BF2S Forums Unbelievable Massacre

Beduin wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Morally speaking, what is unbelievable is tying up a family and executing children in front of their parents.

Engaging someone who has a weapon looking at you from behind a corner in war.. not.so.much.
capiche?

here you go again. Always compare the forces with insurgents. eleven bravo said it, war sucks. Nothing to see here, move along!
this attitude has led us to where we are at now, and it is not a good place to be.

lol.. yea well there you go again. Why are you repeating what eleven bravo said to me? Can you not tell the difference between he and I? I'm just trying to explain what I find "unbelievable" and believable.

Maybe the attitude of wars must not be bloody has led us to where we are at now. For a war to end wills must be broken. Yes, sometimes it is bloody. There are no perfect situations, unfortunately. Have you ever considered that?

Mekstizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I practically directly responded to your post. How you can say "The 1% will always, always be magnified. Civilians will always, always die. Why can't people accept it, both ways." and then say the soldiers should be court-martialed out the other side of your mouth I don't even understand. They did everything right.

I said people should accept that soldiers should or could be in a court martial in the same way they accept that civilians die in wars. Despite any contradiction that involves. Because it's the reality of this war, as people in this topic bring up.

But they didn't break any rules or laws. There's nothing to charge them on. Results don't matter, it's the process leading up to it that requires obedience to the law.

If I see a man with an AK walking down the street, turn my back, hear rounds crack past my head, turn and shoot him I'm well within my rights even if he is innocent because I have probably cause. He could be the Prime Minister of Iraq and I would not be charged.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-05 15:12:27)

This is why Iraq is turning into a second Vietnam. There's so much contempt for any human life other than American in that video. You don't belong at the front lines when your response to a body being crushed under the tracks of an armoured vehicle is to laugh. Doesn't matter if it's because you're a bad person, or because you're mentally fatigued; it's unprofessional and reprehensible. To add insult to, well, insult, this happened during the height of the 'hearts and minds' initiative. Way to go in that regard.

eleven bravo wrote:

youre right! asking for permission to fire shows complete lack of hesitation!

That's a bit weak. They had to ask for permission, it wasn't at their discretion. They didn't seem like they were hesitant at all, and they didn't seem like they wanted to have to ask for permission. The gunner sounds about as eager as a 12 year old who really, really wants to try out his new quad bike. That might be an acceptable response when you're taking fire or about to take fire, but not when you're trying to work out whether or not you can kill a couple of guys trying tending to the wounded. Hell, the pilots were reporting speculated intent before the truck had even come to a stop, seemingly forgetting that this whole thing is taking place in an urban, civilian area. The people in the truck could have just been good samaritans who happened to come across a guy lying injured on the side of the road. Judging by the fact that they had children with them, it seems entirely likely that they weren't some sort of insurgent ambulance.

This is the sort of stuff that happens in urban areas when all a soldier sees is red. It's inexusible when it happens with this kind of absence of scurity in determining valid targets.

ruisleipa wrote:

Surely part of the issue is that these guys were shooting from a helicopter how many hundreds of metres up in the sky. They were in NO mortal immediate danger even from an RPG - I mean the pilots are trained in evasive manouevres right? Pretty damn hard hitting a chopper with an RPG from half a mile away or whatever. Never mind an AK. It's not the same as if you're a soldier on foot.

It's very easy to say 'oh civilians will always die in war'...when you or your loved ones aren't those civilians.

And, sorry, I have more sympathy for the civilians than the military. Like it or not, you join the military you KNOW there is a chance you will get killed. Yes a death is always tragic for those involved, but knowingly putting yourself in a position where you might die is very different from not knowingly doing so, and then getting killed.

I'm sure that EVERYONE here can agree that covering up was the wrong thing to do, can't they?

Yes, we should only send in ground troops, have our ground troops walk up to them and ask them to identify themselves as friend or foe, and THEN engage them if they say they are enemy combatants. To make it more fair we'll limit it to pistol duels as well.

JohnG@lt wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Surely part of the issue is that these guys were shooting from a helicopter how many hundreds of metres up in the sky. They were in NO mortal immediate danger even from an RPG - I mean the pilots are trained in evasive manouevres right? Pretty damn hard hitting a chopper with an RPG from half a mile away or whatever. Never mind an AK. It's not the same as if you're a soldier on foot.

It's very easy to say 'oh civilians will always die in war'...when you or your loved ones aren't those civilians.

And, sorry, I have more sympathy for the civilians than the military. Like it or not, you join the military you KNOW there is a chance you will get killed. Yes a death is always tragic for those involved, but knowingly putting yourself in a position where you might die is very different from not knowingly doing so, and then getting killed.

I'm sure that EVERYONE here can agree that covering up was the wrong thing to do, can't they?

Yes, we should only send in ground troops, have our ground troops walk up to them and ask them to identify themselves as friend or foe, and THEN engage them if they say they are enemy combatants. To make it more fair we'll limit it to pistol duels as well.

Stop stat padding.

ruisleipa wrote:

And, sorry, I have more sympathy for the civilians than the military. Like it or not, you join the military you KNOW there is a chance you will get killed. Yes a death is always tragic for those involved, but knowingly putting yourself in a position where you might die is very different from not knowingly doing so, and then getting killed.

Like those two journalists then? They put themselves in harms way. They chose to. As did those carrying AK's.

"The U.S. Central Command declined to offer immediate comment on the video's release, or to confirm its authenticity, but said it would be issuing a statement. "

Hey I can run up the road and ask them if you guys want.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What a supremely ridiculous sentence.

Not really. You can't have it one way or another. You can't say it's all ok for civilians to die as a matter of reality but it's not ok for soldiers to be punished. You can however accept that both are technically a reality of the situation. That's what I'm saying.

First of all, yeah the sentence is absurd, I can't believe you said that.

If you punish soldiers for killing civilians when they are trying to kill the enemy you will lose absolutely all discipline and morale. Your suggestions are akin to trying to train a mouse to run through a maze, but half the time you zap him before he gets the cheese. Exact same behavior, different result.

I'm not saying punish soldiers for killing civilians. I'm saying that accept it that from time to time soldiers will be condemned/punished for their actions in the same way that you can accept that civilians getting killed are a part of war.

ROE or not, these guys ended up killing loads of civilians. I'm not surprised that people are hating on them, and I'm not surprised that this mass killing happened in the first place, because I just accept it as a reality of this damn war. Like I said, I'm more upset that these people (civilians, pilots and such) are put in such situations in the first place. Then again, you could just boil that bit down to the reality of human existence.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I practically directly responded to your post. How you can say "The 1% will always, always be magnified. Civilians will always, always die. Why can't people accept it, both ways." and then say the soldiers should be court-martialed out the other side of your mouth I don't even understand. They did everything right.

I said people should accept that soldiers should or could be in a court martial in the same way they accept that civilians die in wars. Despite any contradiction that involves. Because it's the reality of this war, as people in this topic bring up.

But they didn't break any rules or laws. There's nothing to charge them on. Results don't matter, it's the process leading up to it that requires obedience to the law.

If I see a man with an AK walking down the street, turn my back, hear rounds crack past my head, turn and shoot him I'm well within my rights even if he is innocent because I have probably cause. He could be the Prime Minister of Iraq and I would not be charged.

And after the bullets went through his body and into the skull of a small child in the same trajectory, that was also within your rights?  So, a cop is justified to shoot a criminal actively shooting at him who is in front of a classroom full of kids?

Question regarding RoE.  Command is authorized to ok the engagement of verified hard targets trying to take wounded away, while not under fire?  Is that in the RoE manual?  Just looking for clarification.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Not really. You can't have it one way or another. You can't say it's all ok for civilians to die as a matter of reality but it's not ok for soldiers to be punished. You can however accept that both are technically a reality of the situation. That's what I'm saying.

First of all, yeah the sentence is absurd, I can't believe you said that.

If you punish soldiers for killing civilians when they are trying to kill the enemy you will lose absolutely all discipline and morale. Your suggestions are akin to trying to train a mouse to run through a maze, but half the time you zap him before he gets the cheese. Exact same behavior, different result.

I'm not saying punish soldiers for killing civilians. I'm saying that accept it that from time to time soldiers will be condemned/punished for their actions in the same way that you can accept that civilians getting killed are a part of war.

ROE or not, these guys ended up killing loads of civilians. I'm not surprised that people are hating on them, and I'm not surprised that this mass killing happened in the first place, because I just accept it as a reality of this damn war. Like I said, I'm more upset that these people (civilians, pilots and such) are put in such situations in the first place. Then again, you could just boil that bit down to the reality of human existence.

If you had watched the video without reading the introduction or the inclusion of names you would've said 'Wow, good job on the part of our soldiers'. The fact that you knew beforehand that they were civilians and not armed insurgents is coloring your views on this. I skipped most of the intro because, frankly, I don't care, and I didn't see a single thing that the pilots did wrong.

Edit - but, unlike 80%+ of the responders in this thread, I actually know the ROE and still own my ROE card from my deployment.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-05 15:27:42)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

But they didn't break any rules or laws. There's nothing to charge them on. Results don't matter, it's the process leading up to it that requires obedience to the law.

If I see a man with an AK walking down the street, turn my back, hear rounds crack past my head, turn and shoot him I'm well within my rights even if he is innocent because I have probably cause. He could be the Prime Minister of Iraq and I would not be charged.

And after the bullets went through his body and into the skull of a small child in the same trajectory, that was also within your rights?  So, a cop is justified to shoot a criminal actively shooting at him who is in front of a classroom full of kids?

Question regarding RoE.  Command is authorized to ok the engagement of verified hard targets trying to take wounded away, while not under fire?  Is that in the RoE manual?  Just looking for clarification.

Well, in most cases around here, if someone fires on a criminal, but hits an innocent person, it is the criminal who recieves the punishment for causing the situation.  (Civil court lawsuits will vary)

As it should be.

ruisleipa wrote:

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

This is professional soldiering these days?

Considering it was internal comms within the helicopter that were never supposed to be leaked to the media or anyone else, I'd say yes. Did the pilot walk up to the wounded Iraqi and say "hahahaha you asshole, I shot you good"? No. Do soldiers joke among themselves and say stuff like 'Good shot' or "Nice shooting" etc? Yes, of course and there's nothing in the world wrong with it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

First of all, yeah the sentence is absurd, I can't believe you said that.

If you punish soldiers for killing civilians when they are trying to kill the enemy you will lose absolutely all discipline and morale. Your suggestions are akin to trying to train a mouse to run through a maze, but half the time you zap him before he gets the cheese. Exact same behavior, different result.

I'm not saying punish soldiers for killing civilians. I'm saying that accept it that from time to time soldiers will be condemned/punished for their actions in the same way that you can accept that civilians getting killed are a part of war.

ROE or not, these guys ended up killing loads of civilians. I'm not surprised that people are hating on them, and I'm not surprised that this mass killing happened in the first place, because I just accept it as a reality of this damn war. Like I said, I'm more upset that these people (civilians, pilots and such) are put in such situations in the first place. Then again, you could just boil that bit down to the reality of human existence.

If you had watched the video without reading the introduction or the inclusion of names you would've said 'Wow, good job on the part of our soldiers'. The fact that you knew beforehand that they were civilians and not armed insurgents is coloring your views on this. I skipped most of the intro because, frankly, I don't care, and I didn't see a single thing that the pilots did wrong.

Edit - but, unlike 80%+ of the responders in this thread, I actually know the ROE and still own my ROE card from my deployment.

Well actually, that depends on how I came across the video, what the video title was and some other things. For me to truly be independent I would have to be told before watching that video to make my own mind up in the most unbiased way possible (impossible). I wouldn't be told it was a civilian shootup nor would I be told it was insurgents getting nabbed. The video is from the pilots side of the story so naturally I would probably be swayed by their conversations into believing they were killing some bad guys. The fact that you would assume that they were simply doing the right thing and killing bad guys and that everyone else would think the same is colouring your views on this.

The fact is (or is it?) they ended up killing alot of civilians and that's just, simply, quite bad indeed. Quite bad for the war and for them and for everyone. But a reality of it.