BF2S Forums Unbelievable Massacre

mikkel wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Not as far as I can tell. I didn't say anything about the difficulties of waging war in a city. I didn't argue, not do I care whether or not this kind of action falls under the rules of engagement, or whether or not it is permitted in war. All I said was that if you can't fight a war in a city without this kind of action being sanctioned and perfectly acceptable, then I don't think you should be doing it. I realise that he disagrees with me, but he didn't address anything I said.

You ask for the impossible. Any kind of urban warfare you find unacceptable, but that is what constitutes warfare in the present day. Now if you want to say that we shouldn't have wars at all, that would be hilarious.

Where do you get this from? I haven't at all said that I find any kind of urban warfare unacceptable.

Simple logic.  You require credible and overwhelming reason to engage, credible and overwhelming reason does not exist in urban warfare, you find urban warfare unacceptable.

mikkel wrote:

But I haven't said that I see the necessity of command decisions in all but some cases.

mikkel wrote:

I said that I don't agree with the kind of warfare that permits and justifies this 'command decision' that you're referring to.

I don't understand how you fail to see the logical fallacy in the above statements. You don't disagree with with the necessity of command decisions, acknowledging that command decisions requires the same leeway in all cases and can not be limited in scope to specific cases, but you disagree with the methods that give the command decision in this specific case.

Disagreeing with the idea of command decisions is categorically disagreeing with war period.

mikkel wrote:

Well, these people came across the place in a truck after the shots had been fired. That doesn't to me constitute hanging around people with weapons. It doesn't suggest to me that they knew that the people had weapons. It just suggests to me that they stopped and tried to help an injured man. It's easy to postulate and assume the worst, but what I'm saying is that when it's equally easy, or easier to postulate and assume the good, one should exercise constraint. The chance of three dead insurgents isn't worth a very likely chance of three dead civilians to me. Certainly not in the situation displayed.

They had AKs that could be seen from a chopper. How could you possibly "not know" the people had weapons? If you assume the best, you could assume every single person in the country has a weapon to do nothing more than defend their home and family. You could assume the best and say that every person with a cell phone by the side of the road is calling their grandmother. You could assume every single frickin person in the country could be considered a civilian, there is absolutely no way to tell. Even if they shoot at you, they could be doing it at gun point or other similar ridiculous and useless theories.

Assuming the reasonable is the only thing that matters. It's reasonable to assume that people dressed like the people that shoot at you, holding the things they use to shoot at you with, are going to shoot at you. Assuming that people around armed people helping previously armed people are "very likely" three civilians is highly unreasonable.

mikkel wrote:

credible and overwhelming reason

This idea alone is absurd, particularly in war but in any sort of politics as well. Credible and overwhelming reason is a fairy tale.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Simple questions for you mikkel. Who is at fault for the civilian deaths caused in Iraq? Is it the American troops for not being diligent enough or is it the insurgents fault for not obeying the rules of war and fighting with uniforms on that designate them as combatants? Is it America's fault that the insurgents hide among the civilian populace and make themselves indistinguishable from it? Who is ultimately at fault when civilians are mistaken for combatants?

A rational person would lay the blame at the feet of the insurgents.

The American troops have the option of not opening fire unless they are 100% certain about who they are shooting at in a civilian area.

Five years after major combat operations ceased this was still going on, amazing really.

FM wrote:

Assuming the reasonable is the only thing that matters. It's reasonable to assume that people dressed like the people that shoot at you, holding the things they use to shoot at you with, are going to shoot at you. Assuming that people around armed people helping previously armed people are "very likely" three civilians is highly unreasonable.

Given the widespread ownership of AKs in Iraq, and the multitude of militias, police, undercover operatives etc opening up from a helicopter on a crowd apparently doing nothing much is pretty dumb.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FM wrote:

Assuming the reasonable is the only thing that matters. It's reasonable to assume that people dressed like the people that shoot at you, holding the things they use to shoot at you with, are going to shoot at you. Assuming that people around armed people helping previously armed people are "very likely" three civilians is highly unreasonable.

Given the widespread ownership of AKs in Iraq, and the multitude of militias, police, undercover operatives etc opening up from a helicopter on a crowd apparently doing nothing much is pretty dumb.

No friendlies in that area.

I mean seriously, you're going to tell me that they're not supposed to shoot at crowds of the enemy because there could be a black ops in there? LOL

Cowboys! I tell you...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bullets go through things, bullets bounce off things, bullets do lots of harmful things to people they were not necessarily aimed at. How are those casualties different from shooting at a guy standing on the side of the street, blatantly holding an AK? Just because they shot at you, that means the risk to civilian casualties is somehow diminished?

Wasn't aware holding an AK was a capital crime.

Again, holding an AK in a war zone has a pretty reasonable implication that you are going to use it, and not for target practice.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You're going to tell me the guy standing on the side of the street isn't a threat and never will be?

Who knows? Maybe he's on your side?

Dude what kind of arguement is this. Besides the fact that I should think people "on our side" would be intelligent enough to not provoke people who obviously don't know who they are, they signed up for a dangerous mission that has exactly that threat.[

Dilbert_X wrote:

No friendlies in that area.

So every Iraqi is the enemy? There's the problem I think.

...

No. No friendlies means no nothing. Nobody in that vicinity working with the U.S. military informed them of their whereabouts, and they are clearly not in uniform. So yeah, everyone that's not part of the coalition in Iraq holding a gun is an enemy or a complete moron. You couldn't pay me to hold any kind of weapon out in the open in a warzone unless I was intending to use it.

eleven bravo wrote:

BN wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

yes.  unless you figure out a new way to master urban combat in the 21st century.

Default action is to kill? It would be different if Iraq were liberating USA and they killed civilians.

That's not my job to figure it out how to master urban combat.

As this was a liberation and not a "war" this should have been thought of prior to going in to Iraq.

Default killing is just wrong.

ok.  I agree, we shouldnt have invaded.  Iraq posed absolutely no threat and the bush administration knowingly misled the public in order to justify an invasion.  now that we've got that out of the way and we could both say we stand on the same position on that subject, could you please suggest a different way a military should be able win?  because the fact is we are there, now, engaging an enemy in a fluid combat environment. 

Its not your job, correct.  Its not my job either.  But you cant say this is wrong wrong wrong wrong without at least giving me something practical to think about.  Please, considering we are there and thats not going to change any time soon, what should be done instead?

Pull out.

We have liberated Iraq from Hussein. Iraq seem to have a domestic terrorism problem which should be dealt with by the local & federal police.

BN wrote:

Pull out.

We have liberated Iraq from Hussein. Iraq seem to have a domestic terrorism problem which should be dealt with by the local & federal police.

And watch the country turn into a failed state? Fuck no. It's worst off for the US and the rest of the world. What I'd REALLY like to see is more cooperation between ME nations and their aid in rebuilding Iraq.

Edit: The reason why Iraq is in such a huge fucking mess now is because the US dicked around for 6 months and lost the confidence of the populace. Hajji don't trust GI too much.

Last edited by Cybargs (2010-04-05 22:48:31)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

In their bravado/stupidity they fire on that tiny helicopter way far away (crap, what's it going to do -right?).

No-one fired at anyone ya idiot.

Cybargs wrote:

Hajji don't trust GI too much.

lol...i wonder why? cos GI is racist psyco who shoots civilians and kids from a helicopter? hmmm...think I can see the correlation thar.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Does that make us all psychopaths too?

makes you all sick people who've lost part of your humanity, yeah.

Professional soldiers don't need to find joy in killing. Immature men/boys who ahve been manipulated by the army...do.

S3v3N wrote:

Also this is a prime example of the media needs to stay the fuck out of a war zone.

No, the media needs to stay there, just so that there's a chance in the middle of the propaganda shit some people are held responsible for war crimes etc.

JohnG@lt wrote:

or is it the insurgents fault for not obeying the rules of war

LOL...pot, meet kettle.

JohnG@lt wrote:

What would you rather they do, cry? At least they're displaying some emotion and not sitting there stone-facedly.

Fuckin right they should cry. I'd rather they sit there stone-faced and NOT TAKE FUN OUT OF BLOWING UP PEOPLE.

I mean, how fucked up do you have to be to be proud that someone from your armed forces has blown up some kids?

eleven bravo wrote:

what has been done here clearly falls under jus in bello

BULLSHIT.

BN wrote:

Thank you Wikileaks for this.

This is a disgrace. How can you be so sure there is an RPG & AK's and be so far from the truth? Surely being "the good guys" you need to be 100% sure that they were armed.

Why would you engage a unarmed van driver helping a wounded person? Is that in the ROE?

The cover-up in the aftermath is even more of a disgrace.

We are supposed to be liberating this country and all we are doing, and have been doing, is creating resentment and more insurgents.

Nuff said?

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-06 00:06:17)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ruis why is it so hard for you to put yourself in their shoes?

So all the insurgents who hide amongst civilians should be left alone?

You're exaggerating with the backpackers, or at least I hope you are because that's plain stupid.

Their job is to protect forces on the ground, the AK can't even scratch the paint job, but it can put a huge hole in somebody's chest.

You don't sit in a hidden position with something that looks like a weapon and point it at somebody trying to kill you. That's just retarded.

Sh1fty, I'd like to think that if I'm in a helicopter a few hundred metres up in the sky and I know there are civilians in an area and someone holding something that could by a stretch of the imagination be some kind of weapon which is not in the slightest threatening to me then I would hold my fire because I know I might kill some civvies. The problem with the pilots is that they were clearly gunning for a fight and wanting to 'waste some ragheads' or whatever. Am I exaggerating with the backpackers? A strap of ANYTHING could look like a gunstrap. It's a lame excuse. Almost anything could look like a gun...IF YOU WANT IT TO. Which they clearly did. Not saying the journo was clever in his actions, but it's not just the journo, it's the other civvies and kids there too. Were they stupid too? They lived there, shouldn't they be free to go about their daily business without the fear of being blown up?

As far as I can tell there are NO weapons on that video.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-06 00:28:05)

-Sh1fty- wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ruis why is it so hard for you to put yourself in their shoes?

So all the insurgents who hide amongst civilians should be left alone?

You're exaggerating with the backpackers, or at least I hope you are because that's plain stupid.

Their job is to protect forces on the ground, the AK can't even scratch the paint job, but it can put a huge hole in somebody's chest.

You don't sit in a hidden position with something that looks like a weapon and point it at somebody trying to kill you. That's just retarded.

Sh1fty, I'd like to think that if I'm in a helicopter a few hundred metres up in the sky and I know there are civilians in an area and someone holding something that could by a stretch of the imagination be some kind of weapon which is not in the slightest threatening to me then I would hold my fire because I know I might kill some civvies. The problem with the pilots is that they were clearly gunning for a fight and wanting to 'waste some ragheads' or whatever. Am I exaggerating with the backpackers? A strap of ANYTHING could look like a gunstrap. It's a lame excuse. Almost anything could look like a gun...IF YOU WANT IT TO. Which they clearly did. Not saying the journo was clever in his actions, but it's not just the journo, it's the other civvies and kids there too. Were they stupid too? They lived there, shouldn't they be free to go about their daily business without the fear of being blown up?

As far as I can tell there are NO weapons on that video.

I saw what seemed to be 2 AK47s and I thought the shoulder straps were weapons too until I saw the "Dude with camera". I'm just trying to put 2 and 2 together here. There's 2 guys you know have AKs, so that's enough to make them valid targets to shoot at. Not to mention two other people have shoulder straps with large cameras which look like RPGs.

We don't know the context of this film. We don't know why that Apache was there. Maybe he had reports of armed men grouping there.

You always want to be safe instead of sorry. What if those two armed men killed several Americans later on with those AKs? What if that RPG kills some soldiers patrolling in a HMMWV?

This is actually a fairly reasonable post.

Internet armchair investigations are rarely accurate.

ruisleipa wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

You always want to be safe instead of sorry. What if those two armed men killed several Americans later on with those AKs? What if that RPG kills some soldiers patrolling in a HMMWV?

If if if. What they DID know is that there was maybe a couple of guys with ak's and a bunch of unarmed civilians. Enough info NOT to shoot? Yes.

What they did know is that there was to armed gunmen they needed to take down. Which they did quite well at.