Pentagon pissed at wikileaks!

B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Pentagon pissed at wikileaks!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

http://www.wikileaks.org/

The Pentagon is pissed that someone used wikileaks to post their dirty little secrets. Well fuck them, global military tyrants. It's amazing we have tools like the internet and wikileaks, helping make sure that the truth of war is exposed. Well really, I love anything that makes the war mongers squirm.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Yea, wikileaks is pretty

Yea, wikileaks is pretty neat.

 

Although I've seen the full video and I don't seem to be feeling the outrage most people seem to expect.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Maybe you'd be outraged if

Maybe you'd be outraged if one of the bullets hit you.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Maybe you'd be

Gauche wrote:

Maybe you'd be outraged if one of the bullets hit you.

 

... no, im pretty sure i wouldnt be feeling anything... at all... ever again

What Would Kharn Do?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Maybe you'd be

Gauche wrote:

Maybe you'd be outraged if one of the bullets hit you.

 

I'd be outraged if the pilots weren't responding to ground troops calls of being unders sporadic fire from the direction of a group carrying weapons.

 

I've seen other videos of people attacking and that is what it often looks like.  A group of people, not all armed, milling around then a guy moved around a corner and pops a clip off or launches an rpg.  They clearly saw a group of people, some of which where armed.  One had what looked like an RPG, and one leaned around a corner with what looked like a weapon.

 

In hindsight?  Sure, it might have been a mistake.  In hindsight at least some of the 'weapons' were actually camera gear.  But with the information they had at the time I can't be outraged.  Hell, the full video even has the men on the ground saying they found an unspent RPG round under a body and they were calling for a possible bomb squad removal so the guy people are saying had a big tripod might have actually been an RPG anyway.  Shooting the van sucked though.

 

Stuff like this is why war sucks and should be avoided, but I don't see any war crimes.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
People don't like to hear

People don't like to hear excuses and empty rhetoric especially when ill-considered to the point of being farcical. A person sees someone on the sidewalk hurt and when they try to take them to a hospital they are shot and their children are shot and according to mellestad that sucks. We probably have to revisit the Geneva Conventions in light of that brilliant observation. Don't shoot civilians who come to the aid of the injured cause it sucks.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:People don't

Gauche wrote:

People don't like to hear excuses and empty rhetoric especially when ill-considered to the point of being farcical. A person sees someone on the sidewalk hurt and when they try to take them to a hospital they are shot and their children are shot and according to mellestad that sucks. We probably have to revisit the Geneva Conventions in light of that brilliant observation. Don't shoot civilians who come to the aid of the injured cause it sucks.

 

Would you feel better about my argument if I wiped some ash in my hair and tore my sackcloth robes?

 

If you have a specific point about my post to bring up then bring it up so we can discuss it, rather than mock me because I'm not properly horrified at the tragedy of the day.  You don't think shitty stuff like that happens every day all over the world on every side you can think of?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
B166ER

B166ER wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

http://www.wikileaks.org/

The Pentagon is pissed that someone used wikileaks to post their dirty little secrets. Well fuck them, global military tyrants. It's amazing we have tools like the internet and wikileaks, helping make sure that the truth of war is exposed. Well really, I love anything that makes the war mongers squirm.

"The writing's on the wall"...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I'd be

mellestad wrote:
I'd be outraged if the pilots weren't responding to ground troops calls of being unders sporadic fire from the direction of a group carrying weapons.

I've seen other videos of people attacking and that is what it often looks like.  A group of people, not all armed, milling around then a guy moved around a corner and pops a clip off or launches an rpg.  They clearly saw a group of people, some of which where armed.  One had what looked like an RPG, and one leaned around a corner with what looked like a weapon.

In hindsight?  Sure, it might have been a mistake.  In hindsight at least some of the 'weapons' were actually camera gear.  But with the information they had at the time I can't be outraged.  Hell, the full video even has the men on the ground saying they found an unspent RPG round under a body and they were calling for a possible bomb squad removal so the guy people are saying had a big tripod might have actually been an RPG anyway.  Shooting the van sucked though.

Stuff like this is why war sucks and should be avoided, but I don't see any war crimes.

I was OK (in the loosest sense of the word) until they started shooting up the van, and the guy who was trying to help a wounded person. That was a bit beyond the rules of engagement.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:mellestad

nigelTheBold wrote:

mellestad wrote:
I'd be outraged if the pilots weren't responding to ground troops calls of being unders sporadic fire from the direction of a group carrying weapons.

I've seen other videos of people attacking and that is what it often looks like.  A group of people, not all armed, milling around then a guy moved around a corner and pops a clip off or launches an rpg.  They clearly saw a group of people, some of which where armed.  One had what looked like an RPG, and one leaned around a corner with what looked like a weapon.

In hindsight?  Sure, it might have been a mistake.  In hindsight at least some of the 'weapons' were actually camera gear.  But with the information they had at the time I can't be outraged.  Hell, the full video even has the men on the ground saying they found an unspent RPG round under a body and they were calling for a possible bomb squad removal so the guy people are saying had a big tripod might have actually been an RPG anyway.  Shooting the van sucked though.

Stuff like this is why war sucks and should be avoided, but I don't see any war crimes.

I was OK (in the loosest sense of the word) until they started shooting up the van, and the guy who was trying to help a wounded person. That was a bit beyond the rules of engagement.

 

That makes me curious though, I've talked to some military guys who said it (the van shooting) was not outside the ROE for that situation.  I don't know enough to comment either way personally and research has not been enlightening, all I see are opinions rather than actual quoted regulations.

 

I'll ask around and see if anyone can give me real info.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:That makes

mellestad wrote:
That makes me curious though, I've talked to some military guys who said it (the van shooting) was not outside the ROE for that situation.  I don't know enough to comment either way personally and research has not been enlightening, all I see are opinions rather than actual quoted regulations.

I'll ask around and see if anyone can give me real info.

I believe the RoE were released recently. I myself have not read them, so it's up for debate.

I got my info from the husband of my niece. He was deployed in Iraq until about a year ago, so he was deployed around the time of this event. He could be mistaken, of course.

And so might I.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3501
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: That makes

mellestad wrote:

 

 

That makes me curious though, I've talked to some military guys who said it (the van shooting) was not outside the ROE for that situation.  I don't know enough to comment either way personally and research has not been enlightening, all I see are opinions rather than actual quoted regulations.

 

I'll ask around and see if anyone can give me real info.

  Even though I am not a pacifist and support military operations as a last resort I can't stand to view the deaths of non-combatants, be they targeted deliberately or otherwise.  In fact I remember a news reel from some Israeli occupied territory that was broadcast a few years back.  A Palestinian father was squatting against a brick wall with his teenage son cowering behind him.  He was freaking out and holding both hands up in the air trying to signal that he had no weapons, pleading for their lives, etc....   A few seconds later they were shot to death with a burst of IDF machine gun fire.  Makes me want to puke.

     

  As for the ROE the modern-day Iraqis should be grateful that this isn't the 1940's.  The Allied powers ( at the urging of the British air force ) eventually overcame any reluctance concerning carpet bombing civilian targets and eventually gave a meaning to "Death From Above" the has never been duplicated in present military operations.  "Collateral Damage" would have been a joke to these WW 2 strategists.  Can you say Hamburg or Dresden ?

  Still I disagree with killing non-combatants if at all possible.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"To have peace...prepare for

"To have peace...

prepare for war!!!"

(I forget the latinization of this... quote, but alas)

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Gauche

mellestad wrote:

Gauche wrote:

People don't like to hear excuses and empty rhetoric especially when ill-considered to the point of being farcical. A person sees someone on the sidewalk hurt and when they try to take them to a hospital they are shot and their children are shot and according to mellestad that sucks. We probably have to revisit the Geneva Conventions in light of that brilliant observation. Don't shoot civilians who come to the aid of the injured cause it sucks.

 

Would you feel better about my argument if I wiped some ash in my hair and tore my sackcloth robes?

 

If you have a specific point about my post to bring up then bring it up so we can discuss it, rather than mock me because I'm not properly horrified at the tragedy of the day.  You don't think shitty stuff like that happens every day all over the world on every side you can think of?

To claim that one cannot distinguish friend from foe therefore they will kill indiscriminately isn't a defense that will garner sympathy from most . If anything it makes the person look insane to ignore the fact that they should not be there or be shooting other people in the first place.

An affirmative defense is a claim of limited culpability based on some justification or excuse. Your blithe comments don't qualify. You made it clear that you don't sympathize with others or care what happens to them. I suppose that's nice for you but it isn't really something for me to address or engage you in discussion about.

Perhaps there's something in your posts I failed to see but I'm pretty sure I got the point. It sucks but it's probably not against the rules and it happens all the time so who cares. If that's your mentality then by all means continue in that way. In my opinion it's a form of degeneracy but there's nothing stopping you, certainly not me.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

 

That makes me curious though, I've talked to some military guys who said it (the van shooting) was not outside the ROE for that situation.  I don't know enough to comment either way personally and research has not been enlightening, all I see are opinions rather than actual quoted regulations.

 

I'll ask around and see if anyone can give me real info.

  Even though I am not a pacifist and support military operations as a last resort I can't stand to view the deaths of non-combatants, be they targeted deliberately or otherwise.  In fact I remember a news reel from some Israeli occupied territory that was broadcast a few years back.  A Palestinian father was squatting against a brick wall with his teenage son cowering behind him.  He was freaking out and holding both hands up in the air trying to signal that he had no weapons, pleading for their lives, etc....   A few seconds later they were shot to death with a burst of IDF machine gun fire.  Makes me want to puke.

     

  As for the ROE the modern-day Iraqis should be grateful that this isn't the 1940's.  The Allied powers ( at the urging of the British air force ) eventually overcame any reluctance concerning carpet bombing civilian targets and eventually gave a meaning to "Death From Above" the has never been duplicated in present military operations.  "Collateral Damage" would have been a joke to these WW 2 strategists.  Can you say Hamburg or Dresden ?

  Still I disagree with killing non-combatants if at all possible.

 

Yea, that sucks too.  Sad

I agree though, our military usually does the best it can to limit civilian casualties in the wars they are sent to prosecute by our civilian leadership.  Every unnecessary death is a tragedy, but at least it isn't as bad as carpet bombing Dresden.

Gauche wrote:

To claim that one cannot distinguish friend from foe therefore they will kill indiscriminately isn't a defense that will garner sympathy from most . If anything it makes the person look insane to ignore the fact that they should not be there or be shooting other people in the first place.

An affirmative defense is a claim of limited culpability based on some justification or excuse. Your blithe comments don't qualify. You made it clear that you don't sympathize with others or care what happens to them. I suppose that's nice for you but it isn't really something for me to address or engage you in discussion about.

Perhaps there's something in your posts I failed to see but I'm pretty sure I got the point. It sucks but it's probably not against the rules and it happens all the time so who cares. If that's your mentality then by all means continue in that way. In my opinion it's a form of degeneracy but there's nothing stopping you, certainly not me.

Your argument is a strawman of my opinion, assumptions about what I feel and what I should feel so you can feel nice and superior while calling me a monster who doesn't care when kids get killed.  I'll remember how much I don't care about kids dying when I kiss my daughter goodnight this evening.  This has been the most unconstructive and reactionary set of posts I've seen from you on this board, and I'm done with you in this thread.  I'll even let you have the last word so you can say some more horrible things about me without a defense.  Have fun with that. 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:mellestad

nigelTheBold wrote:

mellestad wrote:
That makes me curious though, I've talked to some military guys who said it (the van shooting) was not outside the ROE for that situation.  I don't know enough to comment either way personally and research has not been enlightening, all I see are opinions rather than actual quoted regulations.

I'll ask around and see if anyone can give me real info.

I believe the RoE were released recently. I myself have not read them, so it's up for debate.

I got my info from the husband of my niece. He was deployed in Iraq until about a year ago, so he was deployed around the time of this event. He could be mistaken, of course.

And so might I.

 

So the military guys I am talking to are saying the people from the van were picking up weapons as well as bodies.  I'm not able to look at the vid right now so I can't check.  I do think I remember the pilots saying the people from the van were picking up weapons though.  If that were really the case I suppose it would be a clear case where engagement was justified since civilians picking up bodies wouldn't pick up guns either.

They are also saying that the military inquiry into the issue years ago found that the ROE had not been violated, and in their opinion, "They don't mess around with ROE, if you break it they will hang you out to dry without a thought."  I'm asking if anyone can confirm the weapons pickup or give a timestamp.  If not I'll watch the video again and check if it clears it up either way.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
...

"War is hell!", anyone?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:So the

mellestad wrote:

So the military guys I am talking to are saying the people from the van were picking up weapons as well as bodies.  I'm not able to look at the vid right now so I can't check.  I do think I remember the pilots saying the people from the van were picking up weapons though.  If that were really the case I suppose it would be a clear case where engagement was justified since civilians picking up bodies wouldn't pick up guns either.

But I thought that we allow Iraqi civilians to have automatic rifles. If they want to loot weapons then we shouldn't kill them over it. I would assume that poor Iraqi civilians would loot weapons just so they could own or sell them. I don't see how "they collect weapons, civilians here are allowed to own weapons, so there fore they can not be civilians since they are getting weapons" is justified.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Your

mellestad wrote:

Your argument is a strawman of my opinion, assumptions about what I feel and what I should feel so you can feel nice and superior while calling me a monster who doesn't care when kids get killed.  I'll remember how much I don't care about kids dying when I kiss my daughter goodnight this evening.  This has been the most unconstructive and reactionary set of posts I've seen from you on this board, and I'm done with you in this thread.  I'll even let you have the last word so you can say some more horrible things about me without a defense.  Have fun with that. 

Well, thanks for giving me the last word I guess. I can only take your words at face value. If you think it's justified, I could understand that. I disagree, but I understand.  The problem is that you offer no justification.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:mellestad

Jormungander wrote:

mellestad wrote:

So the military guys I am talking to are saying the people from the van were picking up weapons as well as bodies.  I'm not able to look at the vid right now so I can't check.  I do think I remember the pilots saying the people from the van were picking up weapons though.  If that were really the case I suppose it would be a clear case where engagement was justified since civilians picking up bodies wouldn't pick up guns either.

But I thought that we allow Iraqi civilians to have automatic rifles. If they want to loot weapons then we shouldn't kill them over it. I would assume that poor Iraqi civilians would loot weapons just so they could own or sell them. I don't see how "they collect weapons, civilians here are allowed to own weapons, so there fore they can not be civilians since they are getting weapons" is justified.

 

Well, from the gunships perspective there was fire coming from this area, they killed the shooters.  Then a van zooms up, guys jump out and start grabbing men and guns from the ground.  *shrug*

I imagine they wouldn't think civilians would show up right after an action by coalition forces and start scooping up guns and wounded.

 

That is all dependant on the people in the van actually picking up the guns of course.  I'm not saying any of it is OK, I'm just saying that if that were the case then it was probably a 'legal' action.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:They are

mellestad wrote:
They are also saying that the military inquiry into the issue years ago found that the ROE had not been violated, and in their opinion, "They don't mess around with ROE, if you break it they will hang you out to dry without a thought."  I'm asking if anyone can confirm the weapons pickup or give a timestamp.  If not I'll watch the video again and check if it clears it up either way.

Yeah. It seems the rules of engagement were pretty permissive at times.

Article wrote:

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the US Marines who served three tours in Iraq. He told the audience at the Winter Soldier hearings that took place March 13-16, 2008, in Silver Spring, Maryland, "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Yeah. It

nigelTheBold wrote:

Yeah. It seems the rules of engagement were pretty permissive at times.

 

Yikes, no kidding.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.