Now I know what I observed in that video. I would like to know what they observed in the video, eg what they were looking at. How large/small or grainy the screen that they were utilizing was. It will not relieve us of this insane situation but it is an honest assessment here.

The argument that war is necesarry, even if it is true, does not excuse the vast majority of modern conflicts.

WWII? A massively complex issue, but arguably the Allies were justified in defending from, and retaliating against, the Axis.

UN intervention in Kosovo? Botched and bungled, but it slowly brought an unlawful slaughter to a cease.

The Korean War? Not at all justified. American political bravado gone horribly wrong. Hell, it might even have been a minor event if McArthur had taken China seriously and not openly defied their ultimatums about crossing boundaries.

The Iraq / Second Gulf / Third Gulf War? Not at all justified. We invaded a foreign power on false grounds without evidence and destabilized the region, creating a power vacuum. We’re still there out of shame and unwillingness to suffer further international lashings.

If the military is full of good people “trying to do the right thing”, they would refuse to fire on innocents, they would refuse to torture, they would defy any orders they knew to be wrong. Congress can declare war, but if the military doesn’t mobilize, it doesn’t happen.

This is clearly not the case. Soldiers take no responsibility for their actions. Their commanding officers take no responsibility. We have a war machine without morals or accountability and we’re throwing people in the meat grinder to save our own asses. “I was just following orders” is the excuse of every sick bastard without a spine in history.

~D. Walker

No.

Troops killing civilians in a war is not an abberation the same way car crashes and driver deaths are not an abberation in the Indy500. You cannot plan to put on a race like the Indy500 and expect there to be no crashes, no injuries, no deaths of innocents. You have to plan for it.

You cannot send your troops to war and not expect them to be involved in friendly fire incidents or incidents involving the killing of civilians.

This isn’t a recent phenomenon, either. My father served in the RAF during World War Two, and they had a saying:

When England flies, Germany ducks.
When Germany flies, England ducks.
When America flies, EVERYBODY ducks.

The major qualities that distinguish a professional soldier from a murderous, armed thug are honour and discipline. The lack of fire discipline for which the US forces are well-known (but seldom called to account) sometimes make that a “distinction without a difference”.

These are not the kinds of weapons one carries for personal defense. RPGs are anti-vehicle weapons. It is exactly the composition of AQ combat teams everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Iraq for the last 15-20 years. Small, mobile groups of men with 1-2 RPGs as the main firepower, and a few AKs as backup. Since the insurgents don’t wear uniforms (itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions everyone seems to venerate when Americans can be accused of violating them, but studiously ignore at all other times) this type of armament and organization is the single best visible indicator of enemy activity.

So. American pilots spotted a group of men who exactly fit the common profile of an insurgent unit in Iraq (and elsewhere), gathering a mere hundred yards from American ground troops, with anti-vehicle weapons capable of inflicting multiple deaths. They correctly described the situation (although overstating the number of weapons by 2), followed protocol, followed the RoE, did not open fire until they received approval, and then defeated the enemy. They also defeated the responders who attempted to extract the wounded before the ground troops could come in to capture and interrogate them. (Also a common insurgent tactic. And also well within the rules of engagement.)

This isn’t the worst of war. This isn’t “war is hell”. This is as clean & righteous as war gets. Tactics executed with skill, technological superiority, and the element of surprise, under the restraint of command, and rules of engagement, with accurate intelligence, to defend fellow soldiers from an enemy that does not follow rules.

So much of the response to this incident sounds a bit like being “Shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in this establishment.” As if war was a High Noon shootout where the sheriff and the bad guy know each other and the innocent townsfolk personally, and the white hat always lets the black hat take the first shot. Those aren’t the rules of engagement of war, and never will be. The real rules were followed, and if you find them shocking, you’re just going to be opposed to war no matter what. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend that this video shows anything new or revealing. This is it. This is how it’s done. Here are your winnings, sir.

You know what really makes soldiers crack? Endless tours of duty without any real chance to cycle back home.

None of this excuses this behavior, but push folks already under pressure to the limit you never know what will happen.

Sick and sad.

Second, we have the advantage of knowing that the people on the ground were carrying cameras for innocent purposes.

I’m upset at the cover-up of the SNAFU that ended with several dead civilians, including one who was trying to help. Im sorry this kind of crap happens in any armed conflict. Im sure the people on the triggers would not have fired if they knew the people on the ground were innocent. Contrast that with the guy who drives his car into a marketplace and detonates a bomb that kills and maims only civilians.

But, I have to ask; What was the situation around the area? Where had these troops come from? Were they fresh in the field that day or had they been working for some time? Had they just lost comrades in another incident?

In the end we are responsible for the actions of our armed forces and our government. We demanded that our government make us safe after 9-11. We allowed the politicians to play on our fear to stay in office. We demanded that someone pay with their lives for the 3000 Americans killed by terrorists in our own country.

What you seem to lose track of is the fact that the people on the ground in Iraq seem to have gone to some lengths to cover this up. -That is what is wrong here-

We should recognize the tragedy. We should recognize the mistakes made by the troops in the air and their command in allowing the attack. It is sad and tragic. We should help the victim’s families as much as we can. But we should never lose track of the fact that someone tried to cover it up because if they succeed then the next time it gets easier.

No, you guessed right: cynical, opportunistic spammy scum.

I am gonna judge these guys, cos they were the fools who decided to put themselves in this situation. I know I am never going to have to condition myself to deal with such fucked up situations because I wouldn’t be stupid enough to join up in the first place. If it came down to mandatory consription, I would rather kill my country’s politicians than innocent civilians and journalists, thanks.

Don’t be an apologist for the military – they have catagorically denied the truth of this story and tried their hardest to suppress it. They should eat all the shit they have coming.

Except it isn’t a war, it is an occupation we are the occupiers. The insurgents do what occupied people all over the world do. They do what you would do if it happened here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html?hp

And if by “machine guns” they mean AK-47′s, then those are legal for Iraqi civilians to own due to the civil war that we created.

The US (and the UK and Australia, my nation state who also helped invade Iraq) are not “good”. Not in any definable way. We are predators on ourselves and the rest of the world. The killing is only necessary to preserve the power of those who profit from it.

Our soldiers “do their duty”, not for anything of value (like honest caring leaders, or a nation that deserves protection) but to allow people like those who run Goldman Sachs to rip the heart out of our communities and sh*t on the corpse.

Like this little gem: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32906678/looting_main_street

Every soldier fighting in places like Iraq and Afghanistan needs to know about this betrayal of their sacrifice and all the thousands of others like it. They need to go home to their families and hold their politicians and their “business leaders” to account.

jsmill, I can appreciated your sincerity, but tell me, did you really enlist as a marine to protect the rights of Goldman Sachs to bankrupt entire counties, if not countries?

This whole f*cking human tragedy brings me to tears of rage.

A simple rule for warriors is Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Don’t oversimplify.

To hell with your “we.” You don’t speak for me.

You make some compelling points, though your thesis is lost in the haze of seemingly nationalist twaddle.

“I don’t defend the people portrayed in this video. I don’t know anything about the situation, and neither do you.”

What I do know is that a few of these soldiers vocally express joy, repeatedly, at watching other human beings die. I’m not talking about bravado. What I’m addressing here is state-assisted psychopathy.

And, make no mistake, you do “defend the people in this video.” You begin your rant by calling out “knee-jerk anti-military types,” and go on to talk about how no one can judge them. I’m not anti-military, but I am anti-war. Anyone with ears can hear for themselves how contemptuously these “men” revel in their bloody conquests. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, I can judge these men as easily and fairly as I could if I were joining them in battle.

I still have no idea what these people are like IRL, but they sound like a bunch of bloodthirsty hayseeds. And even if they’re the most kindhearted people on planet Earth, it wouldn’t excuse the Department of Defense for their negligence and outright dishonesty.

Being a soldier doesn’t make you an expert on matters of war. I do not doubt that it has given you another perspective, but so would being an anti-war activist. You defend these soldiers by saying things like, “[t]he rest of us are just down on the ground trying to do the right thing. Be patriots.” Show me a patriot, and I’ll show you a war criminal.

You claim that part of a soldier’s job is to “be good to all those we can be.” These soldiers could have been better to the unarmed civilians they slaughtered. They could have done so without such depraved merriment, at the very least.

I have read too much about war. Even without experiencing war firsthand, I can appreciate how difficult it is to be a soldier. I wonder how many of those serving in today’s military know the expression whispered to victorious Roman generals returning from battle: Respice post te! Hominem te memento!

And you’re right, those black and white blotches of pixels could only be an RPG.

Or a backpack.

Or a hat.

Or a smiling cheshire cat.

Or anything you possibly want to imagine exists on the other side of the looking glass.

And spare me the “but the military knows” response. I’m sure the military knows exactly where the RPG’s are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

They’re everywhere, man. You just gotta look for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes

Frankly, walking around Baghdad with equipment which might be mistaken for firearms with a group of people would make someone a legitimate target.

At minute 10, however, I fail to see the reasoning behind taking out the van. So, I’m driving around, see some guy badly hurt, decide to render aid, and get blasted for it?

That being said, I don’t fault the cavalry for their attitude. I’m not a fan of the war, but calling our men in uniform hayseeds is dismissive.

The group contained two men carrying RPGs and two men carrying cameras with large telephoto lenses. Additionally, there was another man armed with an AK47. No one (except you) is disputing that there were armed men involved.

Is that a euphemism for the rest of the world?

and we’re using violence there because we got to the last resort with Saddam who wouldn’t admit his complicity with 9/11 or show us his WMD… right?

so why is this justified, AT ALL?

http://defensetech.org/2010/04/06/centcom-releases-report-on-apache-gun-camera-video/#more-6432

it’s interesting to me how quickly so many people on boing boing are shrieking for heads when the facts are still coming out. yes, it’s a bad situation. no, we don’t have all the details yet. the sweeping condemnation and blanket statements are pretty disappointing.

And there’s plenty which disturbs and deeply saddens me. They shot people picking up the wounded. They were itching to shoot the wounded photographer, while he was crawling around in a pool of his own blood. They laughed when the Bradley drove over a body. They (the aircrew, not the soldiers on the ground), were visibly unaffected by the fact that they had shot up young kids. “Well it’s their fault for bringing kids to a battle.”

You can argue about other aspects of the situation, but there is no ambiguity in those.

*sigh*.

Here’s a video of an axolotl dancing to ridiculous music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0XtYcGNPPo