Tonight on ABC’s World News Tonight Peter Jennings showed an american helicopter shoot and kill three people they thought probably were transporting arms. The film was from a gun camera on the aircraft, and was obviously ok’d by the military. Audio and video appeared to be uncensored.
First, after getting permission, they gunned down two people who seemed to be running back and forth, then they went back to the first target and gunned down a person who was wounded (they said so) and appeared to be climbing out from under a truck.
I usually try not to second-guess the lower level military in their actions, but I can’t resolve in my mind why this situation wasn’t handled differently. Like maybe taking prisoners?
I’m not a combat veteran, but I am a Vietnam era vet (amphibious navy), and I’ve seen combat first hand, though from a safe distance. I ferried, supported, and lived with 900+ combat Marines for nearly three years.
Let me restate;
They killed three people, without warning or chance of surrender, because they thought those people probably were transporting weapons.
I hope I find out I’m way off-base on this issue.
Peace,
mangeorge
Well, in light of the numbers of helicopters that have been shot down, I wouldn’t be surprised if military people in a helicopter thought it would be a better idea to just shoot anyone on the ground who might be armed and who might conceivably be thinking of blowing up their helicopter, instead of electing to land and attempt to capture them, thereby making their helicopter the proverbial sitting duck.
April 2003.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.war.main/
June and October 2003. Three incidents.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102449,00.html
November, 2003. Two incidents.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/02/sprj.irq.main/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/15/sprj.irq.crash/
January 2004.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/02/sprj.nirq.main/
The whole friggin´ country was invaded on the presumption that they had forbidden weapons… so this is just a straw from the haystack.
When applied to nations by this administration, I believe the same principle is called ‘pre-emptive action’, or similar.
Ah, now I understand your meaning more clearly Ale. Sorry to repeat!
Well, just a few short months ago US forces destroyed and killed a convoy of people moving in the night because they might be running arms or escaping . . . or something. I mean why on earth would you be out at night? After they were all dead it was found out the were running . . . sheep. I don’t know if the US government said so much as “oops”. They pretty much changed the subject and went on with their war of “liberation” which is leaving a lot of Iraqis and Americans “liberated” from this world and its sorrows.
I’m very much surprised that it is mentioned. Great progress.
Salaam. A
Here’s the story
I think what spooked me was the conversation between the crew and commander.
I say they were trigger-happy.
When you’re discussing whether or not to kill someone how are you suppose to sound? They don’t seem all that trigger happy to me. They did call in and request permission to engage.
Marc
Of course you need to say something in the line of “smoke them” when you see 3 civilians on the ground and can’t detect what precisely they are carrying.
What else do you need to say?
Maybe…
investigate before you “smoke them” because once dead, stays dead?.. Just a suggestion.
But of course everything “tube like” is a weapon in Iraq.
Remember those “tube like” objects that were “detected” and showed as “proof” of launching-ready-WMD?
I mean: Maybe those 3 men - now dead - were in this ongoing never ending process of hiding WMD?
This leads us to an immediat understanding why there aren’t any WMD to be found in Iraq.
They are al “smoked” together with all the men who carry those “tube like” objects.
How is it possible that people don’t see this connection right away.
I don’t think it matters to you what they say. Even if what they had was an RPG you would simply say it was still wrong for the US’ers to kill them since they were just defending their country.
Marc
Of course. Wouldn’t you defend your country against murdering invaders?
Salaam. A
MGibson, IF they were shooting RPGs we would be having a different discussion but this is not it. We are discussing what we have heard reported not what you would have liked to be reported.
Unfortunately I think events such as these are inevitable in war. I do not think you can have clean wars. The forces doing them are, obviously, still responsible for their acts but they are foreseeable in war. That is why I believe those who start wars are responsible for these things which are an inevitable part of war. If you start a war you need to have a very good justification and it is my humble opinion that the guy who started this war does not have any justification that comes close to justifying these acts.
**
I don’t think that was necessary as I haven’t given any indication of what I wanted to be reported. Could it be possible that given what was reported that I could honestly have a different opinion without some sort of agenda or wishful thinking on my part? They
I happen to think that the war was completely justified. Though I’m not convinced it was the best long term stratigic action for the United States.
Marc
MGibson,
Can you list your justification for the act of killing thousands of people, bombing a country into oblivion, invade and occupy it and using helicopters to go on murdering its civilians?
Can you also list why on earth the USA would ever be able to “justify” this mass murder, invasion, occupation.
If it becomes “strategically important” for a nation to invade and occupy the USA, to murder thousands of US’ers and to use helicopters and other means to go on murdering them at a daily base… Then you mean to say that this nation can do that because it is “justified”?
Salaam. A
**
Their nation was under the thumb of a brutal dictator with whom murder and torture were his standard operating procedure. That’s all the justification I need.
Marc
So you say that the USA had a God give right to go murdering thousands of people and keep on murdering them, just because the USA supported the dictator you just mentioned when he was “the good guy” but then after a while he wasn’t all that useful anymore for the USA and thus became “the bad guy”.
OK.
Can now the USA be attacked and do you volunteer to be on the list of those who are “worth it” to get murdered in order to get rid of a murdering lunatic US president and his crew?
Salaam. A
**
Did I mention anything about God? I take it you say that a mid-east leaders have a God given right to murder political rivals, torture olympic athletes who don’t perform well, rape any woman they find attractive, and general brutalize those they wish to brutalize.
If the government started raping, murdering, and torturing I might just welcome an invasion.
Marc
It was bad enough that they blasted those men with no particular evidence that they were doing something wrong but when they went back and “smoked” the wounded fellow rolling around on the ground I lost an enormous amount of respect for the United States military. It was an inexusable obscenity. I am sickened that the American People have become so brainwashed that the men responsible have not been court martialed and hung. They are war criminals.
Reminds of a similar thread we had a few weeks ago about a group of (SOB’s IMHO) american soldiers dealing with a wounded iraqui. Instead of granting him quarter they began to shout “Kill him, shoot him!”.
And so they did, as he lay wounded on the ground.
Afterwards they interviewed one of the soldiers who laughed and recounted how everyone there though it was just the coolest thing.
Besides this being incredibly and horribly ACCEPTED practice by the military (and some posters here on these boards), what worries me, is when these people come back here after the war.
What the hell are we going to do with monsters like these?