In an effort to kill two birds with one stone.
For glaterze:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polarbear1605
I am a little surprised by the general comments on this one. I think most of you should go back and read the Rules of War (FM27-10) and then the ROEs. (You might also want to get jmm99 involved in this one.) If I am a civilian and pickup a weapon on the battle field I become a combatant and btw, if I drop the weapon, I do not become a non-combatant again. This group of Iraqi "civilians" engaged our troops with AK-47s and RPGs. They were then treated like insurgents. They were tracked down and they were killed. If they are not tracked down and killed, they will reture to kill you (or Iraqi civilians, usually the ones on our side) later. The war crime was not US soldiers killing civilians but the war crime was insurgents using civilians as shields.
Imagine this is in Afghanistan today and go tell McChrystal...
For Fuchs:
Fuchs, I am still not sure where you are going here. Let me ask this question: In your opinion, what would have made this legal and acceptable to the laws of war? If the answer is the attack helo team should have not fired at all then you are basically going with the General McCrystal policy path and here is the problem with the NATO Afghan solution; for the sake of preventing civilian deaths we have grounded our air force ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/op...18dadkhah.html ) and we are putting our soldiers and Marines at risk ( http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/...s-vs.-soldiers ).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6338832.shtml
Based on these policies you would expect that civilian casualties in Afghanistan would be going down, however, civilian Afghan casualties between 2008 and 2009 went up substantially, in fact, civilian deaths due to insurgent activity when up over 40%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilia...2%80%93present)
The question then becomes if we are not hunting down and killing insurgents are we causing more civilian deaths then compared to civilian deaths committed out of military necessity?
We can disagree that any excuses are needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
It may be very, very unpleasant to you, but the 39 minute video leaves very little (if any) room for good excuses. You don't need to reach 100% information if the first 30% are already very damning.
We can also disagree that one can, much less should, arrive at conviction based on only 30% of the information. Particularly in any war where confusion will generally be rampant.
I realize in the perfect world some seem to envision, there will be few errors by practically perfect people and even slight digressions will be prohibited while serious errors will be harshly punished. Wake me when we get there...
In fact, wake me before we get there so I can meet the judges; infallibility is always impressive. :rolleyes:
Gotta agree with UBoat 509. You and others are correct that anyone can have an opinion and that in many things we should all have opinions. Must have them, in fact. The key is to realize that they are just that, opinions -- and to start clamoring for criminal charges based on those opinions does lead to so-called trials by media. Those are seldom beneficial.
Though I will note, as an aside and a compliment, that Reuters, the media outlet most involved and who apparently saw elements of the video back during the initial investigation has been quite circumspect in its reporting on this.
You and others are also correct that:
Quote:
The argument that only insiders are entitled to an opinion furthermore doesn't stand the most basic plausibility tests.
I agree. However, that elides the fact that those opinions by others with no relevant experience may have varying credibility with that majority you cite elsewhere. All are entitled to opinions. All are also entitled to accord varying credibility to the opinions of others. That's why there are 'experts' -- and Judges -- and on the opposite end of the spectrum those whose opinions are acknowledged totally inconsequential by almost everyone.
Most opinions will fall between those poles; all opinions will be given varying credibility based on assessment by most receivers of the sender's general knowledge and experience, apparent truthfulness, apparent objectivity, and pertinent knowledge and experience. Receivers will also weight those attributes in accordance with their own experience, opinions and biases. :cool:
On this particular item, I submit the majority doesn't really care. All this was cussed and discussed in detail back in 2007 to include the glint on a camera lens being mistaken for a weapon's flash. It will attract the interest and enthusiasm of anti war and anti American types, it may generate a little heat and then it will disappear from view only to be resurrected (as it has been on this appearance) at a later date by those who have the aforementioned predilections -- probably to make an arcane point and it will likely miss its intended target as do most such transparent ploys.
That majority is not stupid...
Three tangential observations:
Firn:
Quote:
This one-sided view of the greater part of the public in many countries only confirms once again that it is very difficult to handle potential, likely and possible incidents which impact goals and lifes.
Very true, though I suggest this is an excellent example of the 'trial by media' that UBoat 509 properly objected to...
It is the media take or acceptance of the Wikileaks message and it will influence some readers or viewers. I still contend the majority of people in the areas you mention will not really care.
Sebee
Quote:
I have taken part in a few operations as a lowly other rank where only years later, with the help of google, have I had anything near a clear picture of what we did, the reasons behind it and the "bigger picture"
I've had the same experience but I've also discovered that in some cases, the "bigger picture" as later reported was itself incorrect. I guess I'd say "Yep but be careful, some 'history' is flawed..." Generally to make a political or ideological point.
PolarBear1605:
Quote:
The question then becomes if we are not hunting down and killing insurgents are we causing more civilian deaths then compared to civilian deaths committed out of military necessity?
Yes, almost certainly. That allows me to use my favorite quote:
"War means fighting. The business of the soldier is to fight. Armies are not called out to dig trenches, to live in camps, but to find the enemy and strike him; to invade his country, and do him all possible damage in the shortest possible time. This will involve great destruction of life and property while it lasts; but such a war will of necessity be of brief continuance, and so would be an economy of life and property in the end."
Thomas J. Jackson quoted by G. F. R. Henderson