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

[Elvis]

You people are really over thinking this and trying to sum the whole war up through this event where nothing questionable or wrong was even done unless you consider insensitive comments criminal. It's still not an accurate comparison when discussing this issue at hand, which is clearly not the focus anymore. Institutionalized? No shit soldiers are trained to kill.

Woosh

I also don't agree w/ the Gang/Mafia v. State comparison to the extent that others have - but you're missing the point.

A State has interests. It pursues those interests within a particular moral framework. However, it is not moral first and foremost by ANY stretch of the imagination and I'm waiting for someone here to go on a 'War of Civilizations/Terror' rant. Please do it, so we can rehash the endless list of American hypocrisy vis a vis it's foreign policy.

The kinds of things we have here, like equal rights and blah blah were not HANDED DOWN by the State. They were won, with struggle AGAINST the State. The State was tyrannical and people reformed it. We kept slaves once, y'know. We didn't give blacks equal rights, y'know.

A Mafia has it's own interests as well, and will also function within it's own moral framework.

You said it yourself that morals are subjective.

The difference between us and a Mafia, is that we have the chance to reform our State with enough pressure. Whereas the Mafia is an underground organization. Not exactly democratic.

And this isn't an isolated incident. Not within the war, and not within all our wars or war in general.

And are you an expert on IHL, to such an extent that you can assume to you know what the ICJ would rule on this incident?

You like, keep misreading my earlier posts.

I have said, that according to our own rules, we're in the clear. Obviously, the military investigation stated as much.

That doesn't mean what happened was acceptable.

And who in that video had actual guns? I don't doubt someone might have. I only saw the edited version. From what I understand, the unedited one has some more golden commentary.

To sum up, quite a few people like yourself believe:

A) according to our own rules, nothing 'wrong' happened in a legal sense.

B) it sucks, but it's war.

C) people say crazier stuff at ivy league universities. Those soldiers were probably sad and depressed or unhinged.

--

I've read variations of those 3 points, in this thread. SO basically, no matter what disgusting thing they say, or the way they casually laugh off running over a dead body, or say 'oh well' blah blah - it's business as usual.

Will those soldiers retire after this? Or will they focus on the 'job' to bring w/e to Iraq?

It's funny how you're so intent on isolating this discussion to just the incident when it's a constant Catch-22.

So if we talk about the 'feelings' of the soldiers - I can say, they said some stupid shit as they killed people. They egged dying Iraqis on to reach for a weapon so they could waste them. Like in a video game. Your response: soldiers are trained to kill, and these guys are just tense and blah blah.

Ok, so what comes next? What makes them stay on 'the job'? The war in it's larger context.

So when I express my 'moral outrage' (yea, cuz my morals are so taboo right? you equivocate by calling it all subjective) your immediate reaction is to talk about the legal spittle involved in the decisions made that day. Not to put these actions in the larger context of the war.

If you treat this like a police-action then NOTHING CHANGES. You can keep compartmentalizing all such incidents, and disassociate them from the War as a whole. It's a great way to essentially promote the war, while chalking up the bad stuff to 'a few bad apples' or 'terrorists use human shields' or 'urban warfare, let our soldiers do their "job"' etc.

You also miss the point about the usage of the word, 'institutionalize'. The point is that, this action was institutionalized. It's part of the way we wage war and the War itself. We're occupying another country, which we invaded. Terrorism increased after the invasion. Before the war, we helped level Iraqi society with sanctions that were genocidal (500K children alone dead).

At the time, Madeline Albright said 'it was worth it' - which is what you and others here seem to say. No accountability, because we didn't break OUR rules of engagement, and it's all legitimate because we don't talk about the legitimacy of the war, which the incident is a product of. Etc. etc.

[Elvis]

[Acturus]

How can you have a war on a tactic and expect to win. Boggles the mind. It's like saying, I'm going to win the War against Flanking Manuevers, or the War against Guerilla's. That shit is dumb on foundational levels, you have to be a complete and utter imbecile to support such an endeavor.

Are you old enough to remember the War on Drugs? Same shit, different target.

[Elvis]

Interview w/ the Wikileaks guy:



Forgot to add, but the Army initially stated they did not know how the children were injured, and that all those who died were insurgents.

Why lie?

[shidobu]

http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/o...nap-860035.png
War has changed

[Mizango]

That is my main issue with it, why lie and cover shit up. Admit you fucked up, apologize to the families and man up about it. They pulled the same shit when Pat Tillman was killed from friendly fire. They told his family that he was killed by insurgents during a fire fight, then it was later revealed by someone in his squad that fired the fatal shot.

I mean we get it, its war, but I don't get the covering your ass shit and lying when it can easily be refuted. I'm just curious how a lot of you defenders would act if this were to happen on your own soil and your friends and families were the ones killed based on an assumption.

[Elvis]

Americans have been killed based on an assumption. I said it earlier, that when it happens to some black kid, there are riots.

When it happens to some Arabs, then it's war/'Rules of Engagement'/unfortunate collateral damage/etc.

[Mizango]

Americans have been killed based on an assumption. I said it earlier, that when it happens to some black kid, there are riots.

When it happens to some Arabs, then it's war/'Rules of Engagement'/unfortunate collateral damage/etc.

Less than human. I just love the hypocrisy and how no one is willing to put the proverbial shoe on the other foot and look at it from their perspective.

I wonder how applicable that would be in our daily lives lol.

"Reginald Denny's face was collateral damage, that'll teach him to drive a truck through a war zone."

"Fuck Ron Goldman, that'll teach him to deliver lost sun glasses to a war zone"

"To hell with Andrea McNulty and her getting raped, that'll teach that scandalous bitch to dance with Ben Roethlisberger in a war zone."

Just sayin'

[Mizango]

Flagrant facetiousness. Inb4 out of context rage.

[Day]

Can you make a metaphor I understand? Those went wewsh

[Mizango]

Sorry DayDay

[Day]

btw classic case of milgram's yo

[Rhinox]

The war effort just needs to balance every "bad" video like this with one of a HumVee full of soldiers getting blown the fuck up by a bomb on the side of the road.

Soldiers sign up knowing there is a chance at death. Civilians don't have that luxury.

You're pretty retarded if you believe Civilian lives are acceptable but soldiers dieing in WARS aren't.

[Kuya]

After having seen some more reporting on it, it seems the part where they shoot the van might be where some criminal conduct or negligent conduct could be argued. Although once again, i maintain that this incident just exemplies just how willing the US government is willing to cover up everytime they manage to kill civilians, and lie about it.

[Zoolander]

Finally watched that whole video. Can't believe some of the logic you guys are using to justify their actions. Are you all really this detached from reality? Those are human fucking beings and there was no aggression at all. To justify their actions is to either say you didn't watch the video and are just talking our of your ass or you are out of touch with reality and lack any kind of empathy. What a joke, this is why this umbrella term "terrorist" has become so dangerous and just plain retarded.

[Day]

just muslins dawg calm down

[Mizango]

Finally watched that whole video. Can't believe some of the logic you guys are using to justify their actions. Are you all really this detached from reality? Those are human fucking beings and there was no aggression at all. To justify their actions is to either say you didn't watch the video and are just talking our of your ass or you are out of touch with reality and lack any kind of empathy. What a joke, this is why this umbrella term "terrorist" has become so dangerous and just plain retarded.

Exactly what I was saying. The justification is just wow.

just muslins dawg calm down

Fa' sho.

[archibaldcrane]

You're pretty retarded if you believe Civilian lives are acceptable but soldiers dieing in WARS aren't.

I'm equal opportunity.

The number of soldiers' deaths I'm willing to accept in this war is 0. No American deaths in Iraq should be tolerated, nor should the deaths of any Iraqis at American hands.

If you have tolerance for any of this, you are part of the problem.

[Kuya]

It should be noted, that the US government is apparently tired of Wikileaks undoing its lies:

All of this has made WikiLeaks an increasingly hated target of numerous government and economic elites around the world, including the U.S. Government. As The New York Times put it last week: "To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret." In 2008, the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Center prepared a secret report -- obtained and posted by WikiLeaks -- devoted to this website and detailing, in a section entitled "Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?", ways it would seek to destroy the organization. It discusses the possibility that, for some governments, not merely contributing to WikiLeaks, but "even accessing the website itself is a crime," and outlines its proposal for WikiLeaks' destruction as follows (click on images to enlarge):

As the Pentagon report put it: "the governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam and Zimbabwe" have all sought to block access to or otherwise impede the operations of WikiLeaks, and the U.S. Government now joins that illustrious list of transparency-loving countries in targeting them.

It's not difficult to understand why the Pentagon wants to destroy WikiLeaks. Here's how the Pentagon's report describes some of the disclosures for which they are responsible:

Note the governments i bolded who also really really hate Wikileaks, and the US government also happens to be one of them. Guilt by association is a fallacy, but in this case we already know of the things the US government is guilty of, so no need for an association to prove the point.

I suggest reading this entire post by Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...aks/index.html

edit: it should also be noted that when they fire at the van, they get permission to do so, so the 'bad apples' argument is null.

[Ikith]

Not trying to sound heartless but seriously what person brings their kids to pick up bodies after they were shot by a heli?

Also they seem to get permission for all firing as they are supposed to.