Video of collateral murder of two Reuters journalists by U.S. from Apache helicopter

[galtgulch]

http://collateralmurder.com/

I imagine this is considered a version of friendly fire. But watch the video.

Here is a link to a more elaborate presentation of the same video with commentary:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34371

www.campaignforliberty.com 230230

gulch

Edited April 8, 2010 by galtgulch

[DavidMcK]

Watching this scares me and makes me sick to my stomach. I wonder how many 'normal' people just can't wait to kill somebody.

Edited April 8, 2010 by DavidMcK

[DavidMcK]

I decided to do a bit of further research on this and found this link: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

The blogger points out that the screen that the soldiers had to look at was much smaller than what we see, and even though we can clearly see the two children sitting in the front seat of the van, the soldiers might not have been able to see or in the heat of the moment didn't realize what they were seeing. The cameras seem crystal clear on the wikileak video, but is it as obvious to the pilot and other soldiers? Perhaps not, and from the sound they certainly sound like they thought they were weapons. I'm not excusing all the laughing and congratulatory comments.

[galtgulch]

I decided to do a bit of further research on this and found this link: http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

The blogger points out that the screen that the soldiers had to look at was much smaller than what we see, and even though we can clearly see the two children sitting in the front seat of the van, the soldiers might not have been able to see or in the heat of the moment didn't realize what they were seeing. The cameras seem crystal clear on the wikileak video, but is it as obvious to the pilot and other soldiers? Perhaps not, and from the sound they certainly sound like they thought they were weapons. I'm not excusing all the laughing and congratulatory comments.

Notice how the military asserted that after their investigation they found that there was nothing wrong and all rules of engagement were followed. We can see that none of the men standing in the group who were targeted were acting in any hostile manner towards the Apache helicopter. Didn't you wonder that none of the victims seemed the least concerned about the helicopter overhead? I had the impression that the helicopter was quite far away. There was such a lag from the time the guns were fired and the time that you could see the dust being kicked up. It took several seconds for the bullets to reach the target. I think the helicopter was circling at a greater distance than appears in the video.

The question What in the Hell are we doing over there? comes to mind. Remember that there was no connection between the attack on 9/11 and Iraq. I remember hearing at the time that there was a building in Afghanistan thought to be occupied by Alquida

but by the time Bush decided to authorize an attack the leaders were all gone three weeks later. I think the attack should have been done without delay but although the overthrow of Saddam was morally justified should not have happened at all.

I recall that Clinton didn't authorize taking out Osama bin Ladin when an opportunity arose in the Sudan and that Osama was angry with the US for having military bases in Saudi Arabia where Mecca and Medina were. In other words if the U.S. had no troops stationed over there in the first place 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Sounds like the wisdom of a non interventionist foreign policy such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had in mind. Instead the U.S. has over 1200 bases in 130 countries at the cost of a trillion dollars a year.

www.campaignforliberty.com 230243 www.YALiberty.org on over 170 campuses

gulch

[galtgulch]

Here is Jacob Hornberger's response to the video: (it appeared at www.campaignforliberty.com as a feature article on 8 April2010)

<<<"Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

He is a regular writer for The Future of Freedom Foundation's publication, Freedom Daily, and is a co-editor or contributor to the eight books that have been published by the Foundation. Visit his blog.

The WikiLeaks Video and Terrorist Blowback

By Jacob Hornberger

View all 47 articles by Jacob Hornberger

Published 04/08/10

I can't improve on Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the WikiLeaks video depicting the slaughter of Iraqi citizens. See here and here and here.

However, there is one part of the WikiLeaks video that I wish to address -- the reaction of the helicopter pilots upon learning that there were two children who were shot and injured during the melee. Their reaction, in fact, perfectly exemplifies the mindset that has long characterized U.S. officials, including those in the Pentagon.

When the pilots discovered that they had shot the two Iraqi kids, here was their exchange:

"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

"That's right."

No remorse, no anguish, no regret, no concern. Just callous indifference to the possibility that the lives of two innocent children might have just been snuffed out.

What will be the reaction of the relatives of those two Iraqi children, who lost their father in the attack? Surely, even the most ardent pro-war advocates would not deny the obvious: the relatives will be filled with anger and rage.

Welcome to the world of U.S. foreign policy and terrorist blowback.

In fact, this most recent episode in Iraq is a minor déjà vu of what took place during the Persian Gulf War and the 11-year period following it. During that war, the Pentagon conducted a secret study that concluded that if Iraq's water and sewage facilities were destroyed, this would help spread infectious illnesses among the Iraqi people.

So, the order was given: Drop the bombs on those facilities.

Then, to ensure that the facilities couldn't be repaired, the U.S. government induced the UN to impose one of the most brutal systems of sanctions in history on Iraq.

The Pentagon proved to be right, with the deadly consequences of drinking the polluted water falling most heavily on Iraqi children. Year after year, tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying. Two high UN officials even resigned their posts in protest to what they termed "genocide."

What was the reaction of U.S. officials to those deaths? It was the same reaction expressed by those pilots in the WikiLeaks video: callous indifference. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright reflected the mindset of U.S. officials when she told "Sixty Minutes" (and the people of the Middle East) that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children from the sanctions were "worth it."

It is impossible to measure the depth of anger and rage that spread not just in Iraq but also the Middle East over the deaths of the Iraqi children, year after year, and over the mindset of callous indifference that characterized U.S. officials. When Ramzi Yousef was sentenced for the 1993 terrorist attack on the WTC, he angrily cited the sanctions and the deaths of the Iraqi children as one of the things that drove him to commit his terrorist attack.

That WTC attack in 1993 was followed by the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and, of course, the 9/11 attacks.

We all know what U.S. officials said: Oh, it's not because of what the U.S. government has done to people in Iraq and the Middle East, including the sanctions and our indifference to the deaths of the Iraqi children, the Persian Gulf intervention, the unconditional financial and military support to the Israeli government, or the intentional stationing of U.S. troops on Islamic holy lands. People in the Middle East don't care about all that. They just hate us for our freedom and values.

Mark my words: they'll say the same thing if relatives of those two Iraqi children -- or the children themselves -- end up retaliating for what was done to the children's father and other victims of the most recent slaughter.

Finally, let us never forget: Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government participated in the 9/11 attacks or ever attacked the United States. That makes the U.S. government the unlawful aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier in this conflict, which means that U.S. soldiers have no right, moral or legal, to be killing anyone in Iraq, including those Iraqis who are simply trying to rid their country of an illegal aggressor, invader, attacker, and occupier.

By the way, Joy Gordon, who wrote one of the most insightful articles on the Iraq sanctions, entitled " Cool War: Economic Sanctions as a Weapon of Mass Destruction" has a brand new book out on the Iraq sanctions entitled Invisible War: The United States and the Iraq Sanctions. I haven't read it yet but if it's as good as her article, it's definitely a great book.

For a nice compilation of articles on the sanctions, see: www.fff.org/whatsNew/2004-02-09a.htm

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email.">>>

www.campaignforliberty.com 230243 www.YALiberty.org on over 170 campuses

gulch

Edited April 8, 2010 by galtgulch

[anonrobt]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shame-on-wikileaks-framing-lawful-engagement-as-anti-american-propaganda-part-one/

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shame-on-wikileaks-framing-lawful-engagement-as-anti-american-propaganda-part-two/

[DavidMcK]

Your preaching to a choir member; I've been singing the non-interventionist song since the first Gulf War when I was made sick by all of Bush's talk about a kinder gentler America before he goes in and kills 200 K people.

[galtgulch]

Your preaching to a choir member; I've been singing the non-interventionist song since the first Gulf War when I was made sick by all of Bush's talk about a kinder gentler America before he goes in and kills 200 K people.

David,

Not my intent to preach.

Appreciate the links by anonrobt.

The Reuters journalists were evidently embedded with the "insurgents" who don't wear uniforms.

www.campaignforliberty.com 230,387

gulch

[George H. Smith]

Here is another perspective on this incident, one that accuses WikiLeaks of selective editing.

Ghs

<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>

[BaalChatzaf]

http://collateralmurder.com/

I imagine this is considered a version of friendly fire. But watch the video.

Here is a link to a more elaborate presentation of the same video with commentary:

http://www.campaignf....php?view=34371

www.campaignforliberty.com 230230

gulch

Who said the shootings were "unprovoked". And what proof is there that murder took place. Surely, people were killed, as often happens in a war zone, but murder means homicide with wrongful intent --- mens rae. Has this been established? If so where, by what court and commission and under what set of laws? In a war zone all shootings are provoked. And the Jihadis just love to mix with civilians, especially children so that if they are fired upon it brings discredit to the attacking soldiers.

I will give you a big fat tap. In a war zone there are NO innocent people. Even children can carry bombs and i.e.d.s. Everyone on the other side is a potential and more often an actual threat. All killings are justified under the rules of engagement.

You don't know dickey-doo about warfare and you should really keep silent on this matter because you don't have the knowledge or the chops to make a valid point.

In a war people are killed and property is destroyed. Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Fredricksberg once said: It is good that war is so terrible else we should come to like it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I agree that a war zone is a war zone.

Part of human nature is that you have to get pumped up to perform well. That goes for anything involving physical activity.

If we are sending warriors into a war zone, I want them pumped up to beat the enemy, thus end the war with victory. I don't believe in the efficacy of a fighting machine that doesn't get pumped up to fight.

This is ugly, but it's natural in war.

If there were ever a way to ban war, I would be all for it. But so long was we are in a war, I am all for beating the enemy as quickly as possible, with as little loss as possible within a fighting context, and getting it over with so we can get back to a non-fighting context.

I agree with you in that I believe it is a mistake to condemn warriors in war because they do not act like civilian businessmen in peacetime.

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

Who said the shootings were "unprovoked". And what proof is there that murder took place. Surely, people were killed, as often happens in a war zone, but murder means homicide with wrongful intent --- mens rae. Has this been established? If so where, by what court and commission and under what set of laws?

Strangely enough, the military is not overly concerned with disciplining soldiers committing attrocities in a war zone, insofar as imposing such discipline just might damage military morale. So they're just not too terribly interested in prosecuting criminal behavior. Likewise, police departments are not generally too interested in disciplining rogue cops who've beaten or killed innocent people either.

In a war zone all shootings are provoked.

That has got to be among the most evil and stupid comments I have ever read. So if some soldiers encounter a group of defenseless men, women, children, babies, or dogs, it's okay to burn them alive or machine gun them all, because those damned babies just plain provoked the soldiers by crying too damn much.

And the Jihadis just love to mix with civilians, especially children so that if they are fired upon it brings discredit to the attacking soldiers.

That might just have something to do with the fact that the "jihadis" live there. Unlike the occupying soldiers, that's their home. And the idea that an insurgent trying to fight an invasion and occupation of his home by enemy soldiers is necessarily a jihadi is something that only a stupid American like you whose home has never been invaded and occupied by foreign soldiers would believe.

I will give you a big fat tap. In a war zone there are NO innocent people. Even children can carry bombs and i.e.d.s. Everyone on the other side is a potential and more often an actual threat. All killings are justified under the rules of engagement.

That's interesting. If all killings are justified in a war zone, there wouldn't need to be any rules of engagement, would there? The very fact that such rules exist is an acknowledgement that not all killings are justified. What you suggest is nothing but a vicious rationalization to justify the commission of the most despicable war crimes. Of course, you figure it's safe to argue such a position, since you live in New Jersey, which is highly unlikely to become a war zone. So you don't have to worry that you, your wife, your children, your grandchildren, and your friends will all become justifiable targets of mass murder. You can live in safety and comfort while you prattle on about how it's okay to murder all those dirty brown foreigners. If you actually had to live in a war zone, you'd probably feel differently.

You don't know dickey-doo about warfare and you should really keep silent on this matter because you don't have the knowledge or the chops to make a valid point.

In a war people are killed and property is destroyed. Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Fredricksberg once said: It is good that war is so terrible else we should come to like it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Lots of Americans like you have come to like war a hell of a lot. That's because war is only terrible for those who are living through it, not those for whom war is just something that they see in 30 second segments on the 11:00 news.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Edited April 13, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Explain why the U.S. Marines took very few prisoners at the Battle of Pelelu.

Explain the raid on Dresden. Bomber Harris did not care whether his bombs fell on women, children, workers or soldiers. Did Bomber Harris not know what he was talking about. (PS: My two outstanding heroes of WW2 are Bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay. They are my kind of people)

In a hot battle there are no innocent people, only targets. It is good that war is so terrible else we should grow too fond of it (Robert E. Lee).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Has an "innocent" child ever carried a grenade or other explosive toward the our troops. If the answer is so little as one yes, then the default, logically, should be to kill them all.

Dead men don't wear plaid and dead kids don't carry grenades strapped on them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Who said the shootings were "unprovoked". And what proof is there that murder took place. Surely, people were killed, as often happens in a war zone, but murder means homicide with wrongful intent --- mens rae. Has this been established? If so where, by what court and commission and under what set of laws?

Strangely enough, the military is not overly concerned with disciplining soldiers committing attrocities in a war zone, insofar as imposing such discipline just might damage military morale. So they're just not too terribly interested in prosecuting criminal behavior. Likewise, police departments are not generally too interested in disciplining rogue cops who've beaten or killed innocent people either.

In a war zone all shootings are provoked.

That has got to be among the most evil and stupid comments I have ever read. So if some soldiers encounter a group of defenseless men, women, children, babies, or dogs, it's okay to burn them alive or machine gun them all, because those damned babies just plain provoked the soldiers by crying too damn much.

And the Jihadis just love to mix with civilians, especially children so that if they are fired upon it brings discredit to the attacking soldiers.

That might just have something to do with the fact that the "jihadis" live there. Unlike the occupying soldiers, that's their home. And the idea that an insurgent trying to fight an invasion and occupation of his home by enemy soldiers is necessarily a jihadi is something that only a stupid American like you whose home has never been invaded and occupied by foreign soldiers would believe.

I will give you a big fat tap. In a war zone there are NO innocent people. Even children can carry bombs and i.e.d.s. Everyone on the other side is a potential and more often an actual threat. All killings are justified under the rules of engagement.

That's interesting. If all killings are justified in a war zone, there wouldn't need to be any rules of engagement, would there? The very fact that such rules exist is an acknowledgement that not all killings are justified. What you suggest is nothing but a vicious rationalization to justify the commission of the most despicable war crimes. Of course, you figure it's safe to argue such a position, since you live in New Jersey, which is highly unlikely to become a war zone. So you don't have to worry that you, your wife, your children, your grandchildren, and your friends will all become justifiable targets of mass murder. You can live in safety and comfort while you prattle on about how it's okay to murder all those dirty brown foreigners. If you actually had to live in a war zone, you'd probably feel differently.

Lots of Americans like you have come to like war a hell of a lot. That's because war is only terrible for those who are living through it, not those for whom war is just something that they see in 30 second segments on the 11:00 news.

Martin

I have enjoyed it for more than 30 seconds. I have participated in the construction of weapons of mass destruction (cruise missile navigation systems). I do not regret a second I spent doing it nor do I have any qualms about the blood I have helped to spill. Killing our enemies is one of the ways we survive.

I and my flesh and blood are already targets. My youngest son was scheduled to do some business at the World Trade Center on Tuesday, Sept 11, 2001. He had to reschedule. Which is why I have three nice grandchildren now in New Jersey. We are all targets. So it goes....

I wish the world were a better place, but it isn't and it is not likely to be any time soon.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Explain the raid on Dresden. Bomber Harris did not care whether his bombs fell on women, children, workers or soldiers. Did Bomber Harris not know what he was talking about. (PS: My two outstanding heroes of WW2 are Bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay. They are my kind of people)

In a hot battle there are no innocent people, only targets. It is good that war is so terrible else we should grow too fond of it (Robert E. Lee).

Nor did the Nazis care whether their bombs, when dropped on London, killed women, children, workers or soldiers. So should the Nazis get a pass as well, or does your suspension of all moral standards in war apply only to the side that you happen to favor?

Your quoting of Robert E. Lee to support your position is a travesty. Even the scorched earth tactics of General Sherman don't come close to it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Has an "innocent" child ever carried a grenade or other explosive toward the our troops. If the answer is so little as one yes, then the default, logically, should be to kill them all.

You forgot to add, "for God knows his own."

Your statement could easily be adapted to include any group of people, however classified, including Jews. I can scarcely believe that a civilized human being could defend such barbarism.

(None of my remarks should be construed as a knee-jerk condemnation of the incident in Iraq. The killing of innocents is virtually inevitable in time of war. Whether this is justified or not depends on the context.)

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Bob is an Aspie. Underneath the literal-minded stuff he has a good heart.

Michael

[tjohnson]

George,

Bob is an Aspie. Underneath the literal-minded stuff he has a good heart.

Michael

There is no way to reason with him about his views on war.

[dan2100]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Has an "innocent" child ever carried a grenade or other explosive toward the our troops. If the answer is so little as one yes, then the default, logically, should be to kill them all.

You forgot to add, "for God knows his own."

Your statement could easily be adapted to include any group of people, however classified, including Jews. I can scarcely believe that a civilized human being could defend such barbarism.

(None of my remarks should be construed as a knee-jerk condemnation of the incident in Iraq. The killing of innocents is virtually inevitable in time of war. Whether this is justified or not depends on the context.)

George, the surprise to me has always been how many people hold these views and yet civilization remains in place. This might be a testament to the strength of civilization that it can survive despite the barbaric views held by so many inside it.

[George H. Smith]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Has an "innocent" child ever carried a grenade or other explosive toward the our troops. If the answer is so little as one yes, then the default, logically, should be to kill them all.

You forgot to add, "for God knows his own."

Your statement could easily be adapted to include any group of people, however classified, including Jews. I can scarcely believe that a civilized human being could defend such barbarism.

(None of my remarks should be construed as a knee-jerk condemnation of the incident in Iraq. The killing of innocents is virtually inevitable in time of war. Whether this is justified or not depends on the context.)

George, the surprise to me has always been how many people hold these views and yet civilization remains in place. This might be a testament to the strength of civilization that it can survive despite the barbaric views held by so many inside it.

Perhaps it is naive of me, but I tend to assume that any person who is active on a list like OL is a cut above the "boobsoisie" (to use Mencken's term).

Moreover, I seriously doubt if many Americans believe that the U.S. military should deliberately target young children in war zones and attempt to "kill them all." Yet this is the clear implication of Bob's reference to the logical "default" position, if even one child might be used for combat purposes.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Bob doesn't know what he is talking about, really.

--Brant

I do--Special Forces Aidman combat vet., Vietnam War: innocents were all over the place

Has an "innocent" child ever carried a grenade or other explosive toward the our troops. If the answer is so little as one yes, then the default, logically, should be to kill them all.

Dead men don't wear plaid and dead kids don't carry grenades strapped on them.

Ba'al Chatzaf

As a practical matter children aren't used very much if at all as suicide bombers. In Vietnam they sometimes came at you with a grenade, although not in my personal experience.

People like you should stay in Santa's workshop making weapons for people like me who know what to do with them.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

George,

Bob is an Aspie. Underneath the literal-minded stuff he has a good heart.

Michael

Are all Aspies legitimate targets in war zones, if only one Aspie is a combatant? Just curious. 8-)

More seriously, if I didn't think that Bob has a good heart, I wouldn't be surprised that he takes the position he does.

It seems to me that libertarians and Objectivists should be at the forefront of developing a modern just war theory. This, in essence, consists of the systematic application of our theory of rights to prolonged military conflicts. All too often, however, I have seen members of our tribe (primarily Objectivists) declare, in effect, that our ideas about rights don't apply to such circumstances.

There are many reasons why this is a disturbing trend. One is because wars are typically declared (sometimes without formal decree) and waged by governments. And as a practical matter this means that governments will decide when rights should be respected and when they should not. This is only one chilling implication of the view that rights don't apply in times of war.

I have posted this link before, but see my article, "Thinking About War," at: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2008_05/smith-war.html

Ghs

[dan2100]

You forgot to add, "for God knows his own."

Your statement could easily be adapted to include any group of people, however classified, including Jews. I can scarcely believe that a civilized human being could defend such barbarism.

(None of my remarks should be construed as a knee-jerk condemnation of the incident in Iraq. The killing of innocents is virtually inevitable in time of war. Whether this is justified or not depends on the context.)

George, the surprise to me has always been how many people hold these views and yet civilization remains in place. This might be a testament to the strength of civilization that it can survive despite the barbaric views held by so many inside it.

Perhaps it is naive of me, but I tend to assume that any person who is active on a list like OL is a cut above the "boobsoisie" (to use Mencken's term).

In some ways, people can be a cut above in one area and middling or way below in others, no?

Moreover, I seriously doubt if many Americans believe that the U.S. military should deliberately target young children in war zones and attempt to "kill them all." Yet this is the clear implication of Bob's reference to the logical "default" position, if even one child might be used for combat purposes.

I think people have to be persuaded to believe that -- and Bob's other rhetoric seems to show he has to even persuade himself. In other words, it seems less a default position than an attempt at dehumanizing other people so they might be easier targets.