Quote :

"As for soccer, are you really drawing a parallel between playing tough physical soccer and condoning killing?"

He is.

Slide tackling and putting a bullet in someone's head?

SAME DIFFERENCE.

4/6/2010 2:39:48 PM

i mean... its not trolling when God makes a comparison between making a mistake and raping all women in iraq...

4/6/2010 3:02:23 PM

You were saying we should kill medics so the enemy isn't "nursed back to health to fight again."

That's when I made the argument that we should make all the women infertile so they can't have terrorist babies.

4/6/2010 3:05:02 PM

no, I said that we should kill belligerent medics who are attempting to care for insurgents. you responded by saying that by that logic we should rape all iraqi women.

troll.

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : s]

4/6/2010 3:25:45 PM

while its not something I like, targeting medics is pretty common in war. the psychological effect on a unit can be huge. the Japanese and the Germans targeted them for that very reason.

I can understand a grunt taking out the guy giving aid to the very person that was trying to kill you seconds earlier. you shouldnt act like this is a new idea limited to the evil US forces.

war is hell. everything about it. but there are realities to consider.

4/6/2010 3:26:26 PM

Do insurgents even have dedicated medics?

More than likely its generally just another insurgent shouldering his gun and running to the aid of a wounded comrade and as such is fair game.

4/6/2010 3:56:37 PM

exactly, but as God would choose to see it, this becomes the moral equivalent of raping every iraqi woman repeatedly

4/6/2010 4:00:38 PM

^^ I was going to point this out, but then I realized who I was talking to and I decided that I shouldn't bother.

You see, the fellow combatants don't drag just one another away, but the unarmed members of the "medical insurgency" come to pick up their wounded comrades.

They should have assumed these were members of the medical insurgency corps and left them alone!!!

4/6/2010 4:09:50 PM

4/6/2010 5:40:27 PM

Why does anyone have an issue with this video? As long as its the United States or Israel killing civilians then its acceptable. Who cares about a bunch of A-rabs anyway?

4/6/2010 5:46:50 PM

Wikileaks is in the process of releasing another video documenting civilian deaths:

Quote :

"Concerned individuals have also given us an encrypted military video from a May 2009 attack in western Afghanistan which killed over 100 civilians, including many women and children, through bombing."

http://spot.us/pitches/396

4/6/2010 5:54:48 PM

Quote :

"the Japanese and the Germans targeted them for that very reason"

The Germans agreed to the Geneva Conventions, and they tended to follow it for the most part.

Quote :

"I can understand a grunt taking out the guy giving aid to the very person that was trying to kill you seconds earlier. you shouldnt act like this is a new idea limited to the evil US forces."

Well rape, torture, and pillaging aren't new ideas, in fact they've been a huge part of the military more often than not in the history of the world. It's that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

4/6/2010 6:34:08 PM

Quote :

"The Germans agreed to the Geneva Conventions, and they tended to follow it for the most part."

Congress didn't even declare war in Iraq, and the constitution mandates that they do so. What makes you think we're going to give a shit about any kind of international agreement when we blatantly shit on our founding document every day? The government has no regard for the law. The only consideration is how much media backlash there will be for any given action, and whether that will reduce the odds of re-election.

4/6/2010 6:42:39 PM

Quote :

"Covering up that we made a mistake is also inexcusable. We all understand it was a mistake. Mistakes are NOT OKAY. That's what makes them MISTAKES. They happen, and of course you don't expect these soldiers to be court martialed, but you can't blame the guys who got killed, or the insurgency tactics. It's the fault of the U.S. military that these people are dead. I know it puts a higher responsibility on our soldiers, but the other option is that in order to protect U.S. lives we sanction a level of violence that results in indiscriminate deaths. Covering this up basically says that this can happen again. I believe that the soldiers over there don't want to kill the wrong people, but given these circumstances, it happened. How can we change the policies of our men so that it is less likely to happen again? You can't say that an entire country is fair game because of the policies of a handful. These people were walking in a damn city, for fuck's sake. That's it. That was what they were "doing wrong". "

This is the crux of the issue. Mistakes aren’t okay, and you don’t fix mistakes by burying them.

It’s not surprising though that you’d find conservatives arguing that the best course of action when you do something wrong, is to ignore it.

4/6/2010 7:32:42 PM

Quote :

"The Germans agreed to the Geneva Conventions, and they tended to follow it for the most part. "

Geneva Conventions dont mean shit in a firefight. medics being targeted by the Axis is well-documented, especially after the Allies landed in Normandy.

Quote :

"Well rape, torture, and pillaging aren't new ideas, in fact they've been a huge part of the military more often than not in the history of the world. It's that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard."

not arguing that. I am trying to ground this situation in the reality of a battlefield.

4/6/2010 7:38:20 PM

4/6/2010 9:49:31 PM

Quote :

"The only consideration is how much media backlash there will be for any given action, and whether that will reduce the odds of re-election."

Guess how much media backlash there would be if we broke geneva conventions. You would happily tout the benefits of an economic system that is powered by greed and self interest, why does it bother you to have a political system that works off the same mechanisms?

4/6/2010 9:53:26 PM

Quote :

"Guess how much media backlash there would be if we broke geneva conventions."

Sadly, probably more backlash than doing something totally unconstitutional.

Quote :

"You would happily tout the benefits of an economic system that is powered by greed and self interest, why does it bother you to have a political system that works off the same mechanisms?"

Greed and self interest are at the core of human nature. People very rarely act selflessly. In fact, they will often harm others if it means they can benefit. That's why we have government - to protect individual rights. I'm not at all surprised that politicians act in their own self interest. I accept that. That's why I support term limits, for one. It's also why I support sticking to the constitution. If we don't, then anything can get passed, regardless of how harmful it is.

4/6/2010 10:56:08 PM

Quote :

"they should've been running with Cold Blooded Pro"

i clicked on the video after reading that and thought COD MW2 as soon as the apache screen came up.

4/6/2010 11:28:26 PM

Quote :

"Sadly, probably more backlash than doing something totally unconstitutional."

The market at work...

Quote :

"It's also why I support sticking to the constitution. If we don't, then anything can get passed, regardless of how harmful it is."

Why do you think the constitution is god's word? You think those men a few hundred years ago somehow were immune from those qualities you attribute to being human? We already acknowledge that many of the of the things they thought and did were wrong, why cling so tightly to some outdated document?

4/6/2010 11:38:29 PM

Quote :

"Why do you think the constitution is god's word? You think those men a few hundred years ago somehow were immune from those qualities you attribute to being human? We already acknowledge that many of the of the things they thought and did were wrong, why cling so tightly to some outdated document?"

I don't think it's god's word. If you read what the founders wrote, they specifically designed the constitution with the goal of preventing tyrannical government. The idea was that we don't really know what laws are good and bad. It's hard to say, because humans aren't capable of knowing what the outcomes of legislative decisions will be. So, if you accept that as truth, then it would be better to have laws made at a local or state level, rather than a federal level. If they're made at a federal level, and the law ends up being bad, everyone suffers. If it's made a town level, you can just move.

We can debate all day about what laws are right and which are wrong. I'd rather not even have that debate, because it's subjective. I'd rather argue about what level the laws are made on. Centralized power inevitably leads to corruption and inefficiency. A bureaucrat in Washington cannot tell 300 million people how to live. Arguably, a mayor cannot tell 500 people how to live, but at least if a mayor is out of control, you can move a town over instead of having to relocate to another continent. The founders were on the right track. Dispersion of power and having a weak federal government is best.

Hell, even communism can work on a local level, so why are you so intent on forcing it upon people that don't want it? Just move to a hippie commune somewhere and enjoy shitting in a bucket.

[Edited on April 6, 2010 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2010 11:54:40 PM

Quote :

"Centralized power inevitably leads to corruption and inefficiency."

Oh, that must be why strong centralized governments have always been the least successful and least oppressive and corrupt, o wait, Europe and Africa are prime examples of why that can't be true.

Quote :

"Hell, even communism can work on a local level, so why are you so intent on forcing it upon people that don't want it?"

I won't discuss communism with you until you understand what it is.

Quote :

"Just move to a hippie commune somewhere and enjoy shitting in a bucket."

Why don't you move to somalia and enjoy life without that oppressive centralized government?

4/7/2010 12:07:28 AM

Quote :

"The pilots made a pretty awful mistake. Hindsight is 20/20, though. What should be pissing everyone off is the fact that the military attempted to cover it up."

Truest goddamned thing in this whole thread... Whole lot of stupid being passed around almost every other post, though.

4/7/2010 12:08:21 AM

Quote :

"Oh, that must be why strong centralized governments have always been the least successful and least oppressive and corrupt, o wait, Europe and Africa are prime examples of why that can't be true."

Our country is too big. A centralized government can work a lot better in a small country (you know, like all European countries, some of which are the size of states here), though still not as well as local governments.

Quote :

"I won't discuss communism with you until you understand what it is."

Not this shit again.

Quote :

"Why don't you move to somalia and enjoy life without that oppressive centralized government?"

They don't even have a decentralized government. I'm fine with some government. I just don't want legislators trying to make uniform law for the entire country. Sorry, but people in backwards North Carolina don't have the same values as people in San Francisco. There's plenty of arguments for which values or better, but values don't change because of force. I think Christianity is one of the dumbest beliefs you can have, but it's going to be around, and it shapes values. The problem is that if you give the federal government the power to do what you want, then you give it the power to do what the religious fundamentalists want.

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

4/7/2010 12:12:42 AM

Quote :

" Well rape, torture, and pillaging aren't new ideas, in fact they've been a huge part of the military more often than not in the history of the world. It's that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. "

History class will not tell you but the US forces have a history of rape and pillage while fighting foreign wars

4/7/2010 8:46:41 AM

Name one army that doesn't you dumb shit

4/7/2010 8:49:57 AM

The Salvation Army.

4/7/2010 8:53:55 AM

We rarely pillage anymore. Our shit is better than their shit.

Rape, though...well, that's pretty much the same everywhere.

4/7/2010 9:11:47 AM

^^ damn... didn't miss a beat

4/7/2010 9:20:52 AM

^^ Yes, in that way all wars are wars against women.

4/7/2010 9:29:09 AM

Quote :

" History class will not tell you but the US forces have a history of rape and pillage while fighting foreign wars"

compared to what? you have to put that in context. are they like the marauding hordes of Mongrels? no. are there isolated incidents of individuals or units committing criminal actions? yes.

4/7/2010 11:22:32 AM

Quote :

"Name one army that doesn't you dumb shit "

Now listen you trolling fucktard, I never claimed that this did not make us anythig other than the "norm" as far as conduct during a war is concerned. Also, as DaBird points out it is all a matter of perspective. Compared to the maurading mongols we are angels. My only point is for better or worse that our forces are subject to the same "human nature" tendencies that effect all armies across all time periods. Second, their are undoubtedly overly idealistic people in this country if not in this message board that would deny USA #1 would engage in such activities. They live in some happy bubble land where our freedom fighters do no wrong in fighting the heroic good v evil battle, never succumbing to inhumane actions such as...

- Raping civilians
- Abusing POW's
- Fragging friendly soliders
- Careless if not intentionally assaulting or killing civilians.

With regards to this situation my thoughts are that the apache pilots acted on poor judgement but at the time thought they were doing the right thing. From my take this was not some bloodlust lets fuck some people up type scenario and hindsight is 20/20.


[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 12:25 PM. Reason : s]

4/7/2010 12:23:11 PM

so basically you were stating the obvious, but in a way that framed the USA in a negative light.

great, thanks for the contribution to the thread.

4/7/2010 2:08:26 PM

if you're so fucking pissed at this. i say all the liberals get together and band up and go attack our military bases and their barracks and family housing with rocket launchers and sub machine guns and attempt to teach them a REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!!

4/7/2010 5:43:32 PM

ur doin it all rong
REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!! REAL LESSON IN THE RULES OF WARFARE!!

liek that

4/7/2010 6:41:24 PM

Quote :

"Well rape, torture, and pillaging aren't new ideas, in fact they've been a huge part of the military more often than not in the history of the world. It's that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard."

I think by and large, civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years or so by our military have been accidents. I'm sure you have some people who are happy to kill anyone on the ground who is brown, but I think the large majority of our troops have good intentions but sometimes make mistakes.

The enemy on the other hand intentionally will kill groups of civilians and themselves in order to create chaos and fear. They kill their own men, women and children by blowing up bombs in crowded places and have, more often than not, complete disregard for innocent lives.

How are we not already holding ourselves to a higher standard?

4/7/2010 7:46:38 PM

well, you see, if you hold the united states to a standard of perfection, it allows you to vent your hatred for your country while hiding behind the, "holding ourselves to a higher standard" excuse.

4/7/2010 8:43:23 PM

so has anyone figured out what exactly the guy at like 3:47 is holding, it seems to be the clearest thing you can make out that would look like an rpg but I'm not sure if of any specifics around camera equipment

4/7/2010 9:42:34 PM

Quote :

"so basically you were stating the obvious, but in a way that framed the USA in a negative light. great, thanks for the contribution to the thread."

anytime

[Edited on April 7, 2010 at 11:33 PM. Reason : l]

4/7/2010 11:33:38 PM

I'm gonna step back and point out that we almost uniformly agree on the following:

1) It is tragic that this happened.
2) The military shouldn't have covered it up
3) War is shit

What we seem to disagree on is:

1) Whether or not these soldiers were just plain old murderers, but in uniforms

Does that accurately sum things up?

4/8/2010 12:30:50 AM

Well rape, torture, and pillaging aren't new ideas, in fact they've been a huge part of the military more often than not in the history of the world.

How in the hell did so many people quote me yet fail to read the very text they were quoting?

4/8/2010 12:51:14 AM

an email posted from andrew sullivan's blog:

Quote :

" I spent 20 years in the USAF (1986-2006) working in reconnaissance and air-to-air / air-to-ground engagements and spend thousands of hours in the air listening to radio broadcasts and directing or assisting in engagements. I’m not stupid enough to think that combat isn’t messy, gruesome, and often chaotic. But the circumstances of that video are very clear in my mind (and harken back to the shooting down of U.N. helicopters over Northern Iraq). It was horrible to watch for two reasons: first, the opening salvo, and second, the follow-on shooting of the van. The initial engagement probably fit very narrowly under the rules of engagement (ROE) during that time period in Iraq. But not the second. During my 20 years of certification, review, and application of ROE across Desert Storm and it’s follow-ons, all the Balkans conflicts, and Iraqi Freedom, there have been precious few that allowed for engagement of air or ground targets without requiring positive identification regardless of time or situation (an exception includes a fixed-wing aircraft present in a no-fly zone). In fact, most ROE have required either that positive ID or a hostile act to be in progress. The first question that came to mind as the pilots were ID’ing the targets was: What are they doing right now that requires killing them? How many people in Iraq have guns? Does having a gun meet the requirement to engage and destroy? I can’t necessarily answer those questions from the video but that is where I believe the narrow definition of ROE criteria might not have been met. Regardless of those questions, when one looks at time and place and what may have been the ROE for that time, I don’t have serious issue with the first barrage. The follow-on is what turned my stomach. After a journalist – or any target – has been mowed down by .30 caliber fire (his legs blasted away) there is no need to then wait and hope that you can just blast him to kingdom come – for fun. Make no mistake about the radio comms throughout this event, but particularly prior to the van destruction: there is no urgency in the voices, at all. This isn’t a by-product of the profession military man (since I know that will be the first defense), because my thousands of hours of experience can tell when urgency, death, and necessity are foremost in the engager – there’s none here. Once a downed enemy is being assisted, Red Cross or not, in a non-military vehicle that poses no threat, then engagement is a pretty strong violation of whatever ROE is in place, and a moral code of soldiers. There was no evidence in the video – or from the Army in response to this event – that indicates these were combatants who had been tailed from a firefight and targeted. This appears to be a group of men ID’d as insurgents from quite a distance – purely visual. We know mistakes were made in ID’ing guns vs. cameras, but I don’t condemn the initial attack, under the fog of war ideal. However, the follow-on slaughter that involved the van – and the kids being there doesn’t make it better or worse, objectively – is exactly the type of engagement we must avoid. When separated, as they clearly are along this timeline, my support of the first salvo in now way excuses the second, or vice versa. As military men, we don’t do what they did to that van – ever. They know it, the chain of command knows it, we know it."

4/8/2010 1:06:11 AM

i dont think calling them murderers is even remotely possible.
everyone involved thought they were insurgents so how can you question that.
its only a question of judgement

4/8/2010 3:13:56 AM

nvm

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 4:08 AM. Reason : meh]

4/8/2010 4:03:33 AM

Quote :

"so has anyone figured out what exactly the guy at like 3:47 is holding, it seems to be the clearest thing you can make out that would look like an rpg but I'm not sure if of any specifics around camera equipment"

The men were carrying two RPGs and an AK-47.

4/8/2010 9:37:13 AM

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! THEY WERE CARRYING FLOWERS AND MEDICINES FOR THE CHILDREN IN THAT ORPHANAGE NEXT DOOR!

4/8/2010 10:06:13 AM

I definitely understand the point about the van. that very well could have been some good Samaritans trying to give aid to injured people. the fact that kids were in the van and the fact they so haphazardly and obviously rolled up to the scene suggests they are not military nor are combat trained. I can see how firing on the van is poor judgment.

HOWEVER

anyone telling you it is OBVIOUS that the people in the van were civilians/children/meant no harm in this combat arena is full of shit. this war is being fought exclusively against unmarked fighters who use all means necessary to deceive our forces as to their true identity. they often DELIBERATELY put innocents in the line of fire to create such arguments like the one we are having now. those bastards shoulder most of the blame here.

further, war in Iraq is hardly new. any sane person who is a civilian, driving around in an active combat area should know better than to do so and should also make some attempt to mark their vehicle in some fashion to demonstrate their intentions. I suspect that the characters in the van were affiliated with the insurgents in some manner...maybe loosely....but their intent was 100% to aid and comfort the enemy and therefore, they made themselves legitimate targets.

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM. Reason : ,]

4/8/2010 10:22:18 AM

Quote :

"I suspect that the characters in the van were affiliated with the insurgents in some manner...maybe loosely....but their intent was 100% to aid and comfort the enemy and therefore, they made themselves legitimate targets. "

LOLOL

Kind of like the link between Iraq and Al Queda right?

4/8/2010 10:41:51 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

4/8/2010 10:53:56 AM

LOL are you serious? Did you just post some post-invasion bullshit to link Al Qaeda to Iraq?

[Edited on April 8, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : a]

4/8/2010 10:56:00 AM