Start the film around the 3:30 mark and then run it forward. It’s grainy, but you can see them holding things that are pretty obviously weapons (look like AK-47’s and one guy looks like he has an RPG around 4:02, just before the helicopter loses contact behind the building). The video isn’t perfect…but then, that’s kind of the point. This is what the crew was seeing, and they didn’t have the luxury of replaying it several times.
Even if you don’t see the weapons looking again (and to me, they are fairly obvious), the CREW thought they were armed…and they were the ones on the scene. Even if they were wrong (and I don’t think they were), such a mistake wouldn’t be a war crime (as per the OP).
You haven’t answered my query at all. Here, I’ll repost it:
Okay, you can’t see his children clearly. Great. Where are the guns? Where are the RPGs? Where was the threat? What, in your opinion, made firing on these 2 guys, a wounded man, and idling minivan necessary? What do you see in the video that justified “engaging” this target?
What’s not to get? The crew couldn’t look it up. They didn’t have the video to review…or the helpful little details about who was in the fucking van, or the arrows with names on them, telling them who they were shooting at. Seriously…what don’t you get?
Bullshit. I can clearly see that some of them were armed. Also, again (since you don’t seem to be grasping this point), the crew DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS A CAMERA CREW. They thought it was an armed group of insurgents.
You mean when the presumed insurgent who was just engaged gets picked up by a van of unknown but obviously suspicious motives? The one where no kids were visible TO THE FUCKING CREW? THAT one?
Or, did you think that the crew could just watch the video you just did, and read all about it? Perhaps they could go to the shelf with the movie and then fast forward to that part, to see what was happening a la Spaceballs, ehe?
So…you want the crew held accountable for making a mistake? Perhaps they should be shot, ehe?
Well, I figured since I answered this (and since it’s subjective anyway) you would just read it there. I can see a group of men who appear to be armed (I can pretty clearly see at least 1 AK, and what looks like it could be an RPG). But what you see or I see doesn’t make a bit of difference…because the crew clearly thinks the group is armed. Whether they are right or wrong is another question. Assuming the ROE are something like ‘if you see an armed group of insurgence, radio back to get permission to engage’ then THEY DID NOTHING WRONG. They DID radio back (and back again before engaging the van) and the GOT permission to engage.
Does that clear it up for you? Of course not…you still don’t get it, ehe?
How much straw does it take to make a man? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? How many angels can dance on the head of a false dilemma?
That argument cuts both ways. How many times did you have to watch the video to identify the weapons?
And I’ve watched the section you describe. Right at 3:38 there are two people each holding something long and thin, and then one of them is visible again at 4:00, but to positively identify those as weapons is quite a stretch.
And what happened when the ground troops got there? Did they find these AK-47s and the RPG? Were there any pictures on the journalists cameras that showed them with armed insurgents? (I doubt that insurgents would want their pictures taken, but then why would they be with the journalists?) It’s also worth noting that the two journalists were walking away from the possibly armed men. Do people on the same street all have to be part of the same group?
Of course they should be held accountable for making a mistake. When I make a mistake doing my job, I’m held accountable for it, and I hope that the same is true of you in your job. Why shouldn’t soldiers be held responsible for the mistakes they make on the job, too?
So…you followed the procedures given you, did everything by the book and, through no fault of your own, a mistake is made. And you are fully accountable? All I can say is you should probably get the hell out of where you are working and find a new job.
Out of curiosity, what do you think their punishment should be for following orders and procedure? Assuming (as seems clear) they were following their ROE procedures and doing what they were supposed to be doing, what would you suggest? I’d really like to know what you think should be done in this case.
It’s exactly this kind of comments (the soldier’s, not yours), this macho bullshit that’s making me sick. It’s a hard job, okay, it’s not nice, okay, but they don’t need to gleefully laugh at the human bits flying around there, do they? This is a bad as the commentary in a video game, for frakk’s sake.
Oh, but I do, I very much want them to think that! My father was not much on good paternal advice, being a drunk, a gambler and a womanizer. But he did say that being underestimated is just about the best way to be.
“A smart man will tell you he’s smart, a really smart man won’t.”
The other one was “Don’t worry what people think about you, they aren’t thinking about you.”
And you didn’t see the AK’s either? And, more importantly than you and I squabbling about this, did the crew think they were armed? Because, in the end, they were the ones on the scene.
That they knowingly attacked a group of civilians. Leaving aside your assertion that these guys WERE simply a group of civilians, to me there would only be a crime if the crew attacked them knowing they were unarmed civilians…or if they didn’t follow their ROE procedures and engaged the group outside of their engagement rules. Do you have any evidence that the crew knew these were unarmed civilians? Besides your obviously expert opinion based on viewing a grainy video where it’s fairly ambiguous whether or not these folks were armed, and armed with what? Do you have any evidence that the crew engaged the group outside of the ROE? Do you have any evidence that their ROE on this mission stated clearly that they couldn’t engage any targets that weren’t ‘hostile’?
Look at all these armed people! Look at all the guns they have! I bet that guy crawling on the ground was going to pull an RPG out of his pocket and launch it at the helicopter crew. Good thing they blew him away in time!
No, I think the crew could look at their camera image, which I’m pretty sure they’re doing anyway, since it’s how they aim. While they’re doing that, they could try to confirm their targets before they fire instead of indiscriminately mowing down every human being on the street. I think this is important because they are in a residential area in the middle of a large city and the odds are very good that a large portion of the people in a residential area in the middle of a large city are going to be civilians.
Yes!
No!
How is this a strawman? I was directly addressing your statement that “Treating everything that moves as a potential threat is probably what has kept the crew alive to this point.” I’m curious how far you think they can take that behavior before they step over a line. It certainly seems relevant to the discussion to me.
It’s called Common Sense. There was no apparent warning to let the individual know that they should get the fuck away or get shot. I never seen the inside of a helicopter but you’d think it ought to be outfitted with a loudspeaker or some kind of communication device. IMO, if there was just one warning given the killings would have been justified; instead, the soldiers are literally begging to shoot them. The behavior I saw in that video is what I expect from U.S law enforcement or the Israeli Army not the U.S military.
So…what you seem to be saying is that the helicopter should broadcast some kind of announcement (presumably via loud speaker), warning off the van, yes? And…you don’t think this might just, you know, put the crew in danger? Like waving a really big sign saying ‘HERE WE ARE! SHOOT AT US!’?
Seriously…and you consider this ‘common sense’? Really?
I believe they are, yes. And had they done as you are suggesting with your ‘common sense’ I’d think either A) They are idiots or B) There is something fishy going on here and they really didn’t think these guys were armed or C) Ah…Hollywood!
Did it ever cross your mind to wonder why he was ‘begging’ for the guy to go for a weapon? Have you, even briefly, considered why he was doing that? If so, and without giving a spoiler, I’m curious as to why YOU think he was doing so.
