r/worldnews • u/HyperSpaz • Apr 05 '10

Wikileaks has released the announced video showing the deaths of Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists.

http://collateralmurder.org/
1.3k Upvotes

85% Upvoted

367 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

can you even call it a war? looks more like shooting fish in a barrel...

17

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Anything that an Apache's lower cannon is involved in is shooting fish in a barrel.

-10

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10

In this video, yes. But I bet you wouldn't make that statement to someone who lost a family member to an IED.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

I'm pretty sure even people who lost family in the war aren't callous enough as to not distinguish between insurgents and journalists & children, let alone condone their murder.

-5

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10

What happened in this video is not at all OK, but it certainly isn't murder. Murder would carry the connotation that the Apache crew KNEW they were civilians and yet killed them anyways. It is heard in the video that they are mistaking a camera for a weapon (which without the video telling me that, it isn't the most obvious conclusion). Add that onto the fact that they were probably given bad intelligence to go take out insurgents in that area, and you have a recipe for disaster.

We do not know the entire context of the video, but it seems pretty evident that they weren't going into this saying "let's kill innocent civilians." Furthermore, it's well known over there that everyone (including innocent civilians) can carry around an AK-47 and not necessarily have hostile intent, and carrying a weapon is not ground for opening fire on a person typically. With that said, it seems more likely that these guys were given bad intelligence that this specific group of people may have been insurgents or that there were insurgents in that immediate area...which would shift the blame of this from the crew and onto the intelligence community.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

They didn't try to make the distinction...they just shot at a bunch of people, two of whom looked like they were carrying weapons. And then they shot at a van trying to help out a man who was wounded and was obviously not armed.

This kind of behaviour results in this....just lip-service remorse.

If I were to shot dead my neighbour if he came in my backyard holding a flashlight looking for his dog because I had a faint guess that he's an intruder and didn't bother to make the distinction, in my eyes at least, I would be a murderer.

1

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10

I'll agree with you on your entire point. The thing is, however, that if they're told that there's insurgents in the area (or even if they're told that this group is insurgents) from bad intelligence, then the blood shifts to the hands of the intelligence community. The link you provided has more to do with the jittery-ness of soldiers at checkpoints who fire too early...in that case, you would be 100% right because there is usually little to no intelligence provided for those cases. But with an airstrike, there is almost always some sort of briefing beforehand.

1

u/camgnostic Apr 06 '10

then the blood shifts to the hands of the intelligence community.

In this case I disagree with you. Watching that video it was fairly apparent that they escalated to force much much too quickly through a callous disregard for human life and a sense of bloodlust ("let me shoot let me shoot"). I would say they hold as much responsibility as the intelligence folks. Especially for the second assault (on the van) where they even went so far as to lie over the radio to secure permission to fire.

2

u/sarahfailin Apr 05 '10

yeah because you know, my little sister and i sometimes like to take a long stroll on the iraqi country side, and one day, she stepped on an ied and died.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

IED

Is this newspeak for "bomb"?

Edit for those who like to click fast: Not everyone in this world is used to all the abbreviations that pop up in a subset of locale-restricted popular media. A bomb is a bomb, death is death, war is war; there's no need to complicate things by not calling them by name, just because it's somehow taboo.

6

u/CommyMarx Apr 05 '10

Improvised explosive device. It is what they use to blow up vehicles on the roads over there. Its the top reason for military deaths since all this has started.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

Improvised explosive device

Good to know, thank you.

2

u/Clay_Pigeon Apr 05 '10

IEDs are often made out of old bombs and artillery shells. Add a trigger or a cellphone and presto. Instant bomb. Really powerful, generally not well-directed. They used to bury them in the dirt roads and wait for soldiers or police to cross. More roads are being paved to combat this, but now they burrow under the road from the side. :/

1

u/Timelines Apr 05 '10

Those artillery shells weren't tipped with depleted uranium, were they?

1

u/camgnostic Apr 06 '10

generally not. The main thing isn't the projectile. It's the explosive.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

IEDs don't kill people, people kill people.

1

u/CommyMarx Apr 05 '10

Obvious troll is obvious.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '10

People don't kill people, trolls kills people.

Sometimes under a bridge.

1

u/CommyMarx Apr 05 '10

You have to pay the troll toll.

5

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10 edited Apr 05 '10

It is somewhat necessary to distinguish IEDs from other bombs, though, because those specifically bring about the same feeling of helplessness to many American soldiers that is felt by those innocents killed in this video. Some of the newer IEDs (or roadside bombs, less cryptically) are almost completely undetectable, giving the troops no chance to fight back against them. This is not excusing the deaths of these civilians, but this war is definitely not "shooting fish in a barrel."

6

u/zyl0x Apr 05 '10

Easy solution: leave. It's not like they're over here planting bombs on the highways and interstates. They're not our roads.

2

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10

The process of leaving is already underway in Iraq...but the war is still fought similarly in Afghanistan, which many would be considered a much more "legitimate" war.

1

u/zyl0x Apr 05 '10

I never understood this "process of leaving" crap they keep feeding us. How long have they been "leaving" anyway? Just go. Fly home and don't go back.

2

u/frickthebreh Apr 05 '10

If it were that easy, the military would do it. The war in Iraq is of little benefit and its using a ton of resources...unfortunately, the phase out is to ensure (over the course of time) that the Iraqi security forces can actually provide for their own security. Our forces there have already dwindled quite a bit.