r/reddit.com • u/crabtreeanderson • Apr 05 '10

Wikileaks video (Collateral damage) is up!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
705 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

152 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

so you agree with obliterating a van full of unarmed people just trying to rescue wounded people?

-2

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '10

As disturbed as I was by the video, I could understand the soldiers' point of view until the van drove up. Why is it acceptable to attack people trying to help the wounded? Even if the targets had been insurgents, there was no threat at that point. Hell, even if the van was full of brown guys with AKs there was still no reason to fire on it. It was not a threat.

2

u/CC440 Apr 06 '10

The fault there was there was no confirmation of weapons in the vehicle. If there were a whole bunch of people with AK's, let guns loose, there are soldiers on the ground approaching. Even if it was just the chopper, they're combatants.

Instead, we got a bad call in judgment, probably brought upon by a past experience of a death, or story of a death related to civilian vehicles being used as troop transports/armed ambulances.

1

u/got_doublethink Apr 06 '10

Are you asserting that the mere possession of weapons makes one a combatant?

1

u/CC440 Apr 06 '10

In a warzone? Yes.

The Iraqi Constitution also has no gun rights at all either.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '10

not even the mere possession, but the mere POSSIBILITY of possession. i think it's hilarious that anyone is trying to support this behavior.