Wikileaks Releases Video Depicting US Military Killing Dozen Iraqis Including Two Reuters Employees

[Elvis]

That's just an ignorant and poorly designed comparison. Morals are subjective to start, the instincts to protect your fellow soldiers are not, and it isn't the same as beating out a rival gang for turf. What exactly is morally unsound about what they did? The comments they made? Or the killing they did?

Why isn't it the same?

What makes government interests - preserving and perpetuating - different from mafia interests?

Because a government has PR?

You know, we use to keep slaves - right? Over time, a lot of this shit has gone away because of constant antagonism toward existing power structures. (i.e., against governments)

We have rebelled against 'ourselves' so many times with the intent of reform.

Want to know WHY people baw baw about brown people getting killed? We're becoming a more globalized world and it's harder to kill/exterminate/colonize 'the other'. (Not saying we're exterminating anyone, or something, but just using an example of olde-timey imperialism).

We're connected. We have NGOs monitoring all this stuff. We have the internets. Etc.

The army belongs to the government. The government decided to go to war. Why? I think we can do a lot of 'process by elimination' with respect to morality and foreign policy.

So is our foreign policy motivated by 'American values'?

Is it?

Well, by process of elimination, we can cite the examples of blatant hypocrisy on our part where we support oppressive regimes, ignore their crimes, commit similar crimes, etc.

So what makes us different? It's a very abstract comparison. It's catchy but I agree, ultimately just that.

That doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it.

[guartz]

That's just an ignorant and poorly designed comparison. Morals are subjective to start, the instincts to protect your fellow soldiers are not, and it isn't the same as beating out a rival gang for turf. What exactly is morally unsound about what they did? The comments they made? Or the killing they did?

Keep sounding more and more like a hypocrite, what, now you don't accept murder as a moral taboo?

At any rate, gang members have instincts to protect fellow gang members.

[Elvis]

It comes down to the premise for the war as I said.

If you accept the legitimacy of American power and the justification for our foreign policy with respect to the ME - then you can make arguments like 'the soldiers were protecting other soldiers' or 'soldiers are trained to fight' etc.

[Kuya]

I think the gang member comparison is a bit off though. With that said, this thread has expired in terms of discussion.

[guartz]

I think the gang member comparison is a bit off though. With that said, this thread has expired in terms of discussion.

Bah, it's just more accurate then you are willing to accept.

[Kuya]

This thread was good though, there would have been less discussion if i had made a thread about the news i posted earlier.

[Faris]

wish they could open jihad already, this is stupid.

lets see how it feels when your civilians are collateral damage

[Omniyoji]

Jeez that's horrible.

Not the first time I've see something like this but it always gets to me everytime. I just can't seem to grasp the concept of hatred or wanting to kill another. I probably never will. I hope that in my lifetime I'm never put into such a situation, but then again part of me does understand the whole "balance/compromise" ideal.

[*Shinzon*]

Bah, it's just more accurate then you are willing to accept.

No it's not. He's right. Regarding murder that's not what you said. You're comparing a military conflict to a petty turf war between rival gangs. That's so far from being accurate I don't even have words for it. If you're beef is against murder in general well, that's not what were even debating at the start. Murder, and the death of the individuals in the video isn't even in the same realm when you consider all the facts that are in the thread.

[Chun Liroy]

I'm glad that 4chan has taken a stance on this.

[guartz]

wish they could open jihad already, this is stupid.

lets see how it feels when your civilians are collateral damage

Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

[archibaldcrane]

lets see how it feels when your civilians are collateral damage

Are you implying that jihadists have non-civilian targets?

[Kuya]

Are you implying that jihadists have non-civilian targets?

?

[thetruepandagod]

This thread has made me lose a lot of faith in most peoples ability to rationalize.

just sayin.

[*Shinzon*]

This thread has made me lose a lot of faith in most peoples ability to rationalize.

just sayin.

And accept certain facts for what they actually are.

[guartz]

...You're comparing a military conflict to a petty turf war between rival gangs. That's so far from being accurate I don't even have words for it. ..

Yes, I am comparing them. How is it not accurate? I mean, aside from the scale.

[Chun Liroy]

Probably something to do with (whether or not you want to argue it) the overall goal of each faction. A turf war mostly has to do with drugs while this war has to do with oil (and sprinkle in a little thing about freeing a nation from a dictator).

[Mojo]

No, it was not. They took the time to decide whether to shoot first and the people down there did not scurry around, getting ready to shoot.

That being said, you're right about experience and stuff. It's easy for me to criticize.

However, at the same time - we can all levy REASONABLE criticism without having had first-hand experience.

So when I repeatedly ask people why the soldiers fired on everything, like the van, and the people helping the crawling dying man - and get no response - I think that's a reasonable criticism/question.

And 'fire fight' obviously has a definition. So what is it? I'm serious, what is it?

The requirement to obey the rules of engagement does not make it any less like I described. That is why soldiers are often so keen on getting permission to engage. The longer they have to wait for this the greater the chance is of them getting fired on first. It certainly appeared like they might have just been walking around nonchalantly but that's how it always is until an insurgent opens fire (they don't go around trying to reveal themselves...)

Opening fire on the van might seem odd, but consider this. Insurgents actually have the neighborhoods in Iraq networked very well. The second anything happens they phone each other and let the people around them know so that they can respond quickly if they choose to. The response time of the van was fast, this is typical of that kind of communication. I can't really say if driving a van in to pick up wounded comrades is something you'd expect insurgents to do, but the soldiers clearly thought the first batch of people were insurgents. It's like that if that was true, anybody coming to aid or salvage the situation would probably be more insurgents.

[thetruepandagod]

You can hate the war, you can hate the reasons we were misled into having it, you can hate the fact that innocents will and do die, and you can hate the military for attempting to cover up this situation. But what the soldiers in the chopper did was not wrong in the least and was actually handled fairly well as far as military situations go, sure they said some things that gives you plenty of fuel to hate them but the wrong doing is not there, at least not on the soldiers parts.

[Rhinox]

uh no