The US army
0
Most of you will be aware of, and may have seen, the following WikiLeaks video released on Monday, in which a Gunship crew get trigger happy with some clearly armed and dangerous Reuters journalists.
Evidently there is some debate over where the fault lies: were the army to blame for poor policy, or were the individuals to blame for manipulating it to get some action. Both are easily argued, and I hear that the US media have been doing so in droves; what it does nonetheless provide is some reason for the unusually high rate of friendly fire. There is an equal issue in the response of the government, who said at the time that they had no idea how the journalists were killed, or how a child came to be injured in the attack. Reuters had tried for three years without success to acquire this footage; WikiLeaks publishes it, and the government then states that the men acted within the Rules of Engagement, covering their lie excellently with a bit of admissible truth.
This, of course, is one incident among many. Take the following video, the composition of which reeks of bias, but which nonetheless contains some good evidence:
There we have rape, unjustified killings, torture of animals, use of Uranium rounds...perhaps all 'common knowledge'. These were the Iraq days; lamentable, but over. Fast forward to a few days ago and you have the following incident, where the Pentagon having lied about the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan in February in spite of conflicting evidence, and the US media by-and-large having accepted this as fact, was forced to admit that it was utter bullshit, albeit in slightly less submissive terms.
I am aware of the relative hypocrisy of targeting the US army when this shit clearly happens in lots of armies, that of the UK rather prominently included. 'It is the nature of modern warfare', apparently, and I've no doubt that the day-to-day progress reports on 'insurgents' killed include a good number of civilians. With the size of the US army, the problems with the media, the biggest split in support and the faceless lies of the Pentagon, however, it is here where problems seem most prevalent. Now, I'm not vehemently anti-war, and I don't want this to turn into a debate about the validity of or reasons for war in Afghanistan; what I would like is some discussion as to what can honestly be done about these problems. You have a new government, but little evident change. A 'new war' to focus on, but little evident change. Incidents continue to come to light, indicating that anything that is changing in procedure isn't working, and yet the media coverage hasn't changed. The CIA and the Pentagon have even been looking to 'subdue' WikiLeaks to solve their problems.
I suppose I'm not so much posing a question here as giving food for thought, actually. Public opinion isn't easily changed, and the bulk of the media follow that. The government can say, 'ok, we'll tell the truth now', and you'll never know if nothing incriminatory turns up, but it evidently won't get the coverage or have the gravitas to affect them if anything does. Same sort of thing with the army, although you could argue for different training, different rules, more transparency etc, or you might even accept the problems and just want them to get on with the job at hand. This seems to be the problem though: since there is little scope for change to the system, and such debate over the war, these incidents pass merely as the arguments of one side, and nothing ever really comes to fruition; some people will air dissent, a lot of people will be apathetic, and a lot more (although these are somewhat linked) will feel that it's the way of government and war, and that they can't do anything about it. Thoughts, opinions and suggestions, please (btw, it's like 3am, so tired as fuck and may have to respond tomorrow :P).
Spoiler:
Evidently there is some debate over where the fault lies: were the army to blame for poor policy, or were the individuals to blame for manipulating it to get some action. Both are easily argued, and I hear that the US media have been doing so in droves; what it does nonetheless provide is some reason for the unusually high rate of friendly fire. There is an equal issue in the response of the government, who said at the time that they had no idea how the journalists were killed, or how a child came to be injured in the attack. Reuters had tried for three years without success to acquire this footage; WikiLeaks publishes it, and the government then states that the men acted within the Rules of Engagement, covering their lie excellently with a bit of admissible truth.
This, of course, is one incident among many. Take the following video, the composition of which reeks of bias, but which nonetheless contains some good evidence:
Spoiler:
There we have rape, unjustified killings, torture of animals, use of Uranium rounds...perhaps all 'common knowledge'. These were the Iraq days; lamentable, but over. Fast forward to a few days ago and you have the following incident, where the Pentagon having lied about the slaughter of civilians in Afghanistan in February in spite of conflicting evidence, and the US media by-and-large having accepted this as fact, was forced to admit that it was utter bullshit, albeit in slightly less submissive terms.
I am aware of the relative hypocrisy of targeting the US army when this shit clearly happens in lots of armies, that of the UK rather prominently included. 'It is the nature of modern warfare', apparently, and I've no doubt that the day-to-day progress reports on 'insurgents' killed include a good number of civilians. With the size of the US army, the problems with the media, the biggest split in support and the faceless lies of the Pentagon, however, it is here where problems seem most prevalent. Now, I'm not vehemently anti-war, and I don't want this to turn into a debate about the validity of or reasons for war in Afghanistan; what I would like is some discussion as to what can honestly be done about these problems. You have a new government, but little evident change. A 'new war' to focus on, but little evident change. Incidents continue to come to light, indicating that anything that is changing in procedure isn't working, and yet the media coverage hasn't changed. The CIA and the Pentagon have even been looking to 'subdue' WikiLeaks to solve their problems.
I suppose I'm not so much posing a question here as giving food for thought, actually. Public opinion isn't easily changed, and the bulk of the media follow that. The government can say, 'ok, we'll tell the truth now', and you'll never know if nothing incriminatory turns up, but it evidently won't get the coverage or have the gravitas to affect them if anything does. Same sort of thing with the army, although you could argue for different training, different rules, more transparency etc, or you might even accept the problems and just want them to get on with the job at hand. This seems to be the problem though: since there is little scope for change to the system, and such debate over the war, these incidents pass merely as the arguments of one side, and nothing ever really comes to fruition; some people will air dissent, a lot of people will be apathetic, and a lot more (although these are somewhat linked) will feel that it's the way of government and war, and that they can't do anything about it. Thoughts, opinions and suggestions, please (btw, it's like 3am, so tired as fuck and may have to respond tomorrow :P).
0
I really want to get gtfo of this country, but i doubt there's any alternative other than a tiny island somewhere with no one else on it.
add:
i do feel bad for the soldiers who go in with good intensions. in part because of the bad rap they get by assosiation with the rapists and murdering freaks who would be arrested if they did that shit anywhere else, and partly because they are just pawns of a corprate run system.
add:
i do feel bad for the soldiers who go in with good intensions. in part because of the bad rap they get by assosiation with the rapists and murdering freaks who would be arrested if they did that shit anywhere else, and partly because they are just pawns of a corprate run system.
0
Kind of Important
A ray of Tsunlight.
Well, it's really a bad thing when people who don't deserve it get shot. It really is.
First, we have to question the logic of why the hell would you go into an active war zone. (That is, places where open firefights break out on a daily basis) for any reason at all, especially for news. I understand media rights and all that. But they have to sign up knowing the inherent risks of that.
Now, as for trigger discipline, it's hard to define things like that. Each of the branches has ROE (Rules of Engagement) As how/when to fire/return fire. But in the case of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, things have been changed a little. Now that it seems anyone and their mother can get a hold of an RPG, or AK, and start shooting at the coalition (Yes, people seems to forget, but there are other countries there aside from the US) Forces. It turns into, shoot them first if they even look like they have a weapon of some kind, so our boys don't get plastered to the inside of their Humvee from an RPG or something.
Nextly, despite the advances in technology, it's still hard to tell who are combantants and who are not. It's not like we can plaster a sign onto someone saying noncom, or terrorist (Whatever word you wanna use) So once again, it becomes kill them before they shoot at us.
It's nice to see they pointed out things they'd only possibly know in retrospect. I couldn't tell the two in the front seat were children, at all. If you could then you have far better eyesight than I.
Lastly, if anyone thinks any branch of the US military advocates the killing of civillians, then please go jump off a bridge. No military would do that, and even if they did, the most of the soldiers themselves just wouldn't do it. They are human you know.
First, we have to question the logic of why the hell would you go into an active war zone. (That is, places where open firefights break out on a daily basis) for any reason at all, especially for news. I understand media rights and all that. But they have to sign up knowing the inherent risks of that.
Now, as for trigger discipline, it's hard to define things like that. Each of the branches has ROE (Rules of Engagement) As how/when to fire/return fire. But in the case of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, things have been changed a little. Now that it seems anyone and their mother can get a hold of an RPG, or AK, and start shooting at the coalition (Yes, people seems to forget, but there are other countries there aside from the US) Forces. It turns into, shoot them first if they even look like they have a weapon of some kind, so our boys don't get plastered to the inside of their Humvee from an RPG or something.
Nextly, despite the advances in technology, it's still hard to tell who are combantants and who are not. It's not like we can plaster a sign onto someone saying noncom, or terrorist (Whatever word you wanna use) So once again, it becomes kill them before they shoot at us.
It's nice to see they pointed out things they'd only possibly know in retrospect. I couldn't tell the two in the front seat were children, at all. If you could then you have far better eyesight than I.
Lastly, if anyone thinks any branch of the US military advocates the killing of civillians, then please go jump off a bridge. No military would do that, and even if they did, the most of the soldiers themselves just wouldn't do it. They are human you know.
0
Shit happens in real world. Holy shit happens in War.
There's no limit to what we humans can dish out, so we really haven't seen the worst yet. Also, if you have taken some form of psychology or is knowledgable regarding the field, you should know of the famous experiment done regarding the fake research and the electrocution test. If not, you'd be surprised at just how far normal folks will go in the face of authority.
The soliders can't be blamed completely for it. Sure, they have to take responsiblity as the person who pulled the trigger. But they got more blood on their hands then we have in our body already before killing those journalist. This is their job, and adrenaline was pumping. Shit happens when your so hyped up.
Mistakes and wrongful killing will always take place, since there is no such thing as a perfect solider.
There's no limit to what we humans can dish out, so we really haven't seen the worst yet. Also, if you have taken some form of psychology or is knowledgable regarding the field, you should know of the famous experiment done regarding the fake research and the electrocution test. If not, you'd be surprised at just how far normal folks will go in the face of authority.
The soliders can't be blamed completely for it. Sure, they have to take responsiblity as the person who pulled the trigger. But they got more blood on their hands then we have in our body already before killing those journalist. This is their job, and adrenaline was pumping. Shit happens when your so hyped up.
Mistakes and wrongful killing will always take place, since there is no such thing as a perfect solider.
0
Kind of Important wrote...
Well, it's really a bad thing when people who don't deserve it get shot. It really is.First, we have to question the logic of why the hell would you go into an active war zone. (That is, places where open firefights break out on a daily basis) for any reason at all, especially for news. I understand media rights and all that. But they have to sign up knowing the inherent risks of that.
Now, as for trigger discipline, it's hard to define things like that. Each of the branches has ROE (Rules of Engagement) As how/when to fire/return fire. But in the case of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, things have been changed a little. Now that it seems anyone and their mother can get a hold of an RPG, or AK, and start shooting at the coalition (Yes, people seems to forget, but there are other countries there aside from the US) Forces. It turns into, shoot them first if they even look like they have a weapon of some kind, so our boys don't get plastered to the inside of their Humvee from an RPG or something.
Nextly, despite the advances in technology, it's still hard to tell who are combantants and who are not. It's not like we can plaster a sign onto someone saying noncom, or terrorist (Whatever word you wanna use) So once again, it becomes kill them before they shoot at us.
It's nice to see they pointed out things they'd only possibly know in retrospect. I couldn't tell the two in the front seat were children, at all. If you could then you have far better eyesight than I.
Lastly, if anyone thinks any branch of the US military advocates the killing of civillians, then please go jump off a bridge. No military would do that, and even if they did, the most of the soldiers themselves just wouldn't do it. They are human you know.
I call bullshit on that. Watching the video, it was clear that they wanted to kill. Perhaps they did not know that they were civilians, but they shot with a clear intent for the sake of shooting and killing. When the van came, that one line "C'mon, let us shoot!" showed that they intended to kill anyone and everyone that arrived at that scene.
The van that came showed absolutely no intention of doing anything other than picking up the bodies. I highly doubt that the weapons could have been salvaged after all the rounds they shot at them.
The attitude that the soldiers had is completely unacceptable. They showed a complete disregard for who they were shooting at. One of the shooters seemed disappointed that he could no longer shoot. The man who was crawling on the ground was simply trying get away. But the soldiers were hoping that he would pick up a weapon so that they could finish him off. It was clear that the man is no longer combat effective, even if he did get a weapon.
In a war, collateral damage is expected. As journalist in a war zone, they should be prepared to face such a situation. But that does not excuse the attitude that the soldiers had. And people wonder why the US Army gets made fun of as a group of rednecks that joins for the sake of getting big guns and being able to kill people.
0
Watch the video and clear your mind of the two reporters. Can you clearly tell the cameras in their possession are cameras or do they have a vague blob look to them?
Listen to the men in the helicopter, do they sound like they just butchered civilians? No, they clearly thought the group of men were armed with an RPG.
Also take notice that most insurgents, enemy combatants, terrorists,etc all dress like civilians. Their goal is to blend in as much as possible. They don't wear uniforms like the militias or a standing army. You can't tell the difference between a civilian and a terrorist/enemy combatant/insurgent/freedom fighter until they pull a weapon on you.
Civilian deaths are tragic but, are unavoidable. It's best to try to avoid as many as possible. It's impractical and foolhardy try to avoid all of them as it only results in more dead soldiers at the hands of cowards who use civilians as human shields.
I believe we should keep our RoE's more or less than same. Let the soldiers decide who is a threat to them by letting them decide which level will best fit the problem. Stop this nonsense of having to call back to mama and daddy for permission to defend themselves.
Side note; Yes, yes, I know we invaded a sovereign country. So you can keep quiet on that. the point of the matter these men don't wear uniforms when they decide to take pot shots at Coalition or Iraqi forces.
A common tactic for insurgents is to remove the bodies and weapons from a scene and basically cover up all evidence that there was even a conflict. Sometimes, they even leave the bodies so anybody who approaches will be lead to believe that they were simple civilians. "How do you transform a dead insurgent into a dead civilian? Take away his gun".
I agree, that behavior was unacceptable.
Listen to the men in the helicopter, do they sound like they just butchered civilians? No, they clearly thought the group of men were armed with an RPG.
Also take notice that most insurgents, enemy combatants, terrorists,etc all dress like civilians. Their goal is to blend in as much as possible. They don't wear uniforms like the militias or a standing army. You can't tell the difference between a civilian and a terrorist/enemy combatant/insurgent/freedom fighter until they pull a weapon on you.
Civilian deaths are tragic but, are unavoidable. It's best to try to avoid as many as possible. It's impractical and foolhardy try to avoid all of them as it only results in more dead soldiers at the hands of cowards who use civilians as human shields.
I believe we should keep our RoE's more or less than same. Let the soldiers decide who is a threat to them by letting them decide which level will best fit the problem. Stop this nonsense of having to call back to mama and daddy for permission to defend themselves.
Side note; Yes, yes, I know we invaded a sovereign country. So you can keep quiet on that. the point of the matter these men don't wear uniforms when they decide to take pot shots at Coalition or Iraqi forces.
lollercookiez wrote...
The van that came showed absolutely no intention of doing anything other than picking up the bodies. I highly doubt that the weapons could have been salvaged after all the rounds they shot at them.A common tactic for insurgents is to remove the bodies and weapons from a scene and basically cover up all evidence that there was even a conflict. Sometimes, they even leave the bodies so anybody who approaches will be lead to believe that they were simple civilians. "How do you transform a dead insurgent into a dead civilian? Take away his gun".
The attitude that the soldiers had is completely unacceptable. They showed a complete disregard for who they were shooting at. One of the shooters seemed disappointed that he could no longer shoot. The man who was crawling on the ground was simply trying get away. But the soldiers were hoping that he would pick up a weapon so that they could finish him off. It was clear that the man is no longer combat effective, even if he did get a weapon.
I agree, that behavior was unacceptable.
0
Listen to the men in the helicopter, do they sound like they just butchered civilians?
What the helicopter crew sounds like is hopped up on dexamphetamine or modafinil to the point where they got trigger-happy, spotting "eight" bandits "with ak-47s and rpgs" "firing at them", when none of them was the case to a glaringly obvious degree.
Nihil novi! The air force has a grand reputation for inching its members towards widespread substance abuse.
Pentagon having lied about the slaughter of civilians
That's the way things work, it's a popular strategy for corporations, politicians, the military, and pretty criminals in the courtroom: Deny everything, admit only as much as you absolutely must, put a "spin" on what you gotta say.
It is the nature of modern warfare
Just modern warfare? Beg your pardon...
à la guerre comme à la guerre. Not pretty, but that's the way war works. Don't like it? Don't go to war.
0
It's war. Shit happens. Collateral damage happens. It's bullshit that people think US soldiers should come up with 0 civilian casualties, but the fact of the matter is, that is impossible. Especially in a war zone where your enemies wear civilian clothing.
No this does not mean I think we shouldn't try for a smaller civilian casualty count.
No this does not mean I think we shouldn't try for a smaller civilian casualty count.
0
Some people will incite things, and circumstances will dictate actions among bystanders. It is our job to see when something is just an accident, an incident that got out of hand, people with guns will always have problems with those who don't have them, because there is an imbalance in power.
0
I find that video really paints our guys in a bad light.
I, personally, wouldn't quite put stock with the pilots of that gunship, nor with their operator.
Contrary to an annoyingly widely accepted supposition, people do not usually join the armed forces because they enjoy wanton and senseless violence.
In fact, like law enforcement, the armed branches actively try to screen for people like them. As the vid demonstrates, this is not one hundred percent effective.
To be honest, I'm rather sure that the guys in the gunship are prime examples of southern American redneck, and their operators didn't give enough of a shit to check the feed from the craft before giving a Guns Clear authorization.
But, for ever group like these, we typically have twenty or more groups of highly trained and competent people who DON'T randomly paste passersby.
Don't you think?
Honestly, badmouthing the boys overseas due to the conduct of a few fuckheads is like labeling someone a pedophile because they have a few loli doujins, or locking down a school because someone brings in a 3 cm plastic MP5, or any of the other crap that we never fail to protest as "Those were just extreme cases!", when it falls within the purview of our vested interests.
Dark Gods, but I think people are overreacting to this. It's like that clusterfuck with that attempt to ban Cluster Bombs a few years back, just because some braindead people decided to forage in areas marked "Warning: Recently Cluster Bombed."
Sheesh.
I, personally, wouldn't quite put stock with the pilots of that gunship, nor with their operator.
Contrary to an annoyingly widely accepted supposition, people do not usually join the armed forces because they enjoy wanton and senseless violence.
In fact, like law enforcement, the armed branches actively try to screen for people like them. As the vid demonstrates, this is not one hundred percent effective.
To be honest, I'm rather sure that the guys in the gunship are prime examples of southern American redneck, and their operators didn't give enough of a shit to check the feed from the craft before giving a Guns Clear authorization.
But, for ever group like these, we typically have twenty or more groups of highly trained and competent people who DON'T randomly paste passersby.
Don't you think?
Honestly, badmouthing the boys overseas due to the conduct of a few fuckheads is like labeling someone a pedophile because they have a few loli doujins, or locking down a school because someone brings in a 3 cm plastic MP5, or any of the other crap that we never fail to protest as "Those were just extreme cases!", when it falls within the purview of our vested interests.
Dark Gods, but I think people are overreacting to this. It's like that clusterfuck with that attempt to ban Cluster Bombs a few years back, just because some braindead people decided to forage in areas marked "Warning: Recently Cluster Bombed."
Sheesh.
0
Arizth wrote...
But, for ever group like these, we typically have twenty or more groups of highly trained and competent people who DON'T randomly paste passersby.Don't you think?
No.
