U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by lookout123

it is standard procedure to scatter any crowds away from damaged military equipment using whatever means necessary. the equipment has to be destroyed so that no hardware falls into unfriendly hands. the moral of the story is stay the hell away from US military equipment.

They intentionally fired missiles into a crowd of innocent civilians without warning, under orders. That is fucked up. Labeling something "standard procedure" does not make it ok. There are many ways the pilots might have tried to disperse the crowd before opening fire, but they didn't... they went in, guns blazing.

Shortly after Bush was elected, the Onion published a "humorous" article about the sweeping changes Bush was going to bring for the U.S., entitled "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over.'" Well, they recently updated the article by adding relevant links to certain phrases in the original text... makes it less funny, but more striking. It is disturnbing to consider how much of it's over-the-top mockery has come true.

[Pi]

So first retaliations are forbidden. The Geneva Conventions forbit retaliation attacks againt civilians. And a retaliation against military force is no retaliation but normal combat action.
As HP said already, even standard procedures have to be ok. You just can't fire on any target if you can injure or kill civilians, except, if your target is a legal military target. And it seems to me that an own, broke down tank isn't really a military target...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Telling the difference between combatants and civilians is a little difficult in Iraq.

[Pi]

I agree, but hten you have to presume that they are civilians... That are the rules.

[404Error]

Like Bruce said, telling the difference between combatants and civilians is difficult, if not impossible. They don't wear uniforms like our troops do and it's well known that these insurgents, or whatever you want to call them, will hide behind civilians and pop up just long enough to fire off an RPG or fire a few rounds at our troops. They don't play by the same rules as we are suppose to. Besides, the war has been going on long enough now that any civilian journalist should know by now what the US tactics are. Being near a recently damaged military vehicle is sure to draw fire to destroy it so stay the fuck away, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[lookout123]

BS - who is saying these were all innocent civilians? why would innocent civilians who want nothing to do with a fight be milling about a disabled US bradley? those we are fighting wear the same clothes as the civilians and have shown a willingness to put women and children in front of them in the hopes that the US wouldn't fire on women and children. in a guerilla warfare situation like what is going on over there, it might be fair to say that the folks messing around with a disabled bradley aren't trying to give it a jumpstart so they can deliver it to the US forces.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally Posted by 404Error

Like Bruce said, telling the difference between combatants and civilians is difficult, if not impossible. They don't wear uniforms like our troops do and it's well known that these insurgents, or whatever you want to call them, will hide behind civilians and pop up just long enough to fire off an RPG or fire a few rounds at our troops.

Originally Posted by lookout123

BS - who is saying these were all innocent civilians? why would innocent civilians who want nothing to do with a fight be milling about a disabled US bradley? those we are fighting wear the same clothes as the civilians and have shown a willingness to put women and children in front of them in the hopes that the US wouldn't fire on women and children.

Oh ok.... the helicopter pilots made a surprise attack on a crowd of people in a residential area just in case some of them were insurgents. With tactics like that, particularly when they are intentional, it's no wonder the reistance in Iraq grows daily. Having a loved one killed on their way to work because they made the mistake of walking down a street where damaged US equipment had been sitting for a few hours-- that will brew some powerful, justified hatred.

I agree with and understand the fact that we can't leave partially damaged military hardware sitting around for the enemy to pilfer. That's not the issue. The fact is that the pilots made no effort to clear the scene of innocent civilians before opening up. These people bleeding in the streets (look for heading "Civilians Killed As Dawn Battle Erupts In Baghdad") are the same people we "saved" from Saddam, and here we are blowing them up unnecessarily, and without warning. Even circling once or twice before firing would have probably done the trick. What is it, exactly, we have liberated these people from?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by hot_pastrami

The fact is that the pilots made no effort to clear the scene of innocent civilians before opening up. These people bleeding in the streets (look for heading "Civilians Killed As Dawn Battle Erupts In Baghdad") are the same people we "saved" from Saddam, and here we are blowing them up unnecessarily, and without warning. Even circling once or twice before firing would have probably done the trick. What is it, exactly, we have liberated these people from?

here is the thing - we weren't there. we don't know how or why things went down the way the did. we are relying on the reporting that is made available to us. each person has an agenda.

did the pilots just wake up and decide they were going to wack some innocents today? maybe, but it doesn't sound like the actions of any of the pilots i know or have known.

was there some type of warning given that we aren't aware of? we have no way of knowing.

would circling a couple of times opened the helicopters up to rpg fire? we have no way of knowing.

were the people milling around the disabled bradley, on a street involved in a battle really innocent civilians? we don't know.

what i do know is that professional soldiers don't get off on killing people for no good reason. i know that it is a career ender to be found guilty of firing inappropriately. i know that most soldiers do their best to help people, not go out of their way to harm them needlessly. that is my starting point for looking at all incoming information. so i run what little info we have through my life's experiences and come up with the conclusion that A) we don't know all the details so passing judgement is inappropriate B) we will never know al the details unless you speak first hand with people that were on the ground and in the air and take multiple views into account. that won't happen because the military is not going to give interviews. bad shit happens in battle.


each person's experiences will cause them to look at the same info and come to a different conclusion. if your starting point is that gwb started the Iraq war as a neocon adventure and the military is full of incompetence and they have completely lost control of the situation, it would be easy to see the incoming info and decide that these were obviously innocent civilians minding their own business before they were ambushed and killed by a helicopter attack.

[tw]

Even the Turkmen are now being called the enemy. US is now attacking the town of Talafar in northern Iraq - because even the north of Iraq has become fertile ground for insurgency. Last Friday (and little reported in the US) is this from Turkey as reported by the BBC:

On Friday Turkey's foreign ministry urged the US to halt the offensive.

"What is being done there is harming the civilian population, that it is wrong," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said on Monday.

He added that if the operation continues in Talafar, "Turkey's cooperation on issues regarding Iraq will come to a total stop".

So why attack the Turkmen? Just another example of how things in Iraq are slowly moving just as VietNam some 30+ years ago when the United States also attacked a sovereign nation for no good or honest reason.

[lookout123]

tw, i think we can agree that the only thing we can agree upon is that we cannot agree upon anything else.

In the meantime, more spin - an outright lie - that they put women and children out front in every confrontation. outlook123 could only post that spin if George Jr propaganda is his entire information source.

now let's look at my real words. i didn't say that they put women and children in front of them in EVERY battle - i pointed out that they have shown a willingness to do it in some battles. my information is not from GWB or any neo-con press, i get a lot of my info from - as you like to say, from people "where the work gets done" - those that are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know people on the ground there right now. some rotated back stateside this weekend. I speak with these people about what they are encountering over there. Every one of them are pretty pissed about what they see on the news, because according to them, it isn't an accurate representation of what is really happening over there.

Even if Iraqis were only looting the Bradley, still is no reason to missile those people.

yes it would be. you absolutely do not let vital equipment, especially communications equipment fall into enemy hands. end of story. these people have been living in a warzone for more than a year now. before that they were under saddam's regime. the innocents know there are dire consequences involved in messing around with military equipment. this is not the first piece of equipment that was disabled, left behind, and then detroyed from above.
no one has stated how they know that these were innocent civilians just milling around the neighborhood, and not someone with less innocent intentions. does the media have anything to gain by presenting it the way it does? yes. if it bleeds it leads. US gunships killing innocent civilians minding their own business is a story. US gunships killing people trying to strip equipment from a Bradley is not a story. was there another way to destroy the bradley without risking the lives of US soldiers? i don't know, i wasn't on the ground. is it uncommon for equipment to be destroyed with airborne delvery? not at all. it is often the most effective and efficient means. but please, tell me how this is neo-con spin.

That is what lookout123 does. He is very good at twisting the truth.

twisting the truth? who's truth, yours? your truth begins and ends with george jr lied. anything that is positive is ignored, anything negative is a devious plot by the neocons. you frequently take my quotes out of context and add words in, then accuse me of twisting the truth. tw, you obviously have an incredibly analytical mind and have a passion for self education but you have such hatred for gwb that you cannot see that there isn't a neocon behind every bush.
edit: (unintentional play on words) read "bush" as "wall".

[Pi]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i get a lot of my info from - as you like to say, from people "where the work gets done" - those that are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. I know people on the ground there right now. some rotated back stateside this weekend. I speak with these people about what they are encountering over there. Every one of them are pretty pissed about what they see on the news, because according to them, it isn't an accurate representation of what is really happening over there.

I wouldn't believe anything a soldier told me, because I'm a soldier too. You don't have any battle experience or similar, don't you? Ever heard of battle stress an tunnel vision? There was a film (maybe ROE, don't know anymore), who sowed it quite clearly. The fact seeing an enemy doesn't mean that there really is one. Especally when they all wear the same clothes. You're just focusing and when you see only on thing fitting in your scheme of danger, you see it everywhere.
That doesn't mean, you are going crazy, but it is a problem in military operations. Trying to get a discipline in your troops before they use their weapons and not only firing in the heap.
And there's something else, military is a lot of talking and a lot of talking to people knowing shit about what happened. It's a very good feeling, when you can tell stories about what "happened" and everything is admiring you. And it's not easy for people coming home, when everybody is against a war you're fighting, so it's normal trying to defend yourself at home.
This doesn't mean that every soldier is lying, but believe me, I do it myself, unconsiously, knowing it isn't as tough as it seems.
So be carefull when hearing stories from a soldier, always.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

Even if Iraqis were only looting the Bradley, still is no reason to missile those people.

Originally Posted by lookout123

yes it would be. you absolutely do not let vital equipment, especially communications equipment fall into enemy hands. end of story.

So we recruit for the insurgents to protect equipment? If the equipment was so vital, then why did soldiers leave it? Why would they abandon vital equipment in a town that supposidely wants American liberators? This event demonstrates a major disconnect. Same disconnect that resulted in thousands of American lives sacrificed in VietNam.

If Iraqis wanted liberation as George Jr has said, then why would soldiers even with 'armor' abandon vital equipment. At a minimum, they could have removed vital stuff. Even tossed a few grenades inside. Soldiers and armor are suffering from increasing insurgency than even 3 months ago. The latter confirmed by other sources and demonstrated by this event. It suggests that administration spin is a lie.

Reporters, private contractors, and other nationals are saying this. Local temper is gently and increasingly becoming more anti-American. When a US helicopter does exactly what Israeli choppers do to Palestinians, then how do things get any better? When we start attacking even Turkmen, then who is left to be American allies? Using a missile to destroy vital equipment on streets containing civilians is only justified if the streets are full of unfriendlies. Obviously from the video, there were not masses of armed insurgents. So why would helicopters fire? Do we abandon equipment quickly - hope that choppers can destroy vital equipment later - because anti-American sentiment is that widespread even in Baghdad? Or was this and other events simply acts of cowboy chopper pilots?

No we will not agree because I have long been warning about this Iraqi war. It is proceeding as predicted The expression from the military was "200,000 troops and 2 years". What has changed? The military was apparently correct. Almost 2 years later with insufficient troops and things are worsening.

Some Lie. Others Define a Solution
Until reasons for political violence are removed, then an organized military response is doomed to failure. History says that repeatedly and too often.

These posts were about 1 year ago. Please feel free to demonstrate any positive progress since then in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

UT also posted about 1 year ago in Major Concession
tw, who is here and doesn't speak the language, but listens to reporters who don't speak the language, feels he understands it with precision.

Some details were inaccurate. But please show me, UT, where things got better one year later. Iraq continues to slowly worsen as predicted. Number of insurgents have doubled. Where is a solution? Where is the exit strategy? Where is all this international support? As I predicted, based upon both knowledge and previous experience, we now stew in our own juices.

No we still will not agree because what I said then still applies today. I did not believe a lying president and his "mission accomplished" nonsense. Facts then predicted things will get worse. And so they have. So bad that soldiers even abandon vital equipment in the streets.

I have nothing to apologize for. Iraq is going just as it should considering the lessons of history - ie 1960s Vietnam. lookout123 does not have that perspective. Things are slowly getting worse as insurgents recruit even more soldiers thanks to helicopters firing missiles on civilians and TV reporters. Our Iraqi allies will not even fight - just as in Vietnam. The administration claims these were only isolated incidents or a result of insufficient training? Bull. Its called spin to deceive the American public. Having been here 30+ years ago, the expression is Deja Vue. As noted previously, lookout123, your perspective is not tempered by having lived through these same 'accidents' and listening to your predecessors making the same claims. These problems directly traceable to the president and his administration. No exit strategy. No strategic objective. Reasons for political violence remain. No political solution. Even total ignorance of SzeTsu's 500 BC lesson - Art of War.

We will never agree if you deny these facts. Your perspective will not permit you to admit that both Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly worsening - just like Vietnam. Both wars (Iraq and Vietnam) having been staged on presidential lies. Both wars conducted without a smoking gun. Its called "Making of a Quagmire". It starts with a lying president. When do we recall the movie "Wag the Dog". It applies.

I stand by my comments made so many years previously. What we have today and in lookout123's reponses were predictable. Deja Vue.