Collateral Murder. - TTLG Forums

Tenkahubu on 5/4/2010 at 20:41

The latest headline is a bit of a downer. A video released by wikileaks shows (if genuine) the incident from 2007 where two Reuters journalists were killed by US military fire.
(http://www.collateralmurder.com/)

It is reminiscent of the scene in Apocalypse Now where the soldiers shoot up a Vietnamese fishing boat then attempt to help the badly wounded survivor. The difference is that it is (presumably) real.

To me the actions of the soldiers in the helicopters seem excessive, but I can also see the counter argument - a warzone environment must necessitate a decisive and perhaps pre-emptive action.

What really disgusts me is a separate issue. It is that the soldiers heard speaking often display an absolute contempt for life, and kill with pleasure.

Epos Nix on 5/4/2010 at 21:31

That site seems a bit slow.

Here's a Youtube link: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0)

...and contempt for life, at least that of the 'enemy' (whoever that happens to be at the particular moment) is exactly what the armed forces encourage. I suppose they don't want silly ideas like morality playings with these soldier's "kill or be killed" instincts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs6a0ORdQU) This video sums up pretty well how the average soldier is encouraged to think...

SubJeff on 5/4/2010 at 22:32

This sort of thing usually riles me but tbh I can't see that the soldiers were either excessive with force nor excessively callous. I don't detect the soldiers showing contempt for life really, but when I watch these things I try to get into the heads of the people there - imagine what it must be like to be there, trying to determine whether the people on the ground are enemy combatants or not.

Perhaps its because of what I do; I can't imagine the grumbling public being happy about some things that are said in my workplace but the truth is we are only human and when certain things happen if people didn't say stuff like "Phew!" when they get out of a hairy situation, or "In there, like swimwear!" or any of the other things I hear when a really difficult, 30 seconds from death, intubation goes right then we'd all be fucking robots.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the result in this case is fine, as it's clearly a tragedy.

There are far worse videos out there, like the one where a missile is fired into a crowd as they leave some building. In that one there was no attempt (on the bit we were shown) to determine who was who and whether anyone had a weapon or not.

CCCToad on 6/4/2010 at 01:42

Just gonna make a quick comment, as I'm fairly busy this week.

The video is definitely damning(watched it earlier today). I can't really say much about the first shot: I am not familiar with the conditions in Baghdad circa 2007, and several of "insurgents" were visibly carrying AK-47's. Not sure how they thought the camera was an RPG, though. Whats inexcusable and stupid is the follow up shots, and then shooting the people that picked up the wounded. Not only is it an unnecessary level of force, but it would have been a better decision to simply track the vehicle from the air and see where it goes.

As for their dialogue, I can't help but think of a famous Patton philosophy: He said that he opposed attempts to automate war because it removes soldiers and decision makers from the horrors of war. In this case, he was absolutely right: The gunners were so far removed from the destruction they cause that they don't emotionally recognize what their actions mean.

Ask any veteran who's been in a firefight: shooting at a human being lined up in your sites is entirely different (and very difficult) than shooting at people over a video screen.

What's really inexcusable about the whole thing is the cover up attempts and the unwillingness to admit a mistake. It is, unfortunately, typical of the current climate of the government.

Tenkahubu on 6/4/2010 at 07:22

I was going to write a longer post last night that was sort of along those lines. To me the soldiers' mannerisms seem to suggest that they feel like they are in a movie or in a game, and the reality of it is removed. However, finding the injured children brings reality like a slap in the face - except to the guy (who was still removed from the situation) "should'nt bring your kids to a battle". Not that it really was much of a battle IMO.

Regarding callous behaviour - "I think the they just ran over a body." "Ha Ha".
But, I agree that people do things in the heat of the moment that they would not be proud of later. If the helicopter soldiers had been under any kind of return fire I would have understood. Perhaps the general conditions there at that time were enough to cause a heightened feeling of paranoia?

They still seem unnervingly eager to fire on wounded or unarmed targets however, and if such bloodthirstyness truly is encouraged I would ask - is it really necessary? Shouldn't the US set a higher standard?

Muzman on 6/4/2010 at 07:28

It's weird because the only people who you could confuse with being armed really are a couple of dudes at the back of the group on the first pass, who are carrying some long objects that might pass for shotguns. That footage is clearly focussing on the guys with camera bags on their shoulders however.

The bit where he freaks at the guy around the corner is terrifying. "He's got an RPG!". It's like something out of a movie. Only in the movie they'd act on that point and have confusion and the corner to defend themselves instead of circling around a couple more times to see quite clearly it's just a bunch of dudes casually milling around.

They probably did follow rules of engagement, which, as Generation Kill pointed out seems to be basically "I see weapons, request permission to engage" "OK engage" and the entire legal/ PR/chain of command aparatus will defend you after that point. It messily illustrates the difference between being an armed force or being the police. The LAPD has dealt with worse shit than those guys even if they were armed. And they had to go in on the ground and at least try to arrest the guys. (Although it's probably better not to think about what might happen if the LAPD had an Apache or two).
Geez they can't even get in a little closer, got someone with better optics? This has probably happened quite a lot too, but there weren't any journalists involved.

Aerothorn on 6/4/2010 at 13:40

I've talked to people who claim that our military does not engage in cover-ups. Right.

Muzman on 6/4/2010 at 18:24

The full length version is even worse:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&feature=channel)

After half the army apparently shows up for the evac, you only hear them confirm a possible RPG round under some body (which they don't move). I guess they wouldn't announce if they found anything that wasn't live ordinance, but still.

The radio chatter even gives the impression that these guys were thought to be a part of a group shooting from a rooftop some distance away but things got confused (you hear the command vehicle talking about shooting from a roof and then later asking about the roof of the building near the massacre and the Apache boys correct him)

They do at least spot someone with an obvious gun down the road a bit and proceed to waste the building he walks into with hellfires (including some guy just walking past). They try to shoot it three times, but keep fucking up the approach and weapon systems. By the time they let off the second missile it's been so long you can see several women looking in the place for survivors.

And this is probably fairly routine.

Pyrian on 6/4/2010 at 23:32

This is routine. Nobody's going to get disciplined (except for the leak) or reprimanded because they did exactly what they're trained to do. It probably happens most days, just less documented. These sorts of things are the predictable consequences of using a military to perform what amounts to police and detective work. "Shoot first and ask questions ~~later~~ never."

Bluegrime on 7/4/2010 at 00:47

Terrible, terrible business. I wonder who had a harder time sleeping that night, the guys in the air who did the killing or the guys on the ground who actually saw the end result.