Disturbing images - shooting fish in a barrel

Jared Hunter · Jan 18, 2004

Mhayes said:
I find the idea that it should'nt have made it to the public, silly
and naive.
All war should be live, 24 hours a day, un-cut, un-edited.
Why should the "good" people at home be exempt from the actions of
their "representative" government.
That just allows people to pretend that war is something that it is
not!!!!

How true. Given that no one side always has the moral high-ground, it is rather frightening to think that the assurance of reduced casualties through the use of technology might increase the propensity to wage war in cases where the legitimacy of war is questionable.

Sketcher · Jan 18, 2004

Priceless,

An internet forum with the political insight to delineate world ethos in wartime.

The only irresponsibility here is the negligence in making this media available to the public without providing background and supporting intelligence. If it were a necessary causualty of war, so be it - provide the evidence. If it were a miscalculation or excess of war, so be it - provide the evidence to that end. If no background is availabe, don't air it. I realize that doesn't make anybody money, but let's not kid ourselves here... The media is just as greedy about the dollar as anyone else and if it serves a political purpose, all the better. Everyone has a seat in that poker game.

There's a significant reason why this hasn't become the biggest media blitz since the war started however. Evidence is contrary to the irresponsible reporting. Think about it, a controversial marriage of an American GI and an Iraqi Woman ran the headlines for weeks. If this video had the bleeding-heart legs to stand on that people are claiming, there'd be a whole different news lineup right now.

Call BS if you want. But when the news media really does have evidence, they beat it to death - regardless of whether it's in IR white or glorious technicolor.

Sifodyas · Jan 18, 2004

rudolph alvarado said:
then they are misguided.they must think they will inherit iraq as a
given.

Who?

rudolph alvarado said:
make no mistake, this has nothing more to do with Saddam Hussein.
the history of iraq and islam is littered

Eh?

Sean Keegan · Jan 18, 2004

....movies about war. It does not matter if one side is "right" or not. War is always gruesome and without mercy. But that is the way war is. War is crazy. War movies are pretty accurate about what the average soldier faces. It is kill or be killed. It does not matter if you are safe at the time. It is your job. To kill the enemy. I was in the Army, and I know it sounds horrible, but that is how it is. Do you honestly think the other side is going to have any mercy if the roles were reversed. It is not for the solder to question or even hesitate.

The real shame is that this is like someone being quoted out of context. We do not have the benefit of the larger picture. What led up to this confrontation or what provocation might have occured. It is horrifying, but to me it is just propoganda without the context of the situation. Someone else posted, that it is horrible... why should unarmed farmers be shot down in cold blood. It does look like a tractor there. But again, there is no way one can assume anything about this footage. In fact it is immoral to think you understand what is happening in this clip at all. We have no idea of the details of this clip or what the mission was. It may look cold blooded, but war is war. Watch a few movies. It is kill or be killed. I remember one movie... cannot remember the name of it now, where an american soilder felt sorry for a german soldier as he was unarmed and crying etc. and the american soldier let him go, only to see him killing many of his fellow soldiers without mercy later. In war, if one cannot take prisoners, one must kill everyone or risk exactly this happening. A helicopter cannot take prisoners, so it is understandable to kill everyone. Horrifying, but understandable. This is the way war is waged.

This, however, should never have been made public. There will always be people who just do not understand, and that is why ignorance is bliss. Let the movies show how horrible war is, not clips like this where everything is taken out of context. Soldiers are killers, that is all they are. That is what they are trained for, and that is their job. Do not blame the soldiers. Wars happen. And this is just how it is. If there is anyone to blame, blame Saddam for his beligerant actions that led to this escalation. Blame Bush, for also letting it escalate to this level. War is avoidable, blame the people who let something like this happen. Saddam was a horrible person and I feel most of the blame is on his shoulders. But don't blame the people actually waging the war.

Regards,
Sean

Jared Hunter said:
Mhayes said:

I find the idea that it should'nt have made it to the public, silly
and naive.
All war should be live, 24 hours a day, un-cut, un-edited.
Why should the "good" people at home be exempt from the actions of
their "representative" government.
That just allows people to pretend that war is something that it is
not!!!!

Click to expand...

How true. Given that no one side always has the moral high-ground,
it is rather frightening to think that the assurance of reduced
casualties through the use of technology might increase the
propensity to wage war in cases where the legitimacy of war is
questionable.

Sean Keegan · Jan 18, 2004

No one has the right to even begin to think they know what this clip is showing. We no nothing about it, no details. It is like a quote taken out of context. Without the full picture there is no way to make any kind of judgment on it. War is war, it is kill or be killed. It is horrifying, but that is how it is.

From the sections of the video that were cut out, it seems clear that these people were stashing weapons etc. A helicopter can take no prisoners, so it is kill everyone there, or risk them killing american soldiers in the future. That is the way war is.

Here is some other info:

"A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they [the three Iraqis] are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they [the Apache pilots] have a right to interfere with that," he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have
"

Regards,
Sean

Jón Ragnarsson said:
Jared Hunter said:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

Jared Hunter · Jan 18, 2004

Sean Keegan said:
Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed
the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer
picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He
also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of
the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred
picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better
imagery than we can see."

That's wishful thinking given the numerous cases of friendly fire.

Radu Tenenbaum · Jan 18, 2004

Sketcher said:
Priceless,

An internet forum with the political insight to delineate world
ethos in wartime.

The only irresponsibility here is the negligence in making this
media available to the public without providing background and
supporting intelligence. If it were a necessary causualty of war,
so be it - provide the evidence. If it were a miscalculation or
excess of war, so be it - provide the evidence to that end. If no
background is availabe, don't air it. I realize that doesn't make
anybody money, but let's not kid ourselves here... The media is
just as greedy about the dollar as anyone else and if it serves a
political purpose, all the better. Everyone has a seat in that
poker game.

There's a significant reason why this hasn't become the biggest
media blitz since the war started however. Evidence is contrary to
the irresponsible reporting. Think about it, a controversial
marriage of an American GI and an Iraqi Woman ran the headlines for
weeks. If this video had the bleeding-heart legs to stand on that
people are claiming, there'd be a whole different news lineup right
now.

Call BS if you want. But when the news media really does have
evidence, they beat it to death - regardless of whether it's in IR
white or glorious technicolor.

John Burns · Jan 18, 2004

You know I'll bet if someone here criticized your camera without ever having shot with the same model you would jump all over them for speaking about something of which they have no experience. You would be right. The same applys here.

FWIW I submit wishful thinking is at least as valid as fabricating a scenario that fits your agenda.

Jared Hunter said:
That's wishful thinking given the numerous cases of friendly fire.

--
John

Brandon Hamilton · Jan 18, 2004

They arent farmers you idiot...

Member said:
Can anybody explain to me why these farmers need to be shot down
with exploding bullets?

David SL · Jan 18, 2004

Jared Hunter said:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

--

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D. · Jan 18, 2004

(sigh) ...... I have watched the clip .... over and over ... like some kind of videogame. It isn't. The taking of life is never moral .... only justifiable, to preserve life. The Apache has no small caliber weapons and carries no troops ........ only the crew:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/15687766/15688017zkXjHloaYr

and a 30mm chain gun. The video shows three persons at night, along side a road ... in Iraq ... a large truck, a small truck and a tractor with a trailer attached. Sure don't look like "farmers" sharing agricultural tips to me. But then, I was not there, (in a war zone, at night ... with a curfew .... patrolling a road .... looking for folks planting bombs that kill my fellow soldiers). Kill to preserve life? In this instance, "justifiable"?
Regards
Karl
Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.
http://www.karltimmerman.com
http://www.karltimmerman.com/ramblings.html

Brandon Hamilton · Jan 18, 2004

These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We should bill their family for the cost of the bullets.

David SL said:
Jared Hunter said:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

Click to expand...

--

Jon Ragnarsson · Jan 19, 2004

Please share it with us...

Brandon Hamilton said:
Brandon Hamilton said:

Can anybody explain to me why these farmers need to be shot down
with exploding bullets?

Click to expand...

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/

William Wilgus · Jan 19, 2004

Shooting a wounded person, especially one that is so obviously incapacitated is a WAR CRIME. It is also immoral and contrary to what most Americans---indeed, most civilized persons---would deem fair.

It's also apparent that these persons were not in the act of attacking, and I failed to see that they were armed. Shooting unarmed persons is also a WAR CRIME.

It's been suggested in this thread that the 'copter was acting like a sniper, but that isn't quite true. Sniping is intended to act against those who are beligerents. Since those shot were not clearly beligerents---at least at the time of their shooting---those in the 'copter acted as executioners.

Further supporting the notion that these persons were at the time not beligerent is the fact that one of them casually walked from one truck to the person by the 'barrel' (or whatever it was) and then back towards the truck. Had they been belligerents, it's most probable that they would have attempted to hide.

Don't forget that before the war, George W. Bush, Jr. (and his administration) fought very hard to get himself exempted from War Crimes. Unfortunately, he was successful.

One of the reasons I don't envy those engaged in combat is that they have to make choices about when to shoot and when not to, and it's a matter of their own life and death. In this episode, it's clear that those in the 'copter were in no danger from those they attacked.

All wars suck.

I wish to end by emphasizing that I fully respect those who have different opionions from mine.

William

William Wilgus · Jan 19, 2004

The media has bent over backwards to present this war in the best possible light for the Administration. The Administration has done everything possible to achieve the same result.

It would be nice if we knew all the particulars, but it's even more important that this video has come to the surface: we citizens need to know exactly what happened and what is happening in Iraq. It's now clear that the Administration lied about the need to go to war with Iraq, and we should be all the more curious about what exactly is going on over there.

REgards,

William

Sketcher said:
Priceless,

An internet forum with the political insight to delineate world
ethos in wartime.

The only irresponsibility here is the negligence in making this
media available to the public without providing background and
supporting intelligence. If it were a necessary causualty of war,
so be it - provide the evidence. If it were a miscalculation or
excess of war, so be it - provide the evidence to that end. If no
background is availabe, don't air it. I realize that doesn't make
anybody money, but let's not kid ourselves here... The media is
just as greedy about the dollar as anyone else and if it serves a
political purpose, all the better. Everyone has a seat in that
poker game.

There's a significant reason why this hasn't become the biggest
media blitz since the war started however. Evidence is contrary to
the irresponsible reporting. Think about it, a controversial
marriage of an American GI and an Iraqi Woman ran the headlines for
weeks. If this video had the bleeding-heart legs to stand on that
people are claiming, there'd be a whole different news lineup right
now.

Call BS if you want. But when the news media really does have
evidence, they beat it to death - regardless of whether it's in IR
white or glorious technicolor.

Anastassios R. · Jan 19, 2004

I just wonder why didn't US finish off the war over 10 years ago. Why did they have to wait 10 years after to attack the country again and kill more innocent lives (not just soldiers). Why didn't they put down Sadam 10 years ago?

I saw some footage about 1 month ago of American soldiers moving through the city with their tank and innocent civilians where around and all of the sudden americans thought that they had an attack and started shooting innocent unarmed people. In fact it was shown on tv a US soldier walking towards the shot person and people around him where outraged and shouting back at the american soldiers calling them killers while the US soldier told the rest to walk back to the tank because he never had a gun and was never a threat to them.

not pleasent

synp · Jan 19, 2004

The image was not clear enough to determine if they were Moslems, extremists, murderous or that other word that Phil censorizes, but they did look human.

They could be just Iraqis that don't like Americans occupying their land. You are entirely entitled to your opinion that the American occupation is good for them and will in the long run make them as prosperous as Germany and Japan.

Not all Iraqis are Moslem. Not all Moslems are extremists. I'm not criticizing either the soldiers or your government here, but you should know that in war, the enemy you kill is also human. If killing humans is unacceptable to you, you should oppose the war, but if you don't oppose the war, don't try to dehumanize these people just to make the whole thing more palatable.

Brandon Hamilton said:
These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They
deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We
should bill their family for the cost of the bullets.

BTW: The things that helicopters fire are too big to be called bullets. The term is "shells"

Hej · Jan 19, 2004

Yes, you can be certain from watching the video that the three guys didn't make it. But calling it 'graphic' implies that you actually see their demise, which you cannot.

Jared Hunter said:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story795.shtml

This is a case where black and white is of lesser impact than
color. Being in monochrome through IR, it probably makes it a
little easier to pull the trigger as well, with the target people
reduced to nothing more than white silhouettes...

--
I see your schwartz is as big as mine.

William Wilgus · Jan 19, 2004

The reasons given were that the neighboring countries didn't want Iraq to become completely powerless or completely humiliated.

Politics . . .

William

Anastassios R. said:
I just wonder why didn't US finish off the war over 10 years ago.
Why did they have to wait 10 years after to attack the country
again and kill more innocent lives (not just soldiers). Why didn't
they put down Sadam 10 years ago?

William Wilgus · Jan 19, 2004

If they are as you say, the better response would be to eliminate the cause of their being that way.

William

Brandon Hamilton said:
These islamic extremist murderous bast@rds are NOT humans. They
deserve to be cut down like dogs just like we have seen here. We
should bill their family for the cost of the bullets.

Disturbing images - shooting fish in a barrel

Senior Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

John Burns

Guest

Well-known member

Senior Member

Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.

Guest

Well-known member

Jon Ragnarsson

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

synp

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts