way to a crowd of people milling about in the street. Why they seemed to be seeking a reason to open fire.

Why can't we allow for the idea that like a police officer, they enter situations assuming their lives could end in the next few minutes? Why can't we consider the thought that maybe somewhere along the way, during seven-plus years of war, our soldiers have become conditioned to shoot first and ask questions later?

Not saying that's right or moral. But again, if so many are always so eager to try and understand our enemies and empathize with the people whose country we're ruining, why can't we take a moment to wonder what caused this particular group of soldiers to screw up so horribly?

 

I'll justify their actions.

As I proved time and again on the board-that-shall-not-be-mentioned, I think the Iraq war was/is unjustified and illegal, and was carried out by a president hell-bent on proving that he could do something daddy couldn't.

That said, the pilots clearly thought the men below them were enemy; they clearly thought the men were holding weapons. To my untrained eye, I can see why you'd think the tripod and camera were RPG. Especially if you've spent months getting shot at by those types of weapons. Wars cause itchy trigger fingers. I don't hear anything in their voices leading up to the attack that indicates the pilots were out for a joy ride playing or playing a video game.

Then once the attack happens, I hear pilots, check that, I hear trained warriors who are showing the bravado that warriors have displayed since the first cave dweller killed his first mastadon.

We expect young men and women to go all over the war and do our country's dirty deeds. Just because we have a video tape that shows them doing those deeds, doesn't give us the right to cry foul.

We shouldn't have put those warriors there to begin with. But once we did, the responsibility is ours at home, not theirs.

 

Instead of asking how this one thing happened maybe we need to ask why we're still in Iraq.

 

I just re-watched part of the video, thinking I might've been mistaken about the basis for the call. I was not.

He made the call requesting permission to open fire upon this basis: "Have five to six individuals with AK-47s. Request permission to engage." Now he did a moment later claim that a guy also had an RPG, but that was AFTER the call requesting permission had already been made solely upon the AK-47 claim.

Now, I'll admit I'm not sure to what extent a camera resembles an RPG, but I'm damn certain that a camera does not resemble an AK-47. I'd like to know where they saw the AK-47s, and to what extent they tried to confirm it before requesting permission to kill all those people.

Sorry if I'm not as forgiving toward those guys as others here, but what I saw on that video enraged me. It was sickening to hear this guy casually dismiss the fact that he shot two children by stating "that's what they get for bringing their children to a battle." Never mind the fact that there was NO BATTLE, the word "battle" connotes TWO sides fighting each other, this was just some civilians minding their own business until a helicopter decided to rain death on them out of nowhere.

 

I'm with you, but we have no idea based on the tape or the transcripts what may have preceded this.

 

I agree.
And Stoney, the whole place is one huge battle. The enemy, who are out to kill you, would blow up a cafe or market place as easily as shoot a uniformed soldier. There are no TV time outs in war.

 

Time outs, no. But there ARE rules to war and rules of engagement. And I'm surprised those rules would allow us to fire into a crowd of civilians so indiscriminately.

And the "battle" line was in response to the guys justification for shooting the kids being "that's what they get for bringing their children to a battle." So, what, are you saying it's OK for us to shoot kids anywhere there because "the whole place is a battle"? That parents shouldn't bring kids anywhere in the country? Sorry, no, the whole country is not a battle. That's a lame ass defense.

And, you know, the only reason we know about this incident is because, this time, the dead happened to include two Reuters journalists and Reuters pressed hard for the evidence. Makes you wonder how many more of these things have occurred without ever being exposed.

 

With this I agree. But if ALL the atrocities of this war were evenly exposed, I beleive this incident would pale in comparison to the ones committed against civilians by non-American personnel.

and just so it's clear, and on the record so-to-speak, the American presence in Iraq, is and was ill considered, poorly planned and executed with all the intelligence of training an elephant to use a toilet.

 

The camera was on a shoulder strap carried under his arm. It could look a hell of a lot like an RPG from that view, and perhaps a bit like an AK-47 inasmuch as it's a big long heavy thing hanging from a shoulder strap. I could understand the mistake, particularly from a helicopter in a combat zone.

For what it's worth, the military showed Reuters photos from its investigation showing that they recovered AK-47s and an RPG from the scene. It's certainly possible the military is full of shit on that regard, but it's also very possible there's much more to the story that explains what happened.

 

Based on what we've subsequently learned from the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman cases, I'd take that with a grain of salt.

I'm very reluctant to condemn any of our guys over there for what they do in the heat of battle when their lives are on the line. But some of the comments on the video bug me.

 

You keep coming back to this, and even crediting it, I don't understand the significance. Of course we expect more honorable behavior out of our own soldiers than terrorists. If your point is that the media doesn't work as hard to expose terrorist or counter-insurgency atrocities, I guess I would counter that 1) that doesn't fit as squarely within its watchdog role and 2) it doesn't have the sourcing and the freedom of information routes that it does when investigating our own military. But mostly it's the former - our tax dollars are supporting the armed forces, and I'm proud of it. But I also have a right to know what's happening with that money (within reason).