Metanet Forums

Apache Gunship kills two Reuters journalists.

Absolutely terrible stuff. This is what angers me about the military, especially the U.S. military...there's such an eagerness to kill indiscriminately. The satisfaction that these people get from killing other humans...they're pretty much psychopaths.

http://collateralmurder.com/ wrote:In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Oh wow, I would just quit my job as a journalist if I was going to Iraq. W-wait, I wouldn't go to Iraq at all.

Mute Monk wrote:Apache Gunship kills two Reuters journalists.

Absolutely terrible stuff. This is what angers me about the military, especially the U.S. military...there's such an eagerness to kill indiscriminately. The satisfaction that these people get from killing other humans...they're pretty much psychopaths.

Accidents happen.

WikiLeaks is the kind of site that I really dislike. You guys may shit on me for this, but I think there are some things that the public just shouldn't know, especially when they're still recent/relevant. Don't much like the press in general.

No opinion on the present case, because I didn't have time to watch the videos.

I saw this story yesterday when it came up in one of my newsfeeds, and I was shocked when I first read about it and watched the video, too. But now that I've had a bit of time, I don't really fault the army so much for what happened. The black-and-white of it is that they were responsible for the murder of several innocent people and scarring two children for life, but the fact remains that they wouldn't have opened fire if they knew that these people were innocent.
The laughing, joking around, etc., is also understandable. We put our soldiers in a foreign environment, away from their friends and family, with poor food and sleeping conditions, and they live like this with a constant threat of attack. And so they will adjust to handle those circumstances the best they can, and I think it's perfectly understandable that they might start finding humor in the task we give them. They're happy not because killing people is awesome, but because that's one less person who could kill them back.
I remember when I first considered this, after I saw a video feed from the camera of a U.S. A-10 (and the audio from the cockpit) that shelled the crap out of a U.S. tank. He cheerfully gunned down U.S. soldiers, laughed about it with another pilot, etc., but when it was revealed that it was the tank he destroyed was an ally, there was a very palpable change in the mood. The pilot started having a nervous breakdown in the cockpit. As much jolly fun as he was having moments ago when he thought he was engaging the enemy, he was truly broken up about having attacked an ally.
And that's exactly what I saw in the video in the OP, minus the realization that they just killed innocent people. From what I saw, I couldn't expect them to distinguish a massive camera like that from a gun, and the guy kneeling around the corner really did seem to me like he could have been setting up an RPG launcher. I think they were justified in not taking chances.

The real cause of the travesty, if you ask me, is the lack of intel. If they had been better identifiable as press, if the army had known about it in advance, if they had some way to communicate with them before opening fire, or if the officer who authorized the attacks was able to see the situation before having to make a call (I would also give an immediate "yes" to, "there are several people here with AK-47's and RPG's -- can we engage?"), this wouldn't have happened. But given the circumstances presented to them, I'm not sure it could have been avoided, and nonsense about not engaging people you believe are openly carrying assault rifles and setting up rocket launchers is not a solution.

Admittedly, command gave a legit order to engage...I would have too, given that information. But hasn't "shoot first, ask questions later" usually been called a flawed course of action? There has to be a better way of dealing with unknown people...perhaps tear gas shells or something. I dunno. It just doesn't seem that great of a concept: "Hey look, some people are calmly and unsurreptitiously walking across that road, carrying some objects which are unidentifiable at this distance...Lets kill 'em!!"

And firing at the van that was picking up the bodies is really indefensible. No weapons had been identified, and the van itself wasn't posing a threat. I mean, this whole situation was, as Suki says, quite unavoidable, but it should not have been. Maybe journalists should be given some kind of transponder to signal their status, or be required to tell the nearest military headquarters where they're going. Again, I dunno.

Another thing that annoyed me about this situation was how reluctant the government was to admit the mistake...and claiming they didn't know how the children were hurt. Perhaps it was the 30 mm cannon you were firing at their van? I mean, at least if you screw up, fess up.

Mute Monk wrote:Another thing that annoyed me about this situation was how reluctant the government was to admit the mistake...and claiming they didn't know how the children were hurt. Perhaps it was the 30 mm cannon you were firing at their van? I mean, at least if you screw up, fess up.

This I am getting tired of. Most of the bad press the government takes over these (repeated) events comes from their automatic blanket denial ("It was a training incident.") of everything they did wrong. It was like that in Nam (and Cambodia). It was like that during Watergate. WMDs. And hell, denial was the theme of the last decade.

Mute Monk wrote:But hasn't "shoot first, ask questions later" usually been called a flawed course of action?

I don't know about "usually". As we see here, it certainly is sometimes. The problem is that when it's not a flawed course of action, generally, the people who would tell us that they wish they had shot first and asked questions later are no longer around to either ask or answer questions.

I don't understand why they shot the van :?

SkyPanda wrote:I don't understand why they shot the van :?

Mute Monk wrote: And firing at the van that was picking up the bodies is really indefensible. No weapons had been identified, and the van itself wasn't posing a threat. I mean, this whole situation was, as Suki says, quite unavoidable, but it should not have been. Maybe journalists should be given some kind of transponder to signal their status, or be required to tell the nearest military headquarters where they're going.

---

Tsukatu wrote:But now that I've had a bit of time, I don't really fault the army so much for what happened. The black-and-white of it is that they were responsible for the murder of several innocent people and scarring two children for life, but the fact remains that they wouldn't have opened fire if they knew that these people were innocent.
The laughing, joking around, etc., is also understandable. We put our soldiers in a foreign environment, away from their friends and family, with poor food and sleeping conditions, and they live like this with a constant threat of attack.

Even if the behaviour of the soldiers is understandable, that does not make it excusable. Maybe mistakes like these wouldn't happen if the soldiers approached their job differently.

As for the situation being unavoidable, perhaps it is more the extent of the engagement that is in question? The justification for opening fire expired as soon as everyone was lying dead on the ground. The soldiers clearly discussed that the van was picking up bodies, yet wanted to shoot it anyway.

Look if your in the army your job is to kill things and you either have to be that detached or you run an even higher (Albeit already high) risk of PTSD, I also imagine the army is getting pretty fed up of people randomly shooting them and vans blowing up. I'm not saying this should have happened (Hell in a perfect world war would be settled with a swift game of chess or something) but it's going to, this is war, people kill, people die.

Personally I'd like to see someone go out there and not come back either so racked with guilt they're depressed, completely numb to violence or just completely psychotic.

SkyPanda wrote:The justification for opening fire expired as soon as everyone was lying dead on the ground. The soldiers clearly discussed that the van was picking up bodies, yet wanted to shoot it anyway.

Yeah, I was very confused about the van, too. I think the officer they got permission from assumed that there was now a van full of dudes with AK's and RPG's at the site, rather than just a van with a concerned, civilian parent and his children.

Luminaflare wrote:Personally I'd like to see someone go out there and not come back either so racked with guilt they're depressed, completely numb to violence or just completely psychotic.

See, this is why I think it's necessary for soldiers to dehumanize the enemy and be able to laugh as part of their jobs. I know it sounds like psychotic behavior, but I think it's better than the alternative: turning them into legitimate psychopaths, not only in the context of the war, but when they're brought back to U.S. soil to try to continue their lives.