Video US helicopter guns down farmers
POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Sunday, July 24, 2005 05:16
VIEWED: 9855
PAGE 4 of 9
Quote:
"Based only on what was seen, were the actions appropriate ?"
I can't base things only on what was seen. That would be something of a travesty of justice. You need a context to understand anything.
There was a funny episode of Reno 911 where these officers were chasing a man dressed as a milkshake. He was wearing a big, encapsulating, foam milkshake outfit... a bit like a mascot costume used at ball games. This one was clearly for advertisement purposes.
After chasing the milkshake man for some time, the Reno officers finally caught up with him. They decided for whatever reason that they didn't need to arrest him. They got into a chat with him, and he revealed that the foam on the suit shielded him from the many falls he took during the chase. "You could even hit me with a stick and it wouldn't hurt."
The officers hit him with their clubs, and they all had a jolly laugh that it didn't hurt the foam covered milkshake man. Then the man said goodbye, walked across the street, and was hit by a bus.
The footage on the eight o'clock news was of a bunch of Reno officers beating the crap out of a milkshake mascot, who staggered across the street and was struck by a bus.
It's a comedy. It's rediculous. But it IS a very good lesson on how things can look out of context. I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but I'm not prepared to cry 'Wolf' every time I see something suspicious, either. You need a context for everything.
Quote:
"Feel free to duck the question if you don't want to get into this debate. Also if you want to throw in anymore observations on aviation technology please, kinda into it myself."
I try not to duck questions, and I try to say I'm wrong when I'm wrong. (see below) I wish I knew more about military aircraft. Those vehicles are darned impressive.
Quote:
"BTW like your signature,
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
kinda fits right in to this topic"
I spent a good deal of time defending the decision to go into Iraq. I defended it on the basis of WMD, which while it may not have been the 'legal' reason for going into Iraq, was certainly the most compelling. 'Ignoring UN resolutions' just doesn't carry the same emotional weight as 'he's got nerve gas and he'll sell it to terrorists.'
Once we found no WMD, I was crestfallen. But I clung to the President's new line that these people had been under an inhumane regime, and now they were free from all that. I posted on this very board defending the Iraq invasion. For even if we were wrong about WMD, we could still turn things into a positive by treating the people of Iraq better than they'd ever been treated before. We could show them what Freedom looked like. Something they may not have craved, because they'd not have known about it... but something they'd appreciate later.
Then we were torturing Iraqis in an old Iraqi torture fortress. Bleh. I gave up on justifying the war at that point.
I also changed my signature. "Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner"
Who can argue with the Captain? We've done some things in the name of Liberty that don't make me feel good as a Human being. Things that were wrong. I just don't believe our presence in Iraq is a positive one, nor do I believe it was done for positive reasons. At least, not positive to the Iraqis. Anything good they get out of this invasion is a side effect, not the mission goal.
So I've changed my stance on Iraq. I'm not particularly glowy about our president. I'm disillusioned.
But that doesn't mean I'll soak in every new illusion presented to me. Even if it supports my new view of things. Context.
Everything has to have context.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thing goes back to that "Core Beliefs" thread we had a few weeks ago. One of mine is "If you've never looked at a man down the sights of an assault rifle with the firm conviction that it's him or you, then you're not qualified to talk about war". I have. It sucks. Civilians just don't understand what it's like knowing that your life could be snatched away at any moment.
In the second place, you'd have to be an absolute fool not to realize that that video has been removed from its context such that it casts the helo crew in the worst possible light. From looking at that video, there's no way to determine the context of the firing, let alone the purpose of that particular sortie.
War is hell. The smell of burning flesh, the screaming, the horror of witnessing violent death, the terror that it might be you next...well, suffice it to say that it's a damned dirty business. I, along with all people (including every military man I ever served with), wish that war would just go away. But it won't. There will always be people willing to use violence to further their own ends. Those people can not be reasoned with, and no amount of prison time will "rehabilitate" them.
People like Zarqawi and his men, who believe that every Muslim has the duty of killing Americans--of any occupation, age, or gender--can only be stopped permanently by ending their life. This is the cold reality of war. To prevent him from killing my comrades and threatening my way of life, the enemy must be killed. The enemy would do the same to me and mine; and believe this: I aim to go on living.
You may not agree with the reasons for the war. You may not even agree with the concept of war itself. But when you demonize the American soldier with preposterous accusations like the one being foisted upon us in this thread, you are setting up our fighting men for a repeat of the treatment they received in Viet Nam. Baseless claims of American atrocities gained widespread acceptance, and when the soldiers came home from the most traumatic experience of their lives, they faced another trauma at the hands of the very countrymen in whose service they'd suffered.
My uncle was a clerk in a forward artillery base in Viet Nam. He saw his best friends die in front of him. He saw the random nature of combat and was left with the question all combat veterans struggle with: "why him and not me?"
When he came home, he flew through San Francisco. As he walked through the airport in his dress uniform, he was spat upon, called "babykiller" and "murderer" and had rotten vegetables thrown at him. When he arrived back in his home town, he discovered that his fiancee had left him because of his involvement in the war. Old friends wouldn't give him the time of day.
My uncle was completely shattered by that war; he hasn't made a friend in 30 years. He suffered the worst trauma a man can face, and when he returned to the country he suffered for, his own people persecuted him because of baseless accusations.
I shudder to think that another generation of young men will return to a country that despises them because of groundless claims of atrocities.
My plea is simply this: if you are against the war in Iraq, then do what your conscience bids you do to oppose it. But please, oppose the politicians who started and sustain the war. Attacking the American soldier might work to turn public opinion against the war. Butit will also scar yet another generation of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who are doing what they believe is their duty.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apparently you've never lived in the parts of cities where I lived! Had a gun in hand more than twice, each time with the idea I might have to use it.
This thing goes back to that "Core Beliefs" thread we had a few weeks ago. One of mine is "If you've never looked at a man down the sights of an assault rifle with the firm conviction that it's him or you, then you're not qualified to talk about war". I have. It sucks. Civilians just don't understand what it's like knowing that your life could be snatched away at any moment.
Quote:I assume this applies to Bush as well? I mean, violence is violence, and remember- we invaded them, not the other way around. That certainly sounds like "using violence further their own ends" to me!
There will always be people willing to use violence to further their own ends. Those people can not be reasoned with, and no amount of prison time will "rehabilitate" them....
Quote:You're using Zarqawi to justify war against Iraqis. Iraqis didn't threaten you or your "way of life" (whatever that means). We, however, are certainly threatening THEIR way of life.
People like Zarqawi... To prevent him from killing my comrades and threatening my way of life, the enemy must be killed.
Quote:complete with photos and videos of torture etc.
Baseless claims of American atrocities
As far as opposing the politicians and appointees who started this war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al) and leaving the soldiers blameless... Where atrocities were committed (and atrocities were committed) I suppose our troops could say they were only following orders. That's what the German troops said, too. At what point does duty end and personal responsibility take over?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
But when you demonize the American soldier with preposterous accusations like the one being foisted upon us in this thread, you are setting up our fighting men for a repeat of the treatment they received in Viet Nam. Baseless claims of American atrocities gained widespread acceptance, and when the soldiers came home from the most traumatic experience of their lives, they faced another trauma at the hands of the very countrymen in whose service they'd suffered.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
I'm very sorry your uncle, along with so many other soldiers brutalized by that war, have had to suffer from their own people's ignorance and misplaced rage. This country is completely clueless when it comes to grief. All we want to do is blame and blame and cover our own asses.
When somebody questions the official ass-covering, they're accused of hate, when often they are merely agents of a healthy grief process. What was our part in 9/11? How did we contribute to the developement of that situation? Are we ready yet to ask these questions, or is it still a question of blame and "us vs. them?" When will we end this game of "Who's the biggest victim?"
We, as a nation, have neither the time nor the inclination for sorrow and forgiveness--just a little perspective is all I ask. I'm not sure any nation is any better at it, except maybe Germany. But does it take a holocaust and a Berlin Wall for nations to learn a little humility or humanity? God, I hope not.
I don't see our troops being vilified the way they were in Viet Nam. The country's changed since then, for the better. I think we've learned something from all that. When the Abu Graib scandal surfaced, I didn't once hear the anti-war folks blaming the guards--we blamed Rumsfeld and his leutenants. It was Bush himself who ended up demonizing the guards, to save face. Disgusting.
I don't see this thread as contributing to demonization. The type of scenario depicted in the first clip, doctored as it surely was, nonetheless, certainly occures in war. There are certainly tapes the Army does not release which show the real thing. Any adult should be able to understand that.
Though Gino has been all too willing to demonize and vilify in other threads, his conduct in this thread has been very reasoned and inquisitive. I really think that kind of behavior should be encouraged around here, don't you? I wish folks like Barnstormer could recognize such differences and not react like people are trying to crucify his Lord.
I often wish folks would actually have the conversation in front of them, instead of reacting to the conversations they carry in their own heads. You know, read what people say, react, inquire, discuss, that kind of thing. We need to grow. The status quo got us in this mess. We need to become better people.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Off the bat, I've decided not to respond to your comments about Zarqawi and how we're fighting the Iraqis, etc. I'm uninterested in your position on the war (mostly because I know it so well from other threads).
My post was meant to get people to think twice about demonizing American soldiers. So I'll respond to what little you had to say on that topic.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Apparently you've never lived in the parts of cities where I lived! Had a gun in hand more than twice, each time with the idea I might have to use it.
Living in a scary part of town where you have to pull a gun every so often is a far cry from carry a weapon in combat. The mere fact that you would even compare the two is mind-boggling. In combat your life is in danger 24/7, and people are attempting to kill you all the time. No neighborhood, no matter how scary, is like combat. It's like comparing apples and tire irons. And "the idea" that you might have to use it is a far cry from knowing that you will have to, and then, in fact, doing so.
Quote:
complete with photos and videos of torture etc.
Right, and I hope those fuckers get hammered, because what they did was wrong. But the notion that "torture" or "atrocities" are endemic to the entire military effort there is laughable at best. The situation at at Abu Ghrayb is noteworthy in that that sort of behavior on the part of American troops is so exceedingly rare. That's why it gets so much attention: we know that Americans aren't supposed to act that way. So on those rare occasions that it does, there's a media firestorm.
Also, when I say "baseless claims" what I mean are things like the video that purports to show Americans massacring farmers, or SEALs taking a photo of a bloodied insurgent. One snapshot or 60 seconds of poor-quality IR video aren't enough for an ignorant civilian to adequately assess the situation.
Quote:
As far as opposing the politicians and appointees who started this war (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al) and leaving the soldiers blameless... Where atrocities were committed (and atrocities were committed) I suppose our troops could say they were only following orders.
Again, you seem to be assuming that torture, atrocity and abuse is the norm for the soldiers over there. Where abuses occurred, they should be dealt with. But you are being reckless, irresponsible, and just plain stupid if you think that all American servicemen commit atrocities, and that therefore all American servicemen ought to be presumed guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
At what point does duty end and personal responsibility take over?
Every member of the Armed Forces learns the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and furthermore learns that it is his duty to disobey unlawful orders, and further learns that following unlawful orders makes him liable for the unlawful act, regardless of whether he was following orders. That is why the Abu Ghrayb soldiers are in trouble--and they should be. But not everything that seems to a civilian like an unlawful order actually is one. There again, the role of actual combat experience is vital. If you haven't been there, you just don't know what it's like.
To reiterate my main point: don't demonize American soldiers in order to turn public opinion against the war. That will only create another VietNam-like experience for the guys coming home from this war.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay,
Normally I refrain from responding once I've said my piece 'cause it usually boils down to a bunch of 'We're better! No, we're better!' type of arguments. Particularlly where this exact subject is brought up. Infact, I try my hardest just not to comment.
Again, it boils down to my previous post on the section about opinions.
This is way off topic. Way off topic and any who want to ignore are more than happy to.
Here's my thoughts: Abu Ghraib
Did anyone else notice that those 'responsible' were by and large GED/High School graduates from relatively low-income portions of the US and were all guardsmen? Sure, on the surface, that's to be expected of enlisted sevicemembers and the fact that they were National Guardsmen is for the mere sake that their unit was the one posted at this precise prison facility.
The true travesty isn't so much, IMO, that the tortures were happening. It's the fact that the pictures were taken and then released to the public. This was followed by the government and media latching onto this idea that this group of soldiers were acting solely on their own accord.
We already have a few prior- and current-service members who've responded here. So I'll ask this quasi-statement/question. How often are you, as soldiers, out of direct communication with those placed in charge (Officers, etc.) to do as you wish when your station is practically an 'office' that holds some of the more .... 'important' prisoners your country has captured?
Someone above mentioned that war is hell. In war - despite Geneva - torture happens. Why? If torture didn't happen, how do you think you'd ever get any information out of a fanatical prisoner? Ask him? He's a fanatic ... That's....Why...They're....called....fanatics.
What sickens me most about all this is the government's blatant covering for those who were in charge. My belief is that these soldiers, all with the seeming backgrounds to follow persuasive orders from a convincing senior advisor, were made to take the blame for what I feel was an acknowledged practice of 'soft psychological torture'. I mean, the pictures speak for themselves.
I would've never thought of torturing someone with inert electrical cables under the guise of 'fun torture' just for my own kicks. Or, infact, any of the other ways that the pictures showed the men being in ... demeaning situations. All that seems conveniently devised to break down those prisoner's particular social and religious beliefs.
Yeah. Those soldiers seemed to, at some level, enjoy what they were doing. That was wrong. It was wrong to take those pictures. Maybe not so wrong to share the pictures.
Bush, Rumsfield, some Generals...Yes. I believe they truely didn't know. Not because of the reasons most seem to think. It's called plausible deniability for a reason. It's just not something you see in the movies. I personally can't tell you how many times a superior's told me, "Now ... I'm not telling you to do it this way, but...."
The real travesty is that only those soldiers were punished with prison terms and not their immediate senior officers. A forced retirement is a far cry from spending ten years of your life behind bars.
BTW, how many here are aware of the fact that the US never formally got on the bus with the Geneva Convention and that we're simply obeying them as we see fit? The hallmark of an evil empire or simply smart business? Your call.
Focht
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the whole, your post is exactly what I've come to expect from you, Cavalier: calm, well-reasoned thought. Even when I disagree with you, I never get angry, because as a general rule, you don't engage in the same type of histrionics that others do (including myself at times, to be fair). But I have to take issue with one part of your post:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't see this thread as contributing to demonization.
I do see it as demonization, because this type of thread is relatively common (see the time surrounding the Abu Ghrayb mess or the Fallujah assault), while threads praising our soldiers for the good they're doing is rare. This tactic is demonstrably effective--it got us out of Viet Nam (that and the body count, of course).
The damnable thing is that other arguments (like "Bush lied about WMD" or "Iraq had no link to terror") were largely ignored by the American people. But when accusations of atrocities started to fly (see Abu Ghrayb and Fallujah once again), public support of the war started sliding. My perception (repeat: MY perception) is that the people opposed to the war are so much against it that they will use any means necessary--including dragging the name of the American Fighting Man--to stop it.
Ultimately, I guess that's what sickens me. The ends never justify the means, even if the end is a really good one.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inevitable- I was pretty careful not to say that ALL soldiers engage in atrocities. For various reasons, I can't see these specific videos myself and so I can't judge them. I'm basing my statement on other occurences including (but not limited to) Abu Graib. You said it yourself- war is hell. Some soldiers are bound to break down, and in addition there appear to be some units who have an unusually high number of complaints against them both stateside and abroad irrespective of the kind and amount of "action" that they've seen. It speaks to a problem with the unit culture. I can't remember the service or the unit- I'll try and find the specifics later, but don't hold your breath bc I'm extremely busy.
As far as what Focht says- One of the telling points that torture was encouraged from the top is that the guards at the various prisons and "detention centers"- situated thousands of miles apart- just "happened" to come up with the same form of amusement. And, where did they get the supplies? The hoods, cameras, and so forth. The local PX?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's sort of interesting. My recollection is that only females and very young male children and very old men were allowed to evacuate after the city was surrounded. Males between (roughly) 15 and 60 were forced to remain in the city. Before US troops moved on Fallujah, they were given instructions to fire on all males of (roughly) 15 - 60 years old, whether they were firing, uniformed, armed, had protective gear, or white flags - or not. While there were some legitimate insurgents killed, there were probably more who were simply caught with no other options. That's what happens if you cannot flee and you cannot surrender.
Fallujah was a very hot zone of military action. Perhaps anyone not evacuated was 'fair game' by that time.
In addition there are credible accounts (news reporters) of obvious civilians - women and small children - being shot down either as they tried to flee across the river or as they tried to surrender. To this day, there is no civilian body count.
Bur speaking of civilian body counts, the US had a policy of targeting males between the ages of (roughly) 15 and 60 as insurgents (I have read different ages), and not just in Fallujah, but everywhere. Any male killed who appeared to be in that age range was automatically identified as an 'insurgent'. It reminds me of the Vietnam 'body counts' that were broadcast every evening to reassure the US that all was going well. More bodies = progress.
To us, the war is confusing. Back in the day - WWII in Europe - US troops could tell who was who even without uniforms either by what language they spoke or by what accent nuanced their English. But as all gooks looked alike to US troops back then in Vietnam, all rag-heads look alike to US troops now, because they don't know enough to make those important distinctions. (Like which language are they speaking.) You'd think that would be a clue that maybe if you can't tell the players you don't belong in the game.
As to how horrible death is, I have never seen anyone actually expire in a peaceful way. I have seen the body of a person who appeared to have died peacefully, I have heard of one peaceful death from a witness, but never seen one myself. That's out of the one or two thousand people I have personally seen die. You don't have to be a soldier to understand death is usually horrible.
There are over 300 service-people being investigated by the military for mistreatment of prisoners in GITMO, Afghanistan and Iraq. Seems like a pattern to me, not just the actions of a few perverts. And it was Bush et al who were more than willing to demonize the soldiers to protect their own a**es.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
...I do see it as demonization, because this type of thread is relatively common (see the time surrounding the Abu Ghrayb mess or the Fallujah assault), while threads praising our soldiers for the good they're doing is rare. This tactic is demonstrably effective--it got us out of Viet Nam (that and the body count, of course).
The damnable thing is that other arguments (like "Bush lied about WMD" or "Iraq had no link to terror") were largely ignored by the American people. But when accusations of atrocities started to fly (see Abu Ghrayb and Fallujah once again), public support of the war started sliding. My perception (repeat: MY perception) is that the people opposed to the war are so much against it that they will use any means necessary--including dragging the name of the American Fighting Man--to stop it.
Ultimately, I guess that's what sickens me. The ends never justify the means, even if the end is a really good one.
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I think an important part of not demonizing the troops is talking about whether or not we believe the soldiers are at fault. It's the single most destructive thing about our poisoned discourse these days: we need to discuss this stuff, if we are ever to get past our knee-jerk reactions. Lack of discussion only serves the status quo and the people in power.
Signy's question about "personal responsibility" is at the heart of the issue, isn't it? Are there circumstances where personal responsibility does not apply?
I don't think it's as simple as Singy seems to suggest: either you accept personal responsibility or you're another Eichman. I'm beginning to see people in the world living under varying degrees of coersion. The fear of losing one's job, the fear of terrorists overrunning our country, the fear of being seen as weak. People see fewer and fewer options. More and more, people don't feel they have the freedom to do what they believe is right, substituting what they believe will work, or what they believe won't get them in trouble, or what their bosses want because "they know best," or what won't get them labeled as a terrorist simpathizer. And, with Abu Graib, we're talking about 18 year olds, fer crying out loud!
Of course the guardsmen at Abu Graib were coached. Wasn't it all just part of a feud between the CIA and the DOD? Rummy didn't want the CIA to be the only game in town, so he started doing CIA "black ops" style "interogations" using untrained military personel who were too young and too bigoted to keep it together and do the job right. They obviously didn't fully grasp what "plausible deniability" means to field operatives. The men at the top with their thinktank lawyers and their constantly shifting version of reality have so far been fully insulated from the consequences of their decisions.
I think the reason Abu Graib struck such a chord with Americans was that it sensitized us to the real suffering of people other than ourselves. No mean feat. "Bush Lied" and "Iraq is irrelevant" did not implicate the American people directly enough. Also, they imply that Americans are stupid, and we hate it when people say we're stupid. It's a lot easier to say "Fuck you" than it is to say "I'm sorry." (Sometimes there's no substitution for the "F" word, sorry.) And trusting a dishonest politician is no crime. Ousting Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Abu Graib struck at the heart of our "we're the good guys" mentality. After that, it just wasn't fun to hate Iraqis anymore.
We may never be ready to say, "I'm sorry," but Americans will tire of always saying "Fuck you" to anyone who isn't "with us."
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME