I don’t think that’s possible. I’ve seen some video from helicopters where they zoom out an you can see they’re very far away. They zoom out so far that you can’t even pick out which block they had been zoomed in on. Those helicopters have very good optics and I think they’re generally much too far away to do anything like what you suggest.
What a bizarre statement. I expect the exact opposite from U.S. law enforcement. I expect police officers to give warnings before they shoot whereas I don’t expect the military to give warning before they open fire.
Speaking of common sense, I would have thought the street littered with bodies was a pretty good warning to stay away.
I watched the video…and I can see how the crew thought they were armed. In fact, to me I CAN see both an RPG and several AK’s in the group…and no idea if there are anyone with additional weapons in the buildings.
Again…whether you see it or not, or whether I see it or not is irrelevant. It’s obvious from the crews transmission that THEY think the group was armed. I know you aren’t grasping this, but it’s sort of key to the whole thing. If the crew THINKS the group is armed, then they are going to concerned that A) they need to engage them before they get away (thus the ‘begging’ for the officers back on the other end of the line to hurry up and decide what they should do, before the group was out of sight) and B) that once engaged, the group will shoot back and C) that other possible insurgents or hostiles might be in the surrounding buildings (with weapons), or that the van might have a guy with some kind of air to air weapon in it (see, the helicopter doesn’t have x-ray vision, nor magic pony tech that allows them to know what’s in there through hindsight by watching a video with notes and pointers and comments telling you what you should think about all this).
Kind of what they did. And having seen the video myself several times now, I can see the weapons they were talking about. You can’t…which leaves us back at the whole ‘did the crew think they were armed?’ point.
Tell me…how do you suppose they could do this? How would they confirm that these were targets, or unarmed civilians, or Shriners for that matter? Should they have set the helicopter down, gotten out and asked them for ID? They called it in, told the OOD back at the com that they had a group of men who appeared to be armed, and then asked if they should engage them…and were told that they should do so. What do YOU think they should have done?
Well, since I’ve asked this several times maybe you will answer. How should they be held accountable? What should their punishment be?
Seems like both a provocative question AND a stupid one to me, but ok. Answer is, it depends. How many civilians is it ok for the military to kill unknowingly? No idea, but obviously it’s going to happen, since the weapons, systems and people operating them aren’t magical. How many civilians is it ok for the military to knowingly and deliberately kill on purpose for no other reason that just to kill them (i.e., not because of a mistake, or because they were in the proximity of an enemy target, but to go for them directly)? None.
I think this situation falls into the former, not the latter.
-XT
I absolutely refuse to watch this footage, but another source I read reporting this story says that the pilots were, in fact, aware that there were children in the van, and said, “It was his fault for bringing his kids to a battle.”
If true, they should be strung up in a steel cage, and left to starve to death. Fuckers.
Can anyone confirm/deny?
ETA: my bad. It wasn’t the pilots who said that. It was soldiers on the ground.
Nope, you still aren’t answering my question.
In the response I quoted, you are talking about the first engagement. My question has to do with the minivan. You’ll note that the question actually uses the word “minivan” and that I make no query concerning the initial engagement.
I’ll try again, although it seems now that you are deliberately avoiding my question:
My take -
I saw at least 2 rifles around the 3:40 mark, one may even be something belt fed. The reporters camera’s also look very much like rifles. The guy kneeling at the corner at 4:15 could of very well had a RPG. Definitely looked like he was up to something. If I was in the helo, I would of shot them up too.
However, I can’t justify them shooting up the van. I didn’t see any weapons, and it doesn’t sound like they saw any either.
Who ever told you that is full of shit. The pilots never say anything about kids before engaging the van, and watching the video, I never see anything that remotely looks like a kid prior to the engagement. In fact, you can’t really see clearly in the van at all, even though they open the door up (it slides back partially closed, but you can’t really see in when it’s fully opened).
-XT
They should be given a court martial, of course, and if they are found guilty of murder, they should be either (according to the UCMJ), be given, at minimum, life sentences with a possibility of parole, or executed. Is this a trick question?
Check the edit.
The people who cleared them to fire can only operate on the information they’re given. When the helicopter crew radios in and says “have five to six individuals with AK47s”, if that turns out not to be true, it’s their mistake.
I’m not calling it murder. I’m not calling it a war crime. But some innocent people are dead, and I don’t think it’s right to just handwave it away becuase the crew thought some of them had guns. They need a good reason to think that. They need to give accurate information to their superiors in order to receive appropriate orders. And after the dust has settled, the military should evaluate the engagement honestly. I’d still like to know if the ground troops found five AK47s and an RPG on the scene.
:rolleyes:
I answered this earlier up thread, but what the hell…you aren’t going to read it until I do so again, so:
The justification for engaging the van was that they were clearly attempting to get the wounded insurgents off the field…which is a pretty strong indication that they were probably insurgents themselves. As it turned out (or has been claimed), they were just some good Samaritans coming in to help (with their children)…but the crew didn’t know that. The guy back at the other end of the radio (CrazyHorse-7 IIRC) didn’t know that. And they had SECONDS TO MAKE A DECISION.
Does THIS answer your question?
-XT
Snowboarder Bo, they were under the impression that they had just wasted a bunch of insurgents, and apparently believed that this was a van full of insurgents that had been called in to rescue some of the injured insurgents. The military’s job is killing insurgents. As has been said upthread, they’re not like the cops where they have to wait for the insurgents to fire first. If they catch a bunch of insurgents sitting around eating lunch, they kill the insurgents. If people are driving along in a van, going wherever, and they know that they’re insurgents, they kill them. The fact that they people in the van were helping an injured man doesn’t change anything.
Now, you can argue that they shouldn’t have jumped to the conclusion that “these guys driving up to help the insurgents we just wasted must ALSO be insurgents.” That’s a valid criticism, although given their experience I’ll defer to their judgement. Certainly the very act of helping an injured insurgent shouldn’t make you an insurgent. Speculating now, but perhaps typical insurgent behavior is to have “medical vans” full of armed insurgents and propaganda teams waiting near groups of armed insurgents who are about to start some shit, and the gunship crew saw that van and reasonably believed that it was typical insurgents acting typically.
My problem with all of this isn’t the van or even the civilian casualties, it’s that we’re in such a lopsided war that our strategy is to send guys out in gunships with 30mm cannons who are allowed, encouraged, and by all reasonable accounts best off if they kill everyone who they’re pretty sure is probably the type of guy who maybe in the future might be in a position to attack US forces.
On the other hand, some people in this thread seem to believe that, as a colossal a fuck-up as it was, the pilots should just be given a pass and a pat on the butt. People died. They screwed up. Somebody has to explain, in a formal legal setting, just why they shouldn’t be locked up for the rest of their lives. That is an entirely reasonable thing to ask.
No worries. I wouldn’t be surprised if the soldiers said something like that. It’s got to have been a horrible thing to arrive on the scene and find that the van had children in it…and trying to blame the parents (to mitigate some of the guilt) would be a very human thing to do.
You are assuming guilt. I’m asking, based on this film, what people think their punishment should be, exactly? They have already been cleared by the military, afaik (though I’m sure that the folks arguing in this thread think that’s just a whitewash).
-XT
No, by God, I’m not assuming guilt. That’s what the court martial is for. As someone said upthread, if I made a mistake at my job, I’d have to answer for it, or explain why it wasn’t a mistake. They made a mistake and offed a bunch of civilians. They should have to answer for it, in a court room.
As for the “whitewash” comment, well, the government hadn’t been exactly forthcoming with this before, blocking FOIA requests, etc. It had to be leaked by a whistle-blower. Doesn’t inspire one with confidence.
You mean, like I’ve explained about a half dozen times to as many different RO posters already? Try this…watch the film and then come back and talk about it. If you don’t want to watch, for whatever reason, then perhaps you should just lurk in the thread and not participate, seeing as how you haven’t, you know, watched the thing.
-XT
Just did. My opinion hasn’t changed. Do I have your kind permission to participate in this public thread now?
There already WAS an investigation into this, and the military already cleared the crew. So…yeah. You seem to be assuming guilt. And, frankly, you haven’t bothered watching the film, even with all the helpful tidbits tacked on so you’d know what you should think of the whole thing.
However, as this will no doubt be unsatisfying to you, let me once again go through it. Did the crew think these guys had weapons? Yeah…they did. Did they ask for and receive permission from an authorized authority to engage? Assuming ‘crazyhorse 7’ is so authorized, then yeah…they did. Was there an investigation into the incident? Yeah, it seems there was (even the makers of this film acknowledge that, though they obviously feel such an investigation was a whitewash).
So…does that clear it up for you?
-XT
By all means. Knock yourself out.
-XT
That quote came when the medics were removing the children from the van. Watching this was… horrifying and I certainly hope that the quality of the video has been degraded by whatever process it came to light. If the military is making life or death decisions based on shadows that make cameras look like weapons there are deeper problems than the tragic deaths of a dozen civilians.