War

[hibsbollah]

Wikileaks have released video footage today, obtained from a source in the US military 3 years after launching a freedom of information request. Shows the killing of two reuters journalists from an apache helicopter. The Pentagon now class wikileaks site as a 'threat to national security'.

Incredible (and graphic) footage.

http://collateralmurder.com/ (http://collateralmurder.com/)

Full story here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack) .

[J-C]

Wikileaks have released video footage today, obtained from a source in the US military 3 years after launching a freedom of information request. Shows the killing of two reuters journalists from an apache helicopter. The Pentagon now class wikileaks site as a 'threat to national security'.

Incredible (and graphic) footage.

http://collateralmurder.com/ (http://collateralmurder.com/)

Full story here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack) .


Must admit I watched it pretty closely and apart from the Iraq guys all gathering around with rifles and the rocket launcher, I couldn't see any kids or anybody else there that shouldn't have been.
Maybe I missed something :confused:

[Hibs Class]

Must admit I watched it pretty closely and apart from the Iraq guys all gathering around with rifles and the rocket launcher, I couldn't see any kids or anybody else there that shouldn't have been.
Maybe I missed something :confused:

Supposedly the two children were sitting in the front of the van that came in and started to take on one of those injured.

[J-C]

Supposedly the two children were sitting in the front of the van that came in and started to take on one of those injured.


Oh I see, ta, obviously the guys in the helicopter never realised that either though.

[ArabHibee]

Supposedly the two children were sitting in the front of the van that came in and started to take on one of those injured.

But hard to see this on the footage so don't know how they were able to decipher. I didn't see an RPG either.

Horrendous on all levels.

[SlickShoes]

Just sat and watched around 15 folk be killed for standing about.

Its pretty horrific, if you dont find it a little bit disturbing i would be very worried.

Also there were no RPGs, the RPGs were cameras.

[Jack]

I’m at work I cant see the actual footage so this is a general statement about [current] wars [and how they compare to the past ones].

War zones are very, very dangerous places and can be lethal; if you can, don’t go there or get the hell out (journalists) and if you hide when you see an apache helicopter, it might help.

When you consider how normally clinical war (official war rather than acts of terrorism) is now, for example picking windows for cruise missiles to fly through rather than say somewhere about the size of Liverpool the collateral damage (that’s non fighting folk getting killed) although very regrettable, is absolutely miniscule in comparison with what went on in WW2 and probably more people lost their lives in a day in WW1 than are lost in a year in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Its not right but while there are wars people will get killed, some more accidently than others.

[PeeJay]

The rules of engagement may not be worth the paper they are written on if this sort of mistake is possible. :confused:

There are several other worrying aspects to this, not least the fact that a supposed army defending the "free world" seems to take great pleasure in killing people from a safe height while safely ensconsed in a powerful killing machine. That's not my idea of a free world. Then there's the cover up, as they all subsequently knew that these people were not insurgents/terrorists - and the children and the USA's refusal to allow them access to better medical care than otherwise available in Iraq is sick minded - "out of sight, out of mind" perhaps? As to the killers in the sky: saying you shouldn't "...take your kids into a battle" is truly beyond belief - what kind of low life can utter such a sentiment while watching the small bodies of children being carried away??

I didn't see a battle, just lots of erroneous surmises, astonishingly bad decision making, poor moral judgement and ultimately cowardice - and all of it on 'our side' - not comforting in any way, really. None of this helps our cause IMO.

Are the names of any of these morons in the public domain, I wonder?

[Jack]

Just sat and watched around 15 folk be killed for standing about.

Its pretty horrific, if you dont find it a little bit disturbing i would be very worried.

Also there were no RPGs, the RPGs were cameras.

Did you know that RGPs use a very similar range finding system as some cameras? The warning systems on the aircraft probably couldn’t tell them apart. :agree:

So anyone care for the challenge? :cool2:

You’re the guy with his finger on the fire button. Its your choice … remember your in a war zone and you’ve just been warned there's an RPG aimed at you. Push the fire button or not? Remember in this instance there's no reset button when you are dead you are dead.



I'm not picking on you Mr Shoes.

[PeeJay]

Did you know that RGPs use a very similar range finding system as some cameras? The warning systems on the aircraft probably couldn’t tell them apart. :agree:

So anyone care for the challenge? :cool2:

You’re the guy with his finger on the fire button. Its your choice … remember your in a war zone and you’ve just been warned there's an RPG aimed at you. Push the fire button or not? Remember in this instance there's no reset button when you are dead you are dead.



I'm not picking on you Mr Shoes.

This and the reality on the video are not related in any way - your point is irrelevant in this particular instance, surely?

[J-C]

The main thing that sickened me here was the guy with his finger on the trigger goading the wounded guy to pick up a gun so he could blast him with another few rounds. Then when friends came to take away the wounded guy and bodies in a family type car they told their higher in command that they were taking away wounded and guns........no they were not, no guns were picked up, only 1 wounded guy......they get the go ahead and seconds later no car, no wounded guy and no rescuers, all dead.

Yes they had AK 45's but a few blasts near by would have seen them scatter and allow the groung troops to come in and arrest them, but typical Yanks, Gung Ho, all gins blazing kill as many as possible and get our little purple medals....Yee Ha!!!:grr:

[SlickShoes]

Did you know that RGPs use a very similar range finding system as some cameras? The warning systems on the aircraft probably couldn’t tell them apart. :agree:

So anyone care for the challenge? :cool2:

You’re the guy with his finger on the fire button. Its your choice … remember your in a war zone and you’ve just been warned there's an RPG aimed at you. Push the fire button or not? Remember in this instance there's no reset button when you are dead you are dead.



I'm not picking on you Mr Shoes.

I wouldnt be there, and the only way you will find me fighting a war is if someone comes and invades the country i live in.

I wont fight in some sort of ambiguous war that has never even been justified.

Id be walking the street with an AK if some far off super power came over and bombed the crap out of the city i live in.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It's the fact that people are still shocked and surprised by this sort of thing, even after more than a century of superviolent American imperialism, that I find baffling.

The power of cultural imperialism, I guess.

[PeeJay]

It's the fact that people are still shocked and surprised by this sort of thing, even after more than a century of superviolent American imperialism, that I find baffling.

The power of cultural imperialism, I guess.

It certainly shocked me - and the callousness of 'combatants' capable of such action will always do so, although I'm fully aware that this is actually what soldering involves, i.e. killing people.

However, surely your'e not suggesting this is an "American" thing? Not everything bad is American. There are good Americans in Afghanistan for example.

As to imperialism, the American stand against Communism in Asia or Europe - whether you may like it or not - saved us from the Russian version of what you refer to as imperialism. I know which version I prefer, do you?

[Betty Boop]

Seek the truth and the truth shall set you free! :bitchy:

[LiverpoolHibs]

It certainly shocked me - and the callousness of 'combatants' capable of such action will always do so, although I'm fully aware that this is actually what soldering involves, i.e. killing people.

But why? It's what invading/occupying imperialist armies do.


However, surely your'e not suggesting this is an "American" thing? Not everything bad is American. There are good Americans in Afghanistan for example.

What do you mean there are good Americans in Afghanistan? And what bearing does that have on anything? I'm, obviously, not suggesting Americans are uniquely 'evil' or anything like that - that would be ludicrous, they just act as every previous imperial power has acted.


As to imperialism, the American stand against Communism in Asia or Europe - whether you may like it or not - saved us from the Russian version of what you refer to as imperialism. I know which version I prefer, do you?

How?

It was terribly nice of them to slaughter a couple of million Vietnamese for little old us, though.

[hibsbollah]

Apologies for anyone who found the link upsetting. Personally I think its necessary to see what war consists of. We spend our time watching anodyne, banal news reports from 'embedded' journalists who are not allowed to report what actually happens. 'Collateral damage', 'ordinance' and words like that do not convey the reality of watching footage like that. And the recent action of the Pentagon suggests that they don't want us seeing it, either.

(i'm sure other Govt's and their military machines would behave similarly, before i am accused of anti-Americanism).

[PeeJay]

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2418570]But why? It's what invading/occupying imperialist armies do.

YOU do not appear to differentiate nor qualify - you taint it all with one sweeping statement - "...centuries of American super violent imperialism" - that comes across negatively from an American POV. And it is therefore plainly incorrect.


What do you mean there are good Americans in Afghanistan? Well, you seem to be implying that America is a super-violent imperialistic nation - I know there are good Americans in Afghanistan, so your point - is too sweeping and unfair, and needs changing. I've already criticised the atrocity (IMO) shown in the video - I know the US is not full of good souls only; I feel however, there has to be a more considered view of its actions - context is vital.

I'm, obviously, not suggesting Americans are uniquely 'evil' or anything like that - that would be ludicrous, they just act as every previous imperial power has acted. This comes across to me as somewhat contradictory in view of your previous assertion '... centuries of American super violent imperialism' - no-one else is mentioned, no other solutions proferred, seems obvious to me: so where do you stand? I read your post as it's all bad, you don't mention anything good - have I misunderstood you, perhaps? Or is your irony lost on me?





It was terribly nice of them to slaughter a couple of million Vietnamese for little old us, though. This is insulting on many levels IMO - "Killing Fields" mean anything to you? Vietnam may well have blurred the vision in terms of morally right or wrong (as opposed to WWI & WWII) - in a wider context however one has to set it against a world in which communism won because America turned away?

Killing people should never be viewed as a 100% correct act, but please don't respond by "we should all live in peace and be nice to each other" or asking - as you do - "why"?

Your "How?" to my assertion that the US stopped Russian imperialism and its spread westward baffles me - could it be you think it was something else that stopped them? :confused:

[Betty Boop]

It is quite clear from the comments of those in the cockpit, that they were after a high trophy count, it is like some computer game to them. Murder by joystick!

[LiverpoolHibs]

YOU do not appear to differentiate nor qualify - you taint it all with one sweeping statement - "...centuries of American super violent imperialism" - that comes across negatively from an American POV. And it is therefore plainly incorrect.

It's plainly incorrect because it comes over negatively from an American point of view?

Just so I know, what shouldn't be regarded as evidence for 'more than a century of violent American imperialism' out of (and I'll just do post-WWII to save time):

1950 - The Korean War.
1953 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government.
1954 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government.
1959 - Attempted invasion of Cuba.
1959 - Start of the Vietnam War.
1960 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Turkish goverment.
1960 - The overthrow of Patrice Lumumba's democratically elected Congolese government.
1960 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Ecuadorian government.
1963 - Overthrow of the Iraqi government and supply of lists of Iraqi communists, socialists and trade unionists to Saddam Hussein's nascent Ba'ath Party for 'liquidation'.
1963 - The overthrow of the democratically elected government of the Dominican Republic, installation of a puppet regime and crushing of popular revolt after popular revolt.
1964 - Overthrow of the democratically elected Brazilian government and support for the military junta.
1965 - Attempted coup in Indonesia followed by the rise of Suharto and the supply of lists of Indonesian leftists to him by the U.S. embassy for 'liquidation'.
1966 - Overhrow of Kwame Akrumah's democratically elected government in Ghana.
1969 - Covert bombing of Cambodia.
1973 - Overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically elected Chilean government and unwavering support for General Pinochet.
1975 Onwards - Funding and arming of the Lebanese Phalangists.
1975 - Overthrow of the East Timorese independence movment and support of the Indonesian occupation.
1980 - Overthrow of the Turkish government.
1981 onwards - Attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua and support for right wing death squads such as the Contras.
1991 - Overthrow of Aristide's democratically elected government in Haiti
1993 - Overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government.
2001 - Invasion of Afghanistan
2002 - Attempts to overhrow Hugo Chavez's democratically elected government in Venezuela.
2003 - Invasion of Iraq.
2004 - Second overthrow of Aristide's government in Haiti.
2006 Onwards - Funding and arming of Fatah in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.
2007 - Pre-election destabilisation of Venezuela in the hope of unseating the Chavez government.


What do you mean there are good Americans in Afghanistan? Well, you seem to be implying that America is a super-violent imperialistic nation - I know there are good Americans in Afghanistan, so your point - is too sweeping and unfair, and needs changing. I've already criticised the atrocity (IMO) shown in the video - I know the US is not full of good souls only; I feel however, there has to be a more considered view of its actions - context is vital.

I don't get the point of this 'good guys'/'bad guys' dichotomy. They are occupying someone else's country and routinely killing - both combatants and civilians - to maintain this occupation. Whether some of them would be decent company for a pint is utterly irrelevant.


I'm, obviously, not suggesting Americans are uniquely 'evil' or anything like that - that would be ludicrous, they just act as every previous imperial power has acted. This comes across to me as somewhat contradictory in view of your previous assertion '... centuries of American super violent imperialism' - no-one else is mentioned, no other solutions proferred, seems obvious to me: so where do you stand? I read your post as it's all bad, you don't mention anything good - have I misunderstood you, perhaps? Or is your irony lost on me?

There's no contradiction whatsoever. No-one else is mentioned because America has been the pre-eminent imperial power of the twentieth and early twenty-first century and because we've been talking about the U.S. I'm not sure where the complication is arising.

And again, in the interests of clarity, there is nothing unique at all about it. It's largely the same as any other imperialist superpower has acted in their particular period of domination.


It was terribly nice of them to slaughter a couple of million Vietnamese for little old us, though. This is insulting on many levels IMO - "Killing Fields" mean anything to you? Vietnam may well have blurred the vision in terms of morally right or wrong (as opposed to WWI & WWII) - in a wider context however one has to set it against a world in which communism won because America turned away?

Eh? The Killing Fields were in Cambodia not Vietnam; and it was the Vietnamese that overthrew the Khmer Rouge. And, erm yeah, I'm terribly sorry to be offensive; I'd have thought the actual slaughtering of a couple of million people in an attempt to uphold the rule of a corrupt, authoritarian and undemocratic regime was slightly more offensive. But horses for courses...

Leaving aside the apparently unquestionable morality of the First World War (I fundamentally disagree but that's getting miles of topic), I'm struggling with the idea that American involvement in Vietnam was, at worst, slightly morally questionable.

You do know that communism did win in Vietnam, aye? Domino theory is/was an absolute nonsense based on a complete misunderstanding of anti-colonialist movements, communism and an Orientalist notion of the apparent homogeneity of the East.


Killing people should never be viewed as a 100% correct act, but please don't respond by "we should all live in peace and be nice to each other" or asking - as you do - "why"?

Eurgh, I certainly don't subscribe to the first quote.


Your "How?" to my assertion that the US stopped Russian imperialism and its spread westward baffles me - could it be you think it was something else that stopped them? :confused:

So the Cold War was about the containment of Soviet expansionism?

[PeeJay]

Typical bias for some strange reason - no need to read any of your post really - you have your opinion you are entitled to it naturally! You fail completely to see my point of view but then your POV is not interested in balance or context, it's typical of the big bad American vibe so beloved of, e.g. leftist liberals - typical ploy: selective lists of USA imperialistic activities - no mention of China, Russia, Germany - why did you chose to start in 1950 - to save time - how convienent? How can you leave what came before out - doesn't that skew the view somewhat? Maybe it was all bad before as well?

You're perfectly right with your list of unwise American political endeavours BTW - I've no beef with that at all - America has committed lots of amazingly stupid acts in its recent history, it's the lack of any balance in your post - so perfectly exemplified by your response - I was referring to. Who knows maybe you even think the Taliban are better for the people of Afghanistan than the Americans - it's an opinion: hey, some people actually believe it!

I didn't narrow the reference to Vietnam BTW - my OP spoke of Asia, Europe YOU narrowed it to Vietnam, I saw no reason to stick to Vietnam. It was Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge who committed the atrocity of murdering the Vietnamese in the Killing Fields - that was the moral dilema I was referring to good guys/bad guys all mixed up, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. Of course if you were interested in context you would have came to the conclusion yourself.

As to communism winning Vietnam - give me a break - communism has lost all down the line. Vietnam was a battle lost in the ideologoical war. China, communist? I rest my case!

So you think the Cold War was about what exactly if not stopping Soviet Russia from expanding ... seemed that way here in Berlin.

I'm sick to death of people explaining how bad the imperialistic Americans are - it's so easy to bash them. The world's much more complicated than you seem to be suggesting. Open your eyes. And before you say it, I'm most certainly not biased towards the US.

Anyway this is all off the original thread's topic somehow - best let it go.

[RyeSloan]

As an aside to PeeJay and LH's discussion why is America refered to as some type of 'invading force' in Afghanistan.

The current mission is Afghanistan is an ISAF misison (effectively NATO) which was established via the UN Security Council

Last time I looked NATO were in the country with the agreement of their (kind of) democratically elected government, the UN and comprised of a significant number of individual countries from around the world.

As for the OP...not surprising, train people to kill and they will kill. Stopping certian combat troops from doing this is almost impossible. However it is the top brass' efforts to cover up thats especially damming here although again I doubt any military in the world would not try and do the same, even those on the side of 'Freedom'

[LiverpoolHibs]

Typical bias for some strange reason - no need to read any of your post really - you have your opinion you are entitled to it naturally! You fail completely to see my point of view but then your POV is not interested in balance or context, it's typical of the big bad American vibe so beloved of, e.g. leftist liberals - typical ploy: selective lists of USA imperialistic activities - no mention of China, Russia, Germany - why did you chose to start in 1950 - to save time - how convienent? How can you leave what came before out - doesn't that skew the view somewhat? Maybe it was all bad before as well?

I've got very little idea what you're talking about.

The thread is about an example of American imperialist violence, it moved onto American imperialism more generally - why would I then start counterpointing every example with one of the Soviet Union, China or Germany? Feel free to start a thread on any one of them and I'll happilly offer my thoughts, although I can't promise you'll need to read them either.

I chose to start at 1945, as I said, to save time and because that was a point of massive imperial escalation. There are any number of pre-war examples if you're interested; and no, they don't particularly skew the view.

We could go right back to the ethnic cleansing of their own native inhabitants if you like, then onto the Spanish-American War, the 1890s interventions in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, China, Panama which have continued ever since, troops sent to aid the White Army in Russia and various other examples.


You're perfectly right with your list of unwise American political endeavours BTW - I've no beef with that at all - America has committed lots of amazingly stupid acts in its recent history, it's the lack of any balance in your post - so perfectly exemplified by your response - I was referring to. Who knows maybe you even think the Taliban are better for the people of Afghanistan than the Americans - it's an opinion: hey, some people actually believe it!

To avoid this lack of 'balance' in future, is there any historical crime I'm allowed to mention without giving a comparative example?


I didn't narrow the reference to Vietnam BTW - my OP spoke of Asia, Europe YOU narrowed it to Vietnam, I saw no reason to stick to Vietnam. It was Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge who committed the atrocity of murdering the Vietnamese in the Killing Fields - that was the moral dilema I was referring to good guys/bad guys all mixed up, maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. Of course if you were interested in context you would have came to the conclusion yourself.

I'm confused again, I didn't say you'd narrowed it to Vietnam and it wasn't just ethnic Vietnamese murdered in the Killing Fields.


As to communism winning Vietnam - give me a break - communism has lost all down the line. Vietnam was a battle lost in the ideologoical war. China, communist? I rest my case!

Well, the Soviet Union wasn't communist or even socialist by any proper definition after about 1925 - so I'm not sure what the point is there. I was just pointing out that the communists won the Vietnam War, nothing more.


So you think the Cold War was about what exactly if not stopping Soviet Russia from expanding ... seemed that way here in Berlin.

It was about numerous things and stopping Soviet expansionism was very far down the list as the U.S./NATO was perfectly well aware that the Soviets didn't have the inclination or wherewithal for any large-scale territorial expansion. Afghanistan aside every single large-scale Soviet military intervention took place along the corridor of Europe that had been used to invade it in 1914 and 1941. And before the inevitable accusations this isn't an apologia for the crimes of Soviet imperialism which should be condemned in the strongest terms.

For all the focus on foreign policy the Cold War was, to my mind, largely about the domestic infrastructure and populace of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and was largely a mutually beneficial and mutually agreed-upon set-up for both. It allowed the Soviet ruling class to fully cement its power through the manipulation of the memory of the First and Second World War amongst its people with the U.S., NATO and the prospect of a unified Germany acting as justification for oppression, authoritarianism and the stratified accumulation of capital. The U.S. and NATO member states were able to use the spectre of the U.S.S.R. to bring about the acquiescence of their respective populations to capitalist liberal democracy (McCarthyism, black-listing) and, in the U.S. in particular, coerce tax-payers into the subsidisation of the military-industrial complex which in turn created a booming economy and, most importantly, profits.

That's without mentioning the protection of economic interests abroad and the subsuming of the natural resources of other nation's for private profit that continues to this day.


I'm sick to death of people explaining how bad the imperialistic Americans are - it's so easy to bash them. The world's much more complicated than you seem to be suggesting. Open your eyes. And before you say it, I'm most certainly not biased towards the US.

Anyway this is all off the original thread's topic somehow - best let it go.

You haven't actually pointed out any over-simplifications. What should I be opening my eyes to?

[PeeJay]

It's the fact that people are still shocked and surprised by this sort of thing, even after more than a century of superviolent American imperialism, that I find baffling.



Your statement here clearly suggests to me that people shouldn't be surprised at the actions of the Americans - I find that offensive - as you seem to suggest that is all America is about. I think people should be surprised at such a viewpoint.

Anyway, I do wonder how can any reasonable-minded person can be surprised at a country exerting its political and economic muscle, for its own ends? Is that not the way of the world?

America for all its faults (many of which you listed and which I fully accept) has done more good than bad for the world. I am concerned at your lack of balance and context.

Again - the USA has made many extremely deplorable mistakes and its political outlook is often not conform with my own - but to my way of thinking you are attempting to paint a picture of a world that does not exist.

Perhaps you should stand back and try to comprehend a world in which America itself didn't exist - or didn't get involved? My American friends would laugh at such naivety from the Brits - with our record.


You have an interesting outloook, though I feel strongly misguided - I wouldn't you to think that I know better and you know nothing - I just see it very differently to you.

[hibsbollah]

ah...this thread is going in a predictable direction:greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Your statement here clearly suggests to me that people shouldn't be surprised at the actions of the Americans - I find that offensive - as you seem to suggest that is all America is about. I think people should be surprised at such a viewpoint.

No, that's the conclusion you've made. I said that I was baffled at people's surprise considering the historical events of the last century or so.

What I was getting at is that as imperialism, whether British, French, Belgian, American or whoever, requires the dehumanisation of the native population and the construction of a necessary semi-latent racism and supremacism within the people charged with carrying this through on the ground you shouldn't be particularly surprised when they act in the manner shown in the video.

The reaction to this has been, and will continue to be, predictable; this was an exceptional case which tarnishes the good name of the American military etc. etc. etc. rather than the reality of the necessity of inculcating that sort of thinking within those people.

At no point did I say that 'that is all America is about'. Far, far from it.


Anyway, I do wonder how can any reasonable-minded person can be surprised at a country exerting its political and economic muscle, for its own ends? Is that not the way of the world?

We might be getting somewhere...


America for all its faults (many of which you listed and which I fully accept) has done more good than bad for the world. I am concerned at your lack of balance and context.

I'll try again. What lack of balance? What lack of context?


Again - the USA has made many extremely deplorable mistakes and its political outlook is often not conform with my own - but to my way of thinking you are attempting to paint a picture of a world that does not exist.

What's that? I'm not trying to paint a picture of anything.


Perhaps you should stand back and try to comprehend a world in which America itself didn't exist - or didn't get involved? My American friends would laugh at such naivety from the Brits - with our record.

You have an interesting outloook, though I feel strongly misguided - I wouldn't you to think that I know better and you know nothing - I just see it very differently to you.

But you haven't actually argued anything; you've just talked in platitudes and bromides.

[GhostofBolivar]

When you consider how normally clinical war (official war rather than acts of terrorism) is now, for example picking windows for cruise missiles to fly through rather than say somewhere about the size of Liverpool...

During the invasion of Iraq, 18 US marines were killed in Nasiriyah by USAF A-10s because the forward air controller called in air strikes without knowing where either Iraqi or US troops were. Jessica Lynch's unit drove through Iraqi lines without being fired on and were then lit up when they tried to withdraw after realising their mistake.

In Generation Kill the marines of first recon - among the best trained troops available to the US - kill civilians who don't stop at a roadblock; civilians who don't get the chance to stop at a roadblock; a civilian bystander who gets hit in the head by a warning shot that ricochets off the road; and seriously wound two 14-year old kids while assaulting an airfield. Their commanders call in an air strike on a hamlet despite there being no sign of Iraqi forces using it. An officer also tries to call in an artillery strike on top of his own position by mistake, but fails because he forgets to use the correct radio protocols.

In the first 2 years of the occupation, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ claims that coalition forces were responsible for 37% of the 24,865 civilians killed by the conflict. On top of that, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine discovered that when aerial bombing killed civilians, it not only killed a lot of them (on average 17 per incident), but also that the victims would mostly be women and children.

In one friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan, the USAF killed a number of Canadians. When asked why they had opened fire when told not to, the pilots replied that they felt the amphetamines the air force were giving them had impaired their judgement. They've also - very infamously - bombed a wedding there, killing 30 civilians in the process.

And that's just scratching the surface of clinical warfare in the 21st century.


The main thing that sickened me here was the guy with his finger on the trigger goading the wounded guy to pick up a gun so he could blast him with another few rounds.

It's hardly a suprising attitude if you're familiar with the work of L/Cpl Harold Trombley...

YouTube - Generation Kill- Trombley Dead Eye Killer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnmm2lgg5sI)

[--------]

No, that's the conclusion you've made. I said that I was baffled at people's surprise considering the historical events of the last century or so.

What I was getting at is that as imperialism, whether British, French, Belgian, American or whoever, requires the dehumanisation of the native population and the construction of a necessary semi-latent racism and supremacism within the people charged with carrying this through on the ground you shouldn't be particularly surprised when they act in the manner shown in the video.

The reaction to this has been, and will continue to be, predictable; this was an exceptional case which tarnishes the good name of the American military etc. etc. etc. rather than the reality of the necessity of inculcating that sort of thinking within those people.




:top marks THAT (in bold) is exactly the point.

In the 1930's the Imperial Japanese Army fought an explicitly racist war in China. When they were challenged about this by the US, they poiinted out that they were doing nothing that the Americans had not done in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War in the 1890's - and they were right, they weren't. The Americans committed horrible atrocities in the Philippines. As they did on Vietnam, and in Cambodia.

And in the 1940's, we and the US fought an explicitly racist war against the Japanese, as they did against us.

"How The West Was Won" - land-grabbing, theft, rape and murder, all justified by broken treaties and political double-dealing, culminating in genocide on a massive scale. No different from the British Empire and its dealings with native people from Ireland to West Africa to the Indian sub-continent to the Far East to the Inuit.... Or the Belgians in the Congo. Or the French in Indo-China. Or the Spanish in South America and the Philippines.

It's not that the US presence in Iraq is a particularly nasty example of Western imperialist intervention leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians - though IMO it's all these things and more. It's that this is the way imperialist intervention always works out. By consciously dehumanising the people we've colonised, we unconsciously dehumanise our own people to a far greater extent. We make them racists and murderers. George Orwell made that point very clearly more than 80 years ago, in his Burmese writings, IIRC.

There are two men in that film who appear to be carrying rifles. There are two men with camera-bags over their shoulders. These bags initially might be suspected as possibly containing weapons. In fact, they clearly turn out to contain - cameras. There are NO RPGs in that film. We see no weapons being pointed at the helicopter. When the van arrives to take the wounded man to safety, no one picks up any weapons, despite the claims of the buckaroo on the radio. They carry the injured man to the van. Then the helicopter gunner opens fire and the men are killed. The van gets well shot-over, and that's when the two children are wounded. The children are clearly children.

Again, it isn't that the film itself is horrifying - although in my estimation it is. It's the combination of the film and what we see on it with the subsequent statements to the media by US Army spokesmen - statements that those spokesmen must have known simply were not true. Or maybe THEY believed what they were saying, but had been fed lies by the US Army PR department.

And btw - those pictures come from the gun-camera. They're low-quality, and may not be the clearest, but bear in mind that the soldiers in the chopper would have had a clear view by eyesight from low altitude of who and what they were shooting at - a clearer view than from the camera. And they would have had field-glasses to zoom in for close-ups if they were in any doubt as to what they were seeing.

[PeeJay]

No, that's the conclusion you've made. I said that I was baffled at people's surprise considering the historical events of the last century or so. ........

.

Must be me then - you state that one shouldn’t be surprised about the century of super-violent American imperialism. That seems pretty all-inclusive to me – I don’t get the bit where you think the US does or has done some good? You go on to list all the wrong things (in your opinion) the US has done down through the decades without ONCE noting anything of good that the States has undertaken. Is that balanced? That seems pretty negative and one-sided to me particularly in view of America’s stance on many things. Your lopsided view is hardly unprejudiced, your selective listing of facts to suit your opinion suggests you are perhaps following some personal agenda, rather than offering any serious consideration? Little of what you say – apart from the list of facts – can be taken seriously in my view. Your whole post seems pretty out of kilter to me – you ask me about balance and context, but provide none yourself. You say I’ve made a conclusion that is wrong, but you then go on to repeat the accusation – again all-inclusive American super-violent imperialism – no qualification forthcoming on your part. As to me not actually arguing – I don’t recall saying I was arguing, I just disagree with almost everything you say.

What the hell - for “Platitudes and bromides” alone this exchange has been worth it in my opinion - cheers!:greengrin

[J-C]

LiverpoolHibs," Viva Le Revelution, down with capitalism, share everything, little red book, blah blah blah".............................everyone else" give it a rest eh, we all know you're a far leftie, enough is enough, all the threads you post on end up the same argument." :wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Must be me then - you state that one shouldn’t be surprised about the century of super-violent American imperialism. That seems pretty all-inclusive to me – I don’t get the bit where you think the US does or has done some good? You go on to list all the wrong things (in your opinion) the US has done down through the decades without ONCE noting anything of good that the States has undertaken. Is that balanced? That seems pretty negative and one-sided to me particularly in view of America’s stance on many things. Your lopsided view is hardly unprejudiced, your selective listing of facts to suit your opinion suggests you are perhaps following some personal agenda, rather than offering any serious consideration? Little of what you say – apart from the list of facts – can be taken seriously in my view. Your whole post seems pretty out of kilter to me – you ask me about balance and context, but provide none yourself. You say I’ve made a conclusion that is wrong, but you then go on to repeat the accusation – again all-inclusive American super-violent imperialism – no qualification forthcoming on your part. As to me not actually arguing – I don’t recall saying I was arguing, I just disagree with almost everything you say.

What the hell - for “Platitudes and bromides” alone this exchange has been worth it in my opinion - cheers!:greengrin

What personal agenda would I have?

If nothing I say can be taken seriously you should be able to demolish what I've said pretty easily. You haven't even attempted to do so...


LiverpoolHibs," Viva Le Revelution, down with capitalism, share everything, little red book, blah blah blah".............................everyone else" give it a rest eh, we all know you're a far leftie, enough is enough, all the threads you post on end up the same argument." :wink:

That's me told.

[J-C]

What personal agenda would I have?

If nothing I say can be taken seriously you should be able to demolish what I've said pretty easily. You haven't even attempted to do so...



That's me told.

Didn't realise I was telling you anything, just pointing out that when you join in on a thread, you generally turn it into a left wing rant against the western civilisation.
Instead of trying to preach your extreme viewpoints to us mere capitalists, try looking at them jubjectively and have discussions instead of ramming your Marxist propoganda down our throats.
Now that's you told.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Didn't realise I was telling you anything, just pointing out that when you join in on a thread, you generally turn it into a left wing rant against the western civilisation.
Instead of trying to preach your extreme viewpoints to us mere capitalists, try looking at them jubjectively and have discussions instead of ramming your Marxist propoganda down our throats.
Now that's you told.

Ha, excellent...

I'm not really sure how I'm 'preaching' to any greater extent than anyone else on here who posts their opinions on any given subject, or how I've 'rammed my Marxist propaganda' down anyone's throat.

[RyeSloan]

Ha, excellent...

I'm not really sure how I'm 'preaching' to any greater extent than anyone else on here who posts their opinions on any given subject, or how I've 'rammed my Marxist propaganda' down anyone's throat.


To a degree you are correct, you don't lay out your own propaganda you simply show uber keen interest in dengrating and dismissing anything to do with the west and capitalism...

Interestingly though you are rather less keen to explain just how your brave new world that would replace this one (which you so obviously despise) would actually look and work!!

[--------]

The OP was about a film which demonstrates fairly graphically exactly how certain US forces interpreted their rules of engagement in a country they were allegedly 'liberating'.

If that was all within the rules of engagement of the time, those rules needed tightening - urgently.

[hibsbollah]

The OP was about a film which demonstrates fairly graphically exactly how certain US forces interpreted their rules of engagement in a country they were allegedly 'liberating'.

If that was all within the rules of engagement of the time, those rules needed tightening - urgently.

It raises all sorts of interesting questions; the role of whistleblowers in the army, the use of the uncensored internet, the role of the press (the BBC site is now carrying the story), the US military's cover up, the psychological state of someone hovering hundreds of metres in the air raining death(Zeus/Thor-like?) on the mortals below...

I agree with your post Doddie, although in 2007 Iraq had already been 'liberated' three years before and the US army was effectively a 'policing' force, although admittedly policing a failed state with no effective Govt, water supplies, power etc. legally the 'rules of engagement' might not even be applied, as the innocents on the ground werent combatants.

[--------]

It raises all sorts of interesting questions; the role of whistleblowers in the army, the use of the uncensored internet, the role of the press (the BBC site is now carrying the story), the US military's cover up, the psychological state of someone hovering hundreds of metres in the air raining death(Zeus/Thor-like?) on the mortals below...

I agree with your post Doddie, although in 2007 Iraq had already been 'liberated' three years before and the US army was effectively a 'policing' force, although admittedly policing a failed state with no effective Govt, water supplies, power etc. legally the 'rules of engagement' might not even be applied, as the innocents on the ground werent combatants.


I have to say that if that's policing, it's policing at about the same level as the Wehrmacht and SS operated at in the Ukraine and Belorus in 1942-3.

[LiverpoolHibs]

To a degree you are correct, you don't lay out your own propaganda you simply show uber keen interest in dengrating and dismissing anything to do with the west and capitalism...

Interestingly though you are rather less keen to explain just how your brave new world that would replace this one (which you so obviously despise) would actually look and work!!

I denigrate and dismiss anything to do with the West? Crikey, that's some going...

And presupposing that I don't have an idea for a 'brave new world', that has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of criticisms of the existing system.

[marinello59]

I denigrate and dismiss anything to do with the West? Crikey, that's some going...

And presupposing that I don't have an idea for a 'brave new world', that has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of criticisms of the existing system.

But surely if you criticise you have an alternative plan to put forward? Or is it all a case of saying 'You don't wanna do that mate' in the style of Harry Enfield and hoping somebody else comes up with something you do approve of? Is that what the left is all about these days? It used to be they provided alternatives to the existing system. Now it seems they just stamp their feet on the sidelines like children denied their own way. Which is thoroughly depressing.

[LiverpoolHibs]

But surely if you criticise you have an alternative plan to put forward? Or is it all a case of saying 'You don't wanna do that mate' in the style of Harry Enfield and hoping somebody else comes up with something you do approve of? Is that what the left is all about these days? It used to be they provided alternatives to the existing system. Now it seems they just stamp their feet on the sidelines like children denied their own way. Which is thoroughly depressing.

Absolutely not. Which is why I said 'presupposing'.

I was just pointing out that a critique of something doesn't fall down because an alternative to whatever is being criticised isn't immediately offered.

[J-C]

Absolutely not. Which is why I said 'presupposing'.

I was just pointing out that a critique of something doesn't fall down because an alternative to whatever is being criticised isn't immediately offered.


Then you cannot go criticising just for the fun of it, there has to be a reason, if you are so anti west and in particular USA, then I would assume you had a proposal for an alternative lifestyle to take it's place.

Or is this alternative the same one that was very popular in the 50's up until not so long ago when a certain big wll in Germany came tumbling down and USSR disintigrated and became all the weird and wonderful countries that now occupy that once strong communist land.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Then you cannot go criticising just for the fun of it, there has to be a reason, if you are so anti west and in particular USA, then I would assume you had a proposal for an alternative lifestyle to take it's place.

Or is this alternative the same one that was very popular in the 50's up until not so long ago when a certain big wll in Germany came tumbling down and USSR disintigrated and became all the weird and wonderful countries that now occupy that once strong communist land.

Sigh, I'm not 'anti-west' or 'anti-USA'.

[J-C]

Sigh, I'm not 'anti-west' or 'anti-USA'.


It's the fact that people are still shocked and surprised by this sort of thing, even after more than a century of superviolent American imperialism, that I find baffling.

The power of cultural imperialism, I guess.



I've got very little idea what you're talking about.

The thread is about an example of American imperialist violence, it moved onto American imperialism more generally - why would I then start counterpointing every example with one of the Soviet Union, China or Germany? Feel free to start a thread on any one of them and I'll happilly offer my thoughts, although I can't promise you'll need to read them either.

I chose to start at 1945, as I said, to save time and because that was a point of massive imperial escalation. There are any number of pre-war examples if you're interested; and no, they don't particularly skew the view.

We could go right back to the ethnic cleansing of their own native inhabitants if you like, then onto the Spanish-American War, the 1890s interventions in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, China, Panama which have continued ever since, troops sent to aid the White Army in Russia and various other examples.


What do you mean there are good Americans in Afghanistan? And what bearing does that have on anything? I'm, obviously, not suggesting Americans are uniquely 'evil' or anything like that - that would be ludicrous, they just act as every previous imperial power has acted.


It's plainly incorrect because it comes over negatively from an American point of view?

Just so I know, what shouldn't be regarded as evidence for 'more than a century of violent American imperialism' out of (and I'll just do post-WWII to save time):

1950 - The Korean War.
1953 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government.
1954 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government.
1959 - Attempted invasion of Cuba.
1959 - Start of the Vietnam War.
1960 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Turkish goverment.
1960 - The overthrow of Patrice Lumumba's democratically elected Congolese government.
1960 - The overthrow of the democratically elected Ecuadorian government.
1963 - Overthrow of the Iraqi government and supply of lists of Iraqi communists, socialists and trade unionists to Saddam Hussein's nascent Ba'ath Party for 'liquidation'.
1963 - The overthrow of the democratically elected government of the Dominican Republic, installation of a puppet regime and crushing of popular revolt after popular revolt.
1964 - Overthrow of the democratically elected Brazilian government and support for the military junta.
1965 - Attempted coup in Indonesia followed by the rise of Suharto and the supply of lists of Indonesian leftists to him by the U.S. embassy for 'liquidation'.
1966 - Overhrow of Kwame Akrumah's democratically elected government in Ghana.
1969 - Covert bombing of Cambodia.
1973 - Overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically elected Chilean government and unwavering support for General Pinochet.
1975 Onwards - Funding and arming of the Lebanese Phalangists.
1975 - Overthrow of the East Timorese independence movment and support of the Indonesian occupation.
1980 - Overthrow of the Turkish government.
1981 onwards - Attempting to overthrow the democratically elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua and support for right wing death squads such as the Contras.
1991 - Overthrow of Aristide's democratically elected government in Haiti
1993 - Overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government.
2001 - Invasion of Afghanistan
2002 - Attempts to overhrow Hugo Chavez's democratically elected government in Venezuela.
2003 - Invasion of Iraq.
2004 - Second overthrow of Aristide's government in Haiti.
2006 Onwards - Funding and arming of Fatah in an attempt to overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza.
2007 - Pre-election destabilisation of Venezuela in the hope of unseating the Chavez government.



It was about numerous things and stopping Soviet expansionism was very far down the list as the U.S./NATO was perfectly well aware that the Soviets didn't have the inclination or wherewithal for any large-scale territorial expansion. Afghanistan aside every single large-scale Soviet military intervention took place along the corridor of Europe that had been used to invade it in 1914 and 1941. And before the inevitable accusations this isn't an apologia for the crimes of Soviet imperialism which should be condemned in the strongest terms.

For all the focus on foreign policy the Cold War was, to my mind, largely about the domestic infrastructure and populace of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and was largely a mutually beneficial and mutually agreed-upon set-up for both. It allowed the Soviet ruling class to fully cement its power through the manipulation of the memory of the First and Second World War amongst its people with the U.S., NATO and the prospect of a unified Germany acting as justification for oppression, authoritarianism and the stratified accumulation of capital. The U.S. and NATO member states were able to use the spectre of the U.S.S.R. to bring about the acquiescence of their respective populations to capitalist liberal democracy (McCarthyism, black-listing) and, in the U.S. in particular, coerce tax-payers into the subsidisation of the military-industrial complex which in turn created a booming economy and, most importantly, profits.

That's without mentioning the protection of economic interests abroad and the subsuming of the natural resources of other nation's for private profit that continues to this day.



Just a few of your post on this thread to get started.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Just a few of your post on this thread to get started.

To get what started?

[Woody1985]

JC50, you'd be better banging your head off a brick wall. IMO, LH is so far left that his views are equal to that of the far right.

I don't think I've ever seen him concede a point on any subject matter (and he seems to know a hell of a lot about a lot of subjects!). This can sometimes be summed up with sheer ignorance like his last post.

[LiverpoolHibs]

JC50, you'd be better banging your head off a brick wall. IMO, LH is so far left that his views are equal to that of the far right.

I don't think I've ever seen him concede a point on any subject matter (and he seems to know a hell of a lot about a lot of subjects!). This can sometimes be summed up with sheer ignorance like his last post.

Is there any point in asking you to explain that?

How was my last post illustrative of 'sheer ignorance'?

[Danderhall Hibs]

Is there any point in asking you to explain that?

How was my last post illustrative of 'sheer ignorance'?

May I suggest that he's suggesting that views are in a circular format, meaning that far left meets far right in the middle. :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Is there any point in asking you to explain that?

How was my last post illustrative of 'sheer ignorance'?

Because the impression you give is that unless everyone conforms to your way of thinking they are wrong and treated with contempt.

On the second point, you stated that you are not anti-west/american, JC gave example of posts from this thread 'to get started' on why he thinks you are. You retort with 'get what started'. It's either obtuse or complete ignorance. I don't think you're obtuse.

I can't really be arsed getting in a back and forth that will last for eternity but it is clear from your previous posts that you seem to have an unhealthy dislike for British and Amercian people/way of life.

[LiverpoolHibs]

May I suggest that he's suggesting that views are in a circular format, meaning that far left meets far right in the middle. :greengrin

It's an interesting theory, I'll give him that!


Because the impression you give is that unless everyone conforms to your way of thinking they are wrong and treated with contempt.

Sorry, who have I treated with contempt?

Nowhere have I suggested that everyone should conform to my way of thinking (unless you can provide examples, hell, even one example) but I'm not going to pretend I think people are correct about something if I think they're wrong. And it would be pretty strange for anyone else to do so.

And I'm still confused about how that has anything whatsoever with my beliefs being similar to those of the far-right.


On the second point, you stated that you are not anti-west/american, JC gave example of posts from this thread 'to get started' on why he thinks you are. You retort with 'get what started'. It's either obtuse or complete ignorance. I don't think you're obtuse.

No, he copy and pasted a number of my posts to back up his claim that I was 'anti-western' and 'anti-American'. I was well aware of what I have written in this thread; if he can't be arsed to actually construct an argument as to why what I have posted leads him to that conclusion, I'm not going to bother properly replying to him.


I can't really be arsed getting in a back and forth that will last for eternity but it is clear from your previous posts that you seem to have an unhealthy dislike for British and Amercian people/way of life.

And, of course, what that actually means is that you probably know that isn't true, therefore know that you couldn't defend the claim and so you won't.

If I state a sincere dislike of the Iranian theocracy does that equate to me having an 'unhealthy dislike for the Iranian people/way of life'? If I state a sincere dislike of the Burmese junta does that equate to me having 'an unhealthy dislike for the Burmese people/way of life'. If I state a sincere dislike of the Stalinist dictatorship of North Korea does that equate to me having 'an unhealthy dislike of the North Korean people/way of life'?

[J-C]

It's an interesting theory, I'll give him that!



Sorry, who have I treated with contempt?

Nowhere have I suggested that everyone should conform to my way of thinking (unless you can provide examples, hell, even one example) but I'm not going to pretend I think people are correct about something if I think they're wrong. And it would be pretty strange for anyone else to do so.

And I'm still confused about how that has anything whatsoever with my beliefs being similar to those of the far-right.

You constantly drum down peoples throats with your left wing, anti west claptrap, yet when we suggest this you say" me, not I sir, I'd never do anything like that."
Far left and far right are very similar, because both have extreme viewpoints and both are unwilling to concede any ground to any views other than their own.


No, he copy and pasted a number of my posts to back up his claim that I was 'anti-western' and 'anti-American'. I was well aware of what I have written in this thread; if he can't be arsed to actually construct an argument as to why what I have posted leads him to that conclusion, I'm not going to bother properly replying to him.

I didn't need to write an argument due to the fact I wasn't arguing, so instead I pasted some of your earlier post to prove my point, which obviously you don't seem to see or acknowledge, hence the reason we feel you treat people with contempt.


And, of course, what that actually means is that you probably know that isn't true, therefore know that you couldn't defend the claim and so you won't.

If I state a sincere dislike of the Iranian theocracy does that equate to me having an 'unhealthy dislike for the Iranian people/way of life'? If I state a sincere dislike of the Burmese junta does that equate to me having 'an unhealthy dislike for the Burmese people/way of life'. If I state a sincere dislike of the Stalinist dictatorship of North Korea does that equate to me having 'an unhealthy dislike of the North Korean people/way of life'?

We all dislike certain things in this world and it's good to discuss them reationally with other people, without being preached at or arguing about it. By all means have these thoughts but please try to refrain from constantly berating anyone who's views differ from yours, it becomes boring and tedious after a while.

.

[RyeSloan]

I denigrate and dismiss anything to do with the West? Crikey, that's some going...

And presupposing that I don't have an idea for a 'brave new world', that has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of criticisms of the existing system.

So do you or do you not have an idea for a system that is removed from the current one or should I presuppose you presupposed that using presuppose would prevent you having to put your ideas up for scrutiny rather than saying everything is wrong without proposing viable alternatives?

[HibsMax]

The main thing that sickened me here was the guy with his finger on the trigger goading the wounded guy to pick up a gun so he could blast him with another few rounds. Then when friends came to take away the wounded guy and bodies in a family type car they told their higher in command that they were taking away wounded and guns........no they were not, no guns were picked up, only 1 wounded guy......they get the go ahead and seconds later no car, no wounded guy and no rescuers, all dead.

Yes they had AK 45's but a few blasts near by would have seen them scatter and allow the groung troops to come in and arrest them, but typical Yanks, Gung Ho, all gins blazing kill as many as possible and get our little purple medals....Yee Ha!!!:grr:

We've crossed swords before, JC50, because it's obvious to me that you have a dislike of all things American. Unless of course "typical Yanks" is not a generalisation? :wink:. Just admit that you hate the United States. You know that a "purple medal" (do you mean Purple Heart?) is awarded for being injured in combat, not killing X people? I guess I'm being overly sensitive. LOL. I don't think I am because this is the 3rd thread that I have seen you make similar comments.

But back in topic.

I saw this video a couple of days ago and it's very sad indeed. I am sure there have been many more innocent people killed in all wars around the world but that doesn't lessen this, or any other accident. It also doesn't help that the public has access to videos such as these because it makes things far more "real" and it really brings the horror of war into your living room, in a very graphic manner. I'm sure if the public knew of every operation that the armed forces were involved in there would be many more stories like this. It's war. People, innocent people, get killed. It's a sad reality.

I personally think that soldiers (of all nations) have a very difficult job to do and I don't envy them one bit. There is a very fine line between hero and villain.

I actually find it quite strange that in this day and age, as civilised as we are, we still need to resort to killing people and collateral damage to get our point across. Can we all just play chess?

EDIT:


if you are so anti west and in particular USA, then I would assume you had a proposal for an alternative lifestyle to take it's place.
I must just be misreading your posts JC50 because sometimes, to me, YOU come over as anti-American but here you are apparently defending them/us. I'm confused. Apologies if I have you all wrong (and if I'm being too sensitive :wink:)

[HibsMax]

It is quite clear from the comments of those in the cockpit, that they were after a high trophy count, it is like some computer game to them. Murder by joystick!
1. They're paid to kill the bad guys, NOT question orders. That's how the whole system works. Can you imagine the confusion if everyone with an opinion wanted to debate the course of action first? Wouldn't work.
2. I wouldn't surprised if they did think of it as a computer game. We're a long way away from the days where you had to look at somebody in the eyes as they died on your sword. The armed forces even use video "games" in their training.

It's sad but at the end of the day, killing is killing. It doesn't matter if you use a club, a sword, a gun or a tank. The end result is the same. Of course I am talking about what you might want to term as legitimate kills, not innocent people being mowed down. :(

[LiverpoolHibs]

You constantly drum down peoples throats with your left wing, anti west claptrap, yet when we suggest this you say" me, not I sir, I'd never do anything like that."
Just repeating something doesn't make true. I haven't forced my views on anyone, I post them on the subjects on here that interest me – take them, leave them or argue with them on their own merits (or otherwise). I'm still not exactly sure what you're finding so annoying.

Far left and far right are very similar, because both have extreme viewpoints and both are unwilling to concede any ground to any views other than their own.

So, essentially what you're saying is that they're similar in that both of them are, by definition, not the status quo? That's not really much of a similarity.

Representative democracy and universal suffrage were 'extreme viewpoints' one hundred or so years ago – that doesn't mean anything as a criticism.

Are other positions on the political spectrum more likely to concede ground and why is conceding ground necessarily a good thing?


I didn't need to write an argument due to the fact I wasn't arguing, so instead I pasted some of your earlier post to prove my point, which obviously you don't seem to see or acknowledge, hence the reason we feel you treat people with contempt.

And as I've said, unless you can say why you think anything I've written in the posts you pasted are evidence of me being 'anti-Western' or 'anti-American' there's little point continuing with this. I'm not treating anyone with contempt by expecting that of you.

As HibsMax has pointed out, it's quite strange for you to accuse me of anti-Americanism given some of your comments in this thread.


We all dislike certain things in this world and it's good to discuss them reationally with other people, without being preached at or arguing about it. By all means have these thoughts but please try to refrain from constantly berating anyone who's views differ from yours, it becomes boring and tedious after a while.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for being opinionated and argumentative or for disagreeing with people when I think they're wrong. As with Woody, I'll ask for evidence of me preaching at anyone, 'constantly berating' people who have different views to me or 'treating people with contempt'. You can't just make stuff up because I've annoyed you in some way.


So do you or do you not have an idea for a system that is removed from the current one or should I presuppose you presupposed that using presuppose would prevent you having to put your ideas up for scrutiny rather than saying everything is wrong without proposing viable alternatives?

That suggests I've never proposed any alternative to anything I've criticised that's been discussed on this board – that's patently untrue.

From one side I'm being berated for 'drumming my beliefs down people's throats' and 'preaching' at people, while from another I'm being berated for never having provided my entire political philosophy for scrutiny. I'm tempted to say I can't win. Maybe I'd be best P.M.'ing you, if you genuinely want to know, considering?

[LiverpoolHibs]

In the interests of getting this thread vaguely back on topic....

Wikileaks has been doing some great work recently.

CIA report on shoring up European support for the Afghanistan mission, country by country.

PDF (http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf)

[Ed De Gramo]

interesting video and quite disturbing seeing soldiers get satisfaction out of murder.

In the American's defence, when the boy peered round the wall with the camera it does look like a RPG.

[J-C]

We've crossed swords before, JC50, because it's obvious to me that you have a dislike of all things American. Unless of course "typical Yanks" is not a generalisation? :wink:. Just admit that you hate the United States. You know that a "purple medal" (do you mean Purple Heart?) is awarded for being injured in combat, not killing X people? I guess I'm being overly sensitive. LOL. I don't think I am because this is the 3rd thread that I have seen you make similar comments.

But back in topic.

I saw this video a couple of days ago and it's very sad indeed. I am sure there have been many more innocent people killed in all wars around the world but that doesn't lessen this, or any other accident. It also doesn't help that the public has access to videos such as these because it makes things far more "real" and it really brings the horror of war into your living room, in a very graphic manner. I'm sure if the public knew of every operation that the armed forces were involved in there would be many more stories like this. It's war. People, innocent people, get killed. It's a sad reality.

I personally think that soldiers (of all nations) have a very difficult job to do and I don't envy them one bit. There is a very fine line between hero and villain.

I actually find it quite strange that in this day and age, as civilised as we are, we still need to resort to killing people and collateral damage to get our point across. Can we all just play chess?

EDIT:


I must just be misreading your posts JC50 because sometimes, to me, YOU come over as anti-American but here you are apparently defending them/us. I'm confused. Apologies if I have you all wrong (and if I'm being too sensitive :wink:)


I think you missed my sarcasm in the bit about typical Yanks, it's just a bit unfortunate that when friendly fire and the like is talked about, US troops are usually mentioned. It may have been a tad harsh, it sickened me quite a lot watching this, if I've upset by what I wrote, I apologise.


I am not anti anything Max, I do speak my mind if something annoys or upsets me, occassionally it may be America, then again it may be N Korea, depends who's being the biggest dick at the time.

I did have American family( Grandmother, Aunt and 2 Uncles ) only 1 uncle left, don't know his whereabouts though.

[J-C]

Just repeating something doesn't make true. I haven't forced my views on anyone, I post them on the subjects on here that interest me – take them, leave them or argue with them on their own merits (or otherwise). I'm still not exactly sure what you're finding so annoying.


So, essentially what you're saying is that they're similar in that both of them are, by definition, not the status quo? That's not really much of a similarity.

They're similar because they never listen to anyones arguments or points of view, it's either my way or I put my fingers in my ears and go nananana, with people like you.

Representative democracy and universal suffrage were 'extreme viewpoints' one hundred or so years ago – that doesn't mean anything as a criticism.

Are other positions on the political spectrum more likely to concede ground and why is conceding ground necessarily a good thing?

We're not talking about conceding ground, as this isn't a political argument, you've turned it into one though. What started as a nasty video of some US troops shooting some Iraqi's with guns, ended up with you giving us all a lecture on the immoral capitalism of the western world, jeezus laddie, give it a rest.



And as I've said, unless you can say why you think anything I've written in the posts you pasted are evidence of me being 'anti-Western' or 'anti-American' there's little point continuing with this. I'm not treating anyone with contempt by expecting that of you.

You're obviously blind or incredibly thick to realise what you cannot perceive as being fact.

As HibsMax has pointed out, it's quite strange for you to accuse me of anti-Americanism given some of your comments in this thread.

I made 1 comment after watching the video and posted something in the heat of the moment, to which I've apologised to Hibsmax for anything that was out of order, the other posts have been to their defense.


I'm certainly not going to apologise for being opinionated and argumentative or for disagreeing with people when I think they're wrong. As with Woody, I'll ask for evidence of me preaching at anyone, 'constantly berating' people who have different views to me or 'treating people with contempt'. You can't just make stuff up because I've annoyed you in some way.



That suggests I've never proposed any alternative to anything I've criticised that's been discussed on this board – that's patently untrue.

From one side I'm being berated for 'drumming my beliefs down people's throats' and 'preaching' at people, while from another I'm being berated for never having provided my entire political philosophy for scrutiny. I'm tempted to say I can't win. Maybe I'd be best P.M.'ing you, if you genuinely want to know, considering?



I have concluded that you are an erse of the highest order and as of this day 8th of April 2010, I shall be ignoring everything you post from now on as I wish to have a sane and happy life.:bye:

[--------]

interesting video and quite disturbing seeing soldiers get satisfaction out of murder.

In the American's defence, when the boy peered round the wall with the camera it does look like a RPG.


Which has materialised out of thin air? 'Cos it wasn't there 5 seconds before.

I repeat what I've already said - that tape is out of the gun-camera. It isn't the highest quality.

The soldiers in the chopper would have had a much clearer view of what was going on in that square than you see in that video.

That is if they were REAL soldiers and not US National Guardsmen.

[Hibs Class]

Which has materialised out of thin air? 'Cos it wasn't there 5 seconds before.

I repeat what I've already said - that tape is out of the gun-camera. It isn't the highest quality.

The soldiers in the chopper would have had a much clearer view of what was going on in that square than you see in that video.

That is if they were REAL soldiers and not US National Guardsmen.


Is that so? I'm not sure what view they would have had, but watching the video suggests that they were quite some distance away (due to the audio of gunfire and the delay before the rounds hit their target). I assumed that the weapon camera was their main view?

[khib70]

Is that so? I'm not sure what view they would have had, but watching the video suggests that they were quite some distance away (due to the audio of gunfire and the delay before the rounds hit their target). I assumed that the weapon camera was their main view?
I think you're right, and there's no doubt that the guy peeking round the corner with the camera was in a classic RPG firing stance. The RPG could easily have been produced from concealment in seconds.

However, all the Apache needed to do was shift its position to give a clearer view of the area, as indeed it did on several occasions.

While there's no doubt that this was an armed group in a war zone, the attack was a clear breach of the prevailing rules of engagement (which can be read on the Wikileaks site). Essentially, there was no "gradual escalation of force" - no warnings were given. And there was no hostile action on the part of the Iraqis.The attack on the van lacked even the little justification of the previous one, as no weapons were visible at all, and the van driver's intention was to rescue a wounded man.

Journalists entering war zones do so at their own risk, and most of them know that, but there is no justification for the totally excessive use of deadly force in this situation. There were ground troops in the area who could have easily confronted and disarmed any armed individuals, and who were much better placed to decide who was or wasn't a threat.

This was clearly the action of an irresponsible crew of idiots who should be tracked down and face the appropriate punishment. It is not, however a signature act of US imperialism or any other such tripe that has appeared on this thread. There wouldn't be rules of engagement if the US had a policy of deliberately and indiscriminately wiping out random civilians.

[LiverpoolHibs]

They're similar because they never listen to anyones arguments or points of view, it's either my way or I put my fingers in my ears and go nananana, with people like you.

Again, that isn't much of a similarity and I'm not sure it applies to 'extreme' beliefs more than any other. I'm perfectly willing to listen to anyone's point of view. I can't promise I'm just going to accept the truth of what they say just for the sake of it.


We're not talking about conceding ground, as this isn't a political argument, you've turned it into one though. What started as a nasty video of some US troops shooting some Iraqi's with guns, ended up with you giving us all a lecture on the immoral capitalism of the western world, jeezus laddie, give it a rest.

I don't think I've said anything whatsoever about the 'immoral capitalism of the western world'. And I wasn't lecturing anyone, I was having a discussion with PeeJay. If you find it so phenomenally boring or irritating, don't read it.


You're obviously blind or incredibly thick to realise what you cannot perceive as being fact.

Eh?


I have concluded that you are an erse of the highest order and as of this day 8th of April 2010, I shall be ignoring everything you post from now on as I wish to have a sane and happy life.:bye:

Fair enough.

[PeeJay]

While there's no doubt that this was an armed group in a war zone, the attack was a clear breach of the prevailing rules of engagement (which can be read on the Wikileaks site). Essentially, there was no "gradual escalation of force" - no warnings were given.


While I fail to see any reason to condone the actions of the US soldiers in the video, I do wonder what the rest of the video shows. As far as I can make out here in Germany there is an extended version video sequence that lasts some 38 minutes (this thread's lasts only 17 minutes) and 'apparently' shows a lot of ground fighting prior to this incident. Has anybody seen this extended video - could it be there was indeed a situation on the ground that made the Apache crews extra wary/prepared to shoot at people without (in my eyes) conclusive evidence that they are terrorists? Would such preceding terrorist activity - in which perhaps the people killed were involved - then put the shorter version referred to at the top of this thread into a different perspective? Does anyone have any info regarding the extended video?

[Betty Boop]

Co-founder of Wiki leaks is interviewed about the video.

YouTube - WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QEdAykXxoM)

[HibsMax]

interesting video and quite disturbing seeing soldiers get satisfaction out of murder..

To be honest, it's not murder, they're doing their job which is "legal" killing. I know it's a fine line. I was thinking about this last night but I am not a soldier and I've never killed anyone so I don't know how it feels. However I believe (my opinion) that you do have to "like" killing otherwise it's not a very good fit. You can't be lying there with your gun questioning yourself when it's time to pull the trigger. "Like" might not be the right word which is why I put it in quotes. If you're a soldier and it's your job to kill bad guys, why shouldn't you enjoy it? Most other people look for job satisfaction, why should they be any different? And I am sure they feel as remorseful when they make a mistake as I do when I make a mistake. I imagine that, mistakes aside, if you can take out a bad guy before he has a chance to take out you and / or your friends, that would be quite gratifying. I just don't think a man or woman who cries themself to sleep every night because of their job is going to make a great soldier. But maybe they do.

Is anyone on here a member or former member of the armed forces? Anyone killed another person or multiple people? How does it change your life? Did you get any satisfaction from what you did?

[khib70]

While I fail to see any reason to condone the actions of the US soldiers in the video, I do wonder what the rest of the video shows. As far as I can make out here in Germany there is an extended version video sequence that lasts some 38 minutes (this thread's lasts only 17 minutes) and 'apparently' shows a lot of ground fighting prior to this incident. Has anybody seen this extended video - could it be there was indeed a situation on the ground that made the Apache crews extra wary/prepared to shoot at people without (in my eyes) conclusive evidence that they are terrorists? Would such preceding terrorist activity - in which perhaps the people killed were involved - then put the shorter version referred to at the top of this thread into a different perspective? Does anyone have any info regarding the extended video?
Mate, I would not be the least bit surprised if what you say is true. It is (suspiciously) difficult to get to see the full version of the video.

[Woody1985]

There's a 39 minute version on the wiki site.

I've watched the 17 minute video right through.

Whilst I think that they could be considered correct for their first attack (based on the 17min video) the attacks and the thirst for blood on the successive attacks were stomach churning. Especially the willing the wounded guy on to pick up a weapon.

I must admit that I never noticed the kids in the van in real time but these guys are trained to spot things like that.

[HibsMax]

I think you missed my sarcasm in the bit about typical Yanks, it's just a bit unfortunate that when friendly fire and the like is talked about, US troops are usually mentioned. It may have been a tad harsh, it sickened me quite a lot watching this, if I've upset by what I wrote, I apologise.


I am not anti anything Max, I do speak my mind if something annoys or upsets me, occassionally it may be America, then again it may be N Korea, depends who's being the biggest dick at the time.

I did have American family( Grandmother, Aunt and 2 Uncles ) only 1 uncle left, don't know his whereabouts though.
Thanks, JC! ;)

I just get overly sensitive about US things having been over here for so long. I see US-bashing all the time and sometimes I charge out like a bull in a made-in-China shop. And sometimes when people are just being humourous I don't see it because I think everyone is out to get us. ;) I'm not paranoid although everyone thinks I am.

[J-C]

Thanks, JC! ;)

I just get overly sensitive about US things having been over here for so long. I see US-bashing all the time and sometimes I charge out like a bull in a made-in-China shop. And sometimes when people are just being humourous I don't see it because I think everyone is out to get us. ;) I'm not paranoid although everyone thinks I am.


:thumbsup:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think you're right, and there's no doubt that the guy peeking round the corner with the camera was in a classic RPG firing stance. The RPG could easily have been produced from concealment in seconds.

However, all the Apache needed to do was shift its position to give a clearer view of the area, as indeed it did on several occasions.

While there's no doubt that this was an armed group in a war zone, the attack was a clear breach of the prevailing rules of engagement (which can be read on the Wikileaks site). Essentially, there was no "gradual escalation of force" - no warnings were given. And there was no hostile action on the part of the Iraqis.The attack on the van lacked even the little justification of the previous one, as no weapons were visible at all, and the van driver's intention was to rescue a wounded man.

Journalists entering war zones do so at their own risk, and most of them know that, but there is no justification for the totally excessive use of deadly force in this situation. There were ground troops in the area who could have easily confronted and disarmed any armed individuals, and who were much better placed to decide who was or wasn't a threat.

This was clearly the action of an irresponsible crew of idiots who should be tracked down and face the appropriate punishment. It is not, however a signature act of US imperialism or any other such tripe that has appeared on this thread. There wouldn't be rules of engagement if the US had a policy of deliberately and indiscriminately wiping out random civilians.

Yeah, that would be absolutely ludicrous. Wouldn't it? (http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378)

[Betty Boop]

Yeah, that would be absolutely ludicrous. Wouldn't it? (http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378)

"We changed the ROE more often than we changed our underwear," :bitchy:

[RigRoars]

Yeah, that would be absolutely ludicrous. Wouldn't it? (http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378)


Way to win 'Hearts and minds'

[GhostofBolivar]

There wouldn't be rules of engagement if the US had a policy of deliberately and indiscriminately wiping out random civilians.

Why change the habits of a lifetime? (http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-without-Fronts-USA-Vietnam/dp/1847920799/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271040375&sr=8-4)

[HibsMax]

Why change the habits of a lifetime? (http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-without-Fronts-USA-Vietnam/dp/1847920799/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271040375&sr=8-4)

That sounds like an interesting read, have you read it? Just looking for a personal recommendation.

[GhostofBolivar]

That sounds like an interesting read, have you read it? Just looking for a personal recommendation.

It's in no way an easy read, but it's very, very good and - despite being about Vietnam - it's highly relevant to what's gone on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[HibsMax]

It's in no way an easy read, but it's very, very good and - despite being about Vietnam - it's highly relevant to what's gone on in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When you say it's not an easy read, do you mean that the content is difficult to stomach or that the author uses language that some might find difficult e.g., Dan Brown vs. George Orwell? :)

[GhostofBolivar]

When you say it's not an easy read, do you mean that the content is difficult to stomach or that the author uses language that some might find difficult e.g., Dan Brown vs. George Orwell? :)

I mean both. It's written in dense, academic prose and it deals with a number of harrowing events.

[HibsMax]

I mean both. It's written in dense, academic prose and it deals with a number of harrowing events.

I'll give it read. Thanks. ;)

I am not really sure why but I like reading about these things. It doesn't give me any sort of kick but it reminds me of just how brutal we are as a race. I don't think any country (or maybe I should say ethnicity) is any worse / better than others. I think that throughout history there's always been a "bad guy". Unfortunately the large propaganda machine ensures that we always think it's the other guy who's the bad guy, not us, but some careful reading and research can reveal the truth. I think what makes it worse is when Country A says that Country B is guilty of all sorts of atrocities when Country A is doing some of the same things, albeit more secretively (or just with less / no media coverage).

I think it's a mistake to form an opinion on individual incidents. That video footage shows an awful mistake....that's what I'm calling it because otherwise it's cold-blooded murder. It's unfortunate that war allows such mistakes to happen repeatedly though. I think it all boils down to "their" lives being less valuable than "our" lives which means that poor decisions are made. "yeah, looks like an RPG, kill everyone......(just in case)". The reason I think it's a mistake to form an opinion based on individual incidents is because we typically only hear about the mistakes. I am sure there is a LOT of unseen, good work that goes on but nobody is leaking those videos.

I am looking forward to reading that book because on one hand I think that I want soldiers to follow orders blindly because of the reasons I've mentioned before - dissent can cost lives. I can understand in the guerrilla warfare situations that extreme measures need to be taken and that might include killing people that don't appear to be soldiers. BUT there has to be a line somewhere. Children? Hmmmmm. Soldiers have been conditioned to react in a certain way (I'm basing my view on TV programs that I've watched about training for Army, Marines, Green Berets, etc.). It's brutal. for the most part they want followers.

Anyway, thanks again for the tip. ;)