"Massacre of Civilians in Fallujah -- 'Aw dude!'" -video

[Rose Siding]

http://www.newsgateway.ca/Fallujah_video_massacre.htm

Stan Goff comments: "The “tell” is in the audio. When the pilot asks permission to fire, he reports a large number of people… not armed people. People. And permission is granted instantly. This is an indication that the mission guidance is to shoot anyone who is in the street. This is a clear war crime, and one that begins with the commander’s stated intent in the operations order. The pilot’s exclamation of satisfaction, “Aw dude!” at the end just underlines how this casual sadism comes to dominate the psyches of those who are part of a military occupation force, and how the ground reality become “race war.”"


The designation of "civilian" isn't clear in the video but neither is it clear that they were any kind of armed combatants.

...found at

http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2004_09_22_raedinthemiddle_archive.html#109586210380214818

[Flammable Materials]

1. Windows Media makes my Windows box crash. Ironic. n/t

[lilymidnite]

2. This is very upsetting

George W. Bush is a war criminal.


(They were probably the ones carrying the rose petals for us.)

[Carla in Ca]

84. IMPORTANT....headlines are from Ohio

It's not the NY Times or WaPo, it's the Akron Beacon Journal with a Knight Ridder story about civilian casualties. It's one thing to read it here and quite another to see it in the local news.

Top Story:
"Untold Tragedy of Iraq"
Subheads:
"Civilian Casualties Tallied"
"U.S. Blamed for Big Loss"
"Public Animosity Widens"

Above-the-fold graphic:
Chart of Iraqi civilian casualties

Above-the-fold picture:
Hundreds rally behind photo of Al Sadr

Second story:
"Violence is more widespread than Allawi says"


And beyond the headlines:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.
According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 - when the ministry began compiling the data - until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.

[chelsea0011]

3. how was this video obtained, I wonder?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chelsea0011]

97. Wha?????

[silverchair]

4. that is disturbing

this illegal war makes me get angrier and angrier with each passing day.

[lilymidnite]

7. This same clip led me to 'Good, Fire, Get him'

Another video, even *more* disturbing.

[Radius]

24. The AC-130

Clip from Afghanistan? They did go out of their way not to blow up the mosque.

[lilymidnite]

26. No, it was a clip of them blowing up a farmer

with huge shells from a helicopter.

[Radius]

31. Thats the one

where the full version shows the guys loading rpg units into that vehicle.

That makes them combatants. There is no rule that says 30mm chain gun ordinance or any other type of tac air is illegal. If so it would be illegal to shoot people with any of our helicopter systems. 30mm, rockets, HE, and incendiary is routine in the killing of enemy ground personnel. It is also legal to bulldoze them into their own bunkers, burying them alive. War sucks, people are going to die.

The AC-130 uses a 105mm cannon to kill people from the air.

Wounded or not the rules of engagement from the air allow the pilot to pursue until his target is destroyed.

Nasty but not a war crime.

[bluestateguy]

5. The world is so much safer now that all those people are dead

Reagardless of who they were this is not a video game for little boys to be saying "Oh, dude". I try, I really try to support the troops, but it's getting harder and harder .

[Bluebear]

12. They hate us for our freedom, they had to go.

And 9/11. Oh yeah and Jesus. Oh, dude.

[skooooo]

98. Amen..freedom-haters must die.

[Dzimbowicz]

6. Indeed, this is very disturbing

That pilot must have had some really good eyesight to see any weapons or any reason that group of people was dangerous. As far as I could see, no one could tell if they were armed or not. The pilot's camera never zoomed in on the group, so how could he tell if they were dangerous or not?

www.veteransforpeace.org

[Lefta Dissenter]

8. I would guess it's not

"Oh, Dude" when they see the faces of the people they're about to kill. Perhaps airplanes and all other vehicles should be illegal in war? :shrug:

[951]

9. WE MUST SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

Raaaaaaah! The floating blue moon baby is telling me we must!!!!

...I had to beat the freep for brains to it

[AIJ Alom]

10. What the pilot said.

"I've got numerous individuals on the road, you want me to take those out."

"Take'em out"

I looked at the scene. Who were they shooting at ? It looked like a group of 50 people walking, most likely men and boys. Were they enemy combatants, who in all likelihood would have ducked and taken cover as soon as they heard the f-16's overhead or were they people who wanted to get a closer look at distant fighting ?

The "Awww, Dude" part is a bit over the top.

The video is from 6/29/04 from a guy named Jeff.I'm gonna research Iraq on 6/29 and see what I come up with.

[951]

11. Direct Link; I suggest you save it before its taken offline

http://www.newsgateway.ca/media/civilianmassacre.wmv

[Radius]

14. This is mirrored all over the net(nt)

[spooked]

48. June 29 was the day Iraq became a Sovereign Nation!

This link refers to civilians being fired upon that day.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=june++29,+2004+died+iraq&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=cbsuuc%242bpq%241%40pencil.math.missouri.edu&rnum=5

Iraq unrest unrelenting day after handover of power

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Several Iraqis and three US soldiers were killed on Iraq's first full day as a sovereign nation, as the new government announced that it was poised to take custody of Saddam Hussein and 11 other captive officials of his ousted regime.

Dampening Iraqi hopes for a new era, the low-level violence that has
terrorised the lives of ordinary Iraqis persisted and claimed at least
nine more lives.

In Baghdad, US soldiers opened fire at civilians, wounding at least two, after a roadside bomb went off on Haifa Street in the city centre, an AFP correspondent witnessed.

This came after three US marines died early Tuesday when a bomb exploded in the capital, the military said. The deaths raised to 632 the number of US soldiers killed in action in Iraq, according to a Pentagon tally.


IT looks like these were "REVENGE KILLINGS" for the US military deaths.

[Radius]

13. Devils Advocate

This was shot over falluja. F16 is used as tac air. He is DIRECTED to targets not engaging at will. "Do you want me to..?"Requests permission to engage, "take em out" permission granted.

It would be safe to assume a FO identified them as a threat. That looks like a big bunch of people moving quickly in a warzone. They may be going to get beers but they may be going to a firefight.. His job is to turn enemy on the ground into pink mist. No more, no less.

Do not blame the pilot for doing his job.

[Bluebear]

15. Can we blame the pilot for relishing his task?

The "Oh, dude" sounds like he reached level 8 of AlienX and he killed off the evil Drogropians.

[Radius]

19. USAF FAC

Nothing wrong in taking pleasure in your work. I would bet that an FAC on the ground called in the strike to kill hostiles. F16's dont just hover around looking for civillians to blowup.

Those guys chopping heads seem really happy too.

They are dead how he feels about it is moot.

[Bluebear]

20. Those guys chopping heads are not excused from the discussion

The beheaders are barbaric killers, or didn't you expect that sentiment here? Whilst avenging the beheadings, it is prudent to make certain the people responsible are being punished. Otherwise, for instance, you could be going after Saddam instead of bin Laden and calling it even.

[951]

22. Gee I'm glad that bombing didn't decapitate anyone

It just turned them into wonderful pink dust and their families into happy love bunnies. wheee!

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radius]

28. Your are changing the scope

of the discussion. The issue was enjoying your job.
The throat cutters are obviously having a good time.
An aw dude in repsonse to well placed tac air is not a war crime.

End result they are dead, how someone feels about their "job" does not a war crime make. They are still dead.

Now the entire story would be nice to have.

[AIJ Alom]

17. Agreed. It is not the pilot's fault.

[sr_pacifica]

74. Each of us would get callous too

If every day we were killing and being killed. I agree about not condemning the pilot.

[LibertyorDeath]

18. America has turned way to many innocent people

"into pink mist" for greed & power IMO

They are creating tomorrows terrorists today.

[Aidoneus]

27. cheerfully making excuses for another killer.

surprised, I'm not..

[Radius]

29. If you are an American

you have a few ways to look at this.

You don't support the war you can:
Vote against your local rep if they voted for it.
Bring the video to the attention of your congressman and try to determine the circumstances involved.
Vote bush out.

You can't:
Knee Jerk Fault someone who is doing their job following LAWFUL orders. The military's job is to kill people.
Especially if there is no evidence those people were not combatants.

What good does it do to throw around war crime and racism and draw conclusions from grainy footage lasting about one minute? It is obviously impossible to draw a factual conclusion of the event with the data you have been given.

The reality is that it could have been people going to get dinner or people going to attack our people. You and I are can not draw an informed conclusion on that, can we?

[Aidoneus]

30. Telling me what I can do now?

Oh, this is my lucky day...(more later, don't want to let this go but I haven't the time to properly devote to it now)

[Radius]

33. making excuses for killers...

is an obnoxious comment. You know what you can do..

Edit:

Care to answer the question?

[RapidCreek]

53. No it's an accurate comment

you youself just said the guy in the f-15 is a hired killer....and you defended his actions. It logically follows then, that you making excuses for a killer(s).

That said...what on earth do you find to be obnoxious about someone describing your zeal to rationalize, as such?

RC

[Jazzgirl]

32. Oh, thanks! Can I cross the street now??!!??

n/t

[Radius]

34. Did I leave something out??

What other logical, legal responses are there? You can protest.

Calm down, not attacking you. Him because of his tone and utter lack of logical analysis of information.

My point is there is nothing on that tape that makes a war crime. I have seen footage where civilians were clearly killed. This doesn't meet the bar.

Cry wolf long enough and the real thing gets drowned out.

[Jazzgirl]

35. To be honest I'm still trying to figure you out.

What is up with you? I can't figure out who's side you're on or what your purpose is. I can only guess at your background (even though it's none of my business) but you seem to try to debunk anything that has to do with actual combat. Are you in the military or what?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

38. Dude's purpose is to respond to every thread involving U.S. military

action, and justify the actions taken by the U.S. military personnel.

While making no comment overall on their position on the war as a whole, or shrub as a president.

So I think reviewing dude's posts, which virtually all fall into this pattern, helps one to "figure them out."

[Radius]

39. No

But I have family and friends who are/were. I keep in touch with them. Some are kids who went in to pay for school, some are my fathers friends who are sr officers. I am the only member of my family who has not been drafted or fought in a war for eons.
I do not support the war, it was poorly planned and has potential long term effects that are not even being discussed. Making large changes in a politically unstable region is dangerous. This was undertaken with a 1 year mindset, not a 10 year mindset.

I just think our military should not be a political scapegoat. The war is not their fault. If someone holds feelings against the war they should make the politicians pay, not the person in the field. They do not have a choice, like us, on how to act or whether to fight. If someone in the field commits a crime they should pay.

I don't really have a side when it comes to news or information. I try to look at it without political lenses and evaluate it based on its merit. I love politics but I think it is creeping into places where it shouldn't be, history, news, the job. Not talking union, blatant politics in the workplace.

Have we killed civilians, yes. Were these people civilians, I don't know. I can't label someone until I do.

[RapidCreek]

57. Evidently our soldiers can label people before [i]they [/i]know

otherwise they wouldn't be responsible for the deaths and mutilations of 20,000 or so Iraqi civilians.

Like hell I can't hold those in the field responsible for needlessly barbaric and markedly unprofessional behavior...I sure as hell can. I can hold my local police responsible for it as well. The day we as a nation fail to hold either of these groups responsible for such shit will be the day we raise our hands and give a hardy Sieg Hiel.


RC
USN Vet

[Radius]

64. Unlawful Order?

That guy had to release his weapon unless he believed the order to do so was unlawful.

The president is responsible for military killings in Iraq. All responsibility should be places where deserved.
Any illegal act committed by field personnel should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The military as a whole is not responsible for putting its self in Iraq. Its job is to carry out orders given by the president and funded by congress. To effect a removal from Iraq funding has to go or a president elected who will withdraw them.

I do not support the war but will not hold someone responsible for carrying out a lawful order.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

41. Hi Jazzgirl

"I can't figure out who's side you're on or what your purpose is."

I think it's clear as day. The lack of humanity shown in the posts is pretty telling.

I come from a military family myself and take offense at our visitor's attitude.

[Aidoneus]

96. Yes, I am an American by birth

I don't put much faith in Reps or Presidents, so I'll speak and act as I will to, thanks. You yourself echo a point: this'll be Kerry's war in about 4 months, so we should watch what we say, right? I'll say the same things then, because it'll still be true.

Their job is indeed to kill people, and to habitually act in ways outside of our borders that would be highly criminal if done within. That's not a job I'm fond of, so again, I'll speak as I will to about whomever I direct it towards. The "just following orders" line doesn't work for me now, nor when it was spoken with a heavy German accent. They chose to be in the service, and are responsible for their own actions, because they chose to put themselves in that position, hopefully knowing full well what it entails. If they're in Iraq and want out, there are some people who can help them with that. Or they can drop their gun (or better yet, hold on to it--that'll make it easier), take their hummer to the nearest airport and hijack the next flight back to the continent they actually belong on, rent a car drive home and be done with it. Short of that, they're still there and still acting the part: thus, I will hold individuals accountable for their actions, with words such as these at the least. So there's a chain of command on the matter, oh well lah-dee-dah:-- damn the whole lot of them then, spread it around to catch the whole chain, that is fine by me.

Under any conditions, those shown on the ground are right to be there, and those firing on them with the cowardice of a mile of empty air and a videogame consolse are wrong in their deeds. If this sort of thing was done in your neighborhood, would you give a flying fuck about any of that? Apply that standard to any of these thoughts you get, and stop being a hypocrite. You seem well-intentioned enough, and intelligent enough to craft elegant defenses for vile deeds and tendencies, so it seems a waste to be directed like this.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

37. Didn't you read the memo? That's the dude's "raison d'etre" on this board

[Radius]

42. You are out of line..

You have something to say say it. You can cheerfully be part of an echo chamber or look at what is in front of you and analyze it like an adult. Inconclusive. Yell war crime all day and it doesn't make it so. Progressive doesn't mean sucker for any wacky bullshit someone parlays as fact.

While you are analyzing my posts why don't you chime in on alternative energy and fuel cells, oh wait, continue your attack it is easier than actually thinking for yourself.

[manic expression]

45. ...

So now you are not only the authority on who is an "enemy combatant" and who is a civilian...but who is adult? Get a grip. I guess when we see an obvious breech of international law, we should "analyze it like an adult". You are not "analyzing something as an adult", you are encouraging the absolutely unacceptable killings of no doubt non-threatening Iraqis and supporting massacres. PERIOD. Do not give me this BS about someone "enjoying" their "work". The clip and audio clearly show that the pilot requested to obliterate the individuals with no prior intelligence. There was NOTHING to show that they were in any way threatening. The pilot took pleasure in this base act. This is a war crime. Plain and simple.

[Radius]

47. Sound and fury

Do you know what a war crime is? How old are you? Are you familiar with logic and its application to information?

His demeanor while doing his job is irrelevant to the act.

Audio. Pilot requests clearance from air controller, obtains. Like eaves dropping on a phone conversation, you've got half. The pilot is called in as tac air by a fac on the ground, different guy, or in a helo who determines the target status. He didn't just show up in the right place in time on his own. He can't just fly around all day and look for a target on his own. It does not work that way.

Nothing is obvious here, if you choose to draw a conclusion from incomplete data based on your emotions that is your call. Once again it is not reality according to the conventions and the Hague.

The big picture is that in November when Kerry wins these same people will have a job to do. That job involves killing people. That is reality. The military doesn't change out when the president does.

They did not order themselves in, they do not make the rules.

[manic expression]

50. Ignorance and pompousness

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Hum...
"How old are you? Are you familiar with logic and its application to information?"
I would recommend looking under Article 3(1).
His demeanor while doing his deed mirrors the morality of the act.
In the audio, the pilot does not ascertain whether or not the "people" or combatants or not, he just kills the "people". He has no information on their unmistakable "status" that you keep talking about.
"The pilot is called in as tac air by a fac on the ground, different guy, or in a helo who determines the target status"
So...it could've been a guy on the ground, or not. How is it that you can accurately determine that they were in any way making a judgment on the truth in any way? What is obvious is that there is no indication of the threat given by this crowd. That can be seen, and heard. It is very chilling when an occupying power does little to guarantee the safety of the people. Wrong, no matter how many facs or tac airs or helos you have guaranteeing that the massacre is carried out by U.S. military code.

[Radius]

56. System

There is a years old system for ground personnel calling in air support. That is a FACT.

The pilot is directed to a location to deliver his weapons by an air controller. FACT

The pilot may not be able to determine the status of his target do to cloud or smoke, this is the FAC's job. FACT

The air controller directs airborne or makes airborne aircraft to deliver weapons for a FAC request for a strike. FACT

The FAC is responsible for determining target status. If he fucks up and kills civilians it is not a war crime. If he intentionally calls in a strike on non combatants it is an act that can lead to an indictment for a war crime. FACT

You do not have enough information on this tape alone to determine what chain of events led up to the people being killed. FACT

Calling someone a murder without all the facts is rude and not accepted where innocence is presumed. FACT

You have less than half of the equation (communication) that took place. FACT

Your link is busted and saying aw dude after bombing someone is not a war crime. FACT

logical thought can not be formed before a certain age, it is a fair and relevant question. It would be unfair to expect you to be able to argue using logic, if you incapable of doing so..

[manic expression]

58. Let me help you out a little bit

there, General Radius.

Many people were killed by our actions. FACT.

There is NO evidence showing the U.S. knew what they were doing. FACT.

It was an unjustified and unacceptable action. FACT.

By the way, thanks for actually answering to my post, instead of giving frantic rhetoric and excuses.

[Radius]

60. There are no ? in your post..

There is NO evidence showing the U.S. knew what they were doing. FACT.
There is NO evidence showing the US did not know what they were doing. FACT

It was an unjustified and unacceptable action. FACT.
Logical fallacy. Conclusion drawn from insufficient data. You or I do not have the information necessary to draw any conclusion pertaining to the status of the target. File a FIFA request for all communication on that day and your data will be conclusive, at least from a military standpoint. Talk to the FAC or infantry who called in the strike, hell talk to an Iraqi who lived through it. You don't have the whole picture.

That is airtight.

[manic expression]

70. If my conclusion...

is drawn from insufficient data...then WTF are you drawing your conclusion from? It seems you have suffocated your intelligence in a badly fabricated perception of yours. You see, I cannot talk to an Iraqi who lived through it, because they're all dead. How do you know that a FIFA request will give me all the information? You have no such information, so how can you say I am wrong? EVEN IF my data is conclusive from a "military standpoint" that does nothing to prove the truth from a realistic standpoint.
There is more than enough to show that even when there is an almost distinct call-in for a strike, it usually ends up killing a group of people which should have never been killed. This is exactly what happened here.

"That is airtight."...from the truth.

[Radius]

79. You still don't get it..

The only thing airtight is the fact that you are not given enough information in this tape to form a conclusion on the events you saw.

It is a logical fallacy and presumptuous to claim more.

That is airtight.

You can speculate that we bombed, nuns, aliens from roswell, or the pope all you want. But those are just as viable options as what you've got.

You are saying "that is exactly what happened here" can you tell me exactly who is going to win green bay or the colts, and the spread exactly.

You know exactly nothing more than what you saw and then let your imagination do the rest..

[manic expression]

61. Here's the Geneva Convention

part I wanted you to read (probably for the first time). Enjoy.


Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:




(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

[Radius]

65. nothing about aw dude..(nt)

[manic expression]

71. Again...

nice job with the tunnel thinking. Did I ever say the Geneva Convention prohibited pilots from saying, "ah dude"??? I was referring to the blatant disconcern for the people who were killed.
And you say I have no logic....

[Radius]

76. You posted law

Now you need to apply it. What section of the legal framework would you like to argue was broken??

The Geneva convention does not say a soldier can not have no concern if he kills a combatant. Patton would have been quite the war criminal if enjoying the destruction of the enemy was illegal.

Now if there were anything that pointed to a killing of civilians that would be a violation. But the aw dude remains moot. An emotion rendering phrase, separate from the act on tape.

The logic remains, there is insufficient evidence on that tape to determine the targets status under the articles.

Wishing, and spinning, and past events are not pertinent to the information you looked at.

[RapidCreek]

62. Inocence is presumed?

Who's innocence? That of the murdered or that of the murderer?

RC

[Radius]

66. Maybe I should post the UCMJ..or the constitution.(nt)

[RapidCreek]

72. Maybe you should answer the question.

RC

[Radius]

75. What ? his post contained none. I will be happy to answer(nt)

[RapidCreek]

82. Your post did...and that is the one I responded to.

You said Calling someone a murder without all the facts is rude and not accepted where innocence is presumed. FACT

I asked Who's innocence? That of the murdered or that of the murderer?

Let me rephrase the question for you...you know, so as not to upset your fragile sensibilites...Who's innocence? That of the killer or that of the people he kills?

To whom, where and when does this presumption of innocence apply?

Clear enough? This should be fun....I love debating with one who pontificates from a stage of double standards and contradiction all the while suggesting others base their observations upon fallacy.

I look forward to your response....and while I wait I shall resume the shampooing of my carpets.



RC

[Radius]

99. Targets

The targets combat status can not be determined by the tape. Therefore in that context it is wrong to assume them combatants OR civilians. There is not enough information. You can speculate, but that is it.

The pilot IS protected under a system that presumes his innocence IF he were to be charged with a crime. Even if there were a crime the pilot would not be responsible unless he determined he was killing civilians. The same rules that would be applied to an artillery commander who can not determine what he is killing. He relies on forward control to verify his target.

They are separate lines of argument.

[Comadreja]

81. How many does it take?

"How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does, it is murder.... But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is not murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take?": Adin Ballou, The Non-Resistant, 5 February 1845

[ParanoidPat]

52. "War zone"??? Was there a "declaration of war" that I missed?

I was under the impression that we preemptively invaded Iraq under the false notion that Iraq represented an imminent threat to the United States. A notion mind you that was known to be in error at the time of this incident.

I was also under the impression that under International law that the excuse "I was only following orders" doesn't absolve any troops from legal responsibility for their actions.

Could you pleas cite the changes in the Geneva Conventions that now allow unarmed non combatants to be turned into, as you so inelegantly state, "a pink mist"?

What the f@ck? :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

69. You're point a view is immoral IMO and irrational too

You making excuses for killing a large group of unidentified human beings. How do you know it wasn't a group of women trying to get to to the store because their kids hadn't eaten in days?

[Radius]

78. You are injecting false circumstance..

They are unidentified to you and me because we are not on the battle net listening to the FAC call the air controller and request a strike on a target. Someone called in tac air for something. Either they fucked up and killed a boy scout troop and 8 nuns or they killed an infantry squad.

You did inject women, I could inject armed combatants. I won't go down that path based on a tape with piss poor resolution.

You and I do not have enough info to draw any conclusion on those peoples combatant status based on the tape.

You have been presented with a problem and insufficient information to form a LOGICALLY sound conclusion. Speculate all you want.

[AIJ Alom]

16. Being Muslim.

I know for a fact that when people come out of Mosques they have the habit of starting to talk. They talk and then they group together to walk down the streets all the while engrossed in their conversations. This could quite possibly be a group of Muslims who just came out of the mosque walking down the street together who were killed for simply doing that.

Oh man. That would suck. I need more details on the video itself. When it was shot. What day (obviously not 6/29, the day Jeff put it into media player format)and particularly what time. This may be a case of friendly fire.

[Radius]

21. Growing up in a military family

and knowing many current Air force officers, can tell you that a Forward Air Controller (FAC) travels with military units on the ground to coordinate Tactical Air Support (tac air). Friendly forces take fire and request support. They either directly designate coordinates and the pilot drops his weapon (385lb laser guided bomb) with laser direction, or the ground troops paint hostiles with a laser to guide the weapon.

Those guys were clumped up like an infantry formation and moving quickly, very brisk walk, or run.

It would be nice to have the entire picture to make a decision. We have killed civilians in Iraq, no doubt. It would be informative to have the entire story.

The last "war crime" video was a 10 second clip of guys being killed by an apache gunship. Looked like they were being killed for no reason.
The 10 minute tape showed them loading weapons on their vehicle and concealing the rpgs.

[AIJ Alom]

25. yeah i remember that one.

and i agree the crowd is moving quickly. i don't think this comes even close to being a war crime, at worst, it is friendly fire.

you're infantry formation is quite correct in fact. Some of the figures, early on in the video, even break off to monitor side streets.

in all likelihood these were hostiles.

[manic expression]

40. So now...

because Iraqis choose to gather on the streets in a group, they are enemy combatants? Friendly fire???? WTF????????? That is the most DISGUSTING thing I have ever heard spewed from the bowels of any human being on this forum.
Words cannot describe how I feel about you and the other war crime supporter.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

43. They got a nice tag team post thing going on, though, eh?

"You with the gun, Jack, and me with the belt, feeding you, feeding you!"

[Radius]

44. You have lots of emotion but no FACT.

Attack all you want, with all your sound and fury.

The video does not show their status as combatants. The air force was providing tac air, someone REQUESTED the strike based on their judgement(FAC). That is protocol, the sequence of events.

If that person called in a strike on civillians that is terrible. If not, and they were armed that it is war. The millitary did not put its self in iraq. That pilot did not hover around looking for a target, he was directed.

Your feelings do not equate to reality. Bet you can build up your juice by attacking me though..

edit:sp

[manic expression]

46. Am I supposed to have

no emotion? You anger me to no end, as a HUMAN BEING (something you have little respect for) I have an obligation to show you this.
It does not matter what protocol is, murder and crime is still the same, no matter how orchestrated or standardized that may be (actually, it makes it worse). On the audio, you can distinctly hear the pilot saying "I have numerous individuals on the road, you want me to take those out?".... Not too much outside requesting there.
There is no way to tell that they were armed (you, even with the dogma of the official military protocol of massacre, could not make the distinction), so that makes it altogether wrong because the military had no idea what it was doing.
I guess YOUR feelings always equate to reality, while other mere mortals can only hope to have the knowledge and wisdom of a war crimes advocate. Sure you can here me on your high horse?

This reminds me of something from Full Metal Jacket:
"If they run, its a gook! If they don't run...It's a smart gook!"

[Radius]

49. Reality is not a Kubrick movie

You are all twisted. Reality is based in fact. Unless you were there or have an enhanced image, or the rest of the communications from the fac to the air controller you are shooting from the hip.

They could have all been big foot, or nuns, or carrying an rpg in one hand and ak in the other from the res on that tape.

You have been presented with a problem and incomplete data to form a solution. If you want to use emotion to complete the problem for yourself that is your call, but is it not the real world.

Pilot was CALLED in by a FAC requesting air support, Pilot confirms target, Requests clearance to release weapon, obtained. People die.

That is how the system works. Pilots don't just fly around dropping ordinance with no direction. I have immediate family who flew f-18's in gw1 and know the basics of tac air , and the rest of the air missions and how it is used in combat.

Those people are dead, there is NO WAY you can determine from that video their status as combatants. Sorry, cant be done.

Emotion is a first reaction, after emotion truth is the next step.

[manic expression]

55. Similarly, reality is not a military operations manual

Shooting from the hip? I think shooting from the wing on a group of definitive civilians is a little worse.
They could've been the lost tribes of Israel from the intel (woah! A military word! I must be smart!) given to the parties at question. The problem we have with this is that the military did NOT have a clear definition of who (human beings, remember now) they were dropping bombs on. Just because they stuck the the system doesn't mean the system is not causing mass killings. Vintage tunnel thinking on your part.
"Those people are dead, there is NO WAY you can determine from that video their status as combatants. Sorry, cant be done."
I think this particular quote defines your idiocy more than anything else. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DEAD IS THE PROBLEM!!! You cannot fathom that the military did something completely wrong (possibly on purpose, as well) using the system. Because the military could not accurately detirmine if they were civilians or not then or now is precisely what makes it so sick.
Emotion flows from the truth, it is both an action and a reaction; they are both constant.

[Radius]

59. Sure I can

The military was wrong to fire a hellfire missile at a Bradley vehicle surrounded by civilians. That is clearly a bad thing. It is obvious from the tape that they were non combatants killed by our strike. The fact that this was sanctioned to destroy the vehicle was questionable at best.

You calling this definitive is ridiculous. Unless you are seeing something I'm not you are forming your conclusion on something other than fact. Your quote is out of context, half of a conversation. You can quote anything out of context and draw a false conclusion.

The military can determine if they were combatants. The FAC is supposed to do that. I can't assert he did his job any more than you can say he is a war criminal, hitler youth, murder and did not. Logical impossibility with what is given.

Emotion obscures logical thinking and is the basis for thoughtless words and action.

Emotion is great in a relationship, bad when trying to look at a situation factually and rationally.

[manic expression]

68. So firing on civilians is bad...

when it is completely proven, but fine when there is the shadow of a doubt?
What I see are civilians, until the military proves me otherwise, that remains the accepted fact (you see, this is called logic).
The military CAN determine if they were combatants, but it is very apparent that they didn't even try. So much for our "valiant" soldiers doing their "jobs". What happened was either a (horribly bad) mistake, an indiscriminate action with no thoughts of the consequences, or a purposeful killing of innocents.
Emotion is at its finest when derived from truth, at its purest when derived from ideals.
All you've done while looking at a situation "factually and rationally", is to dismiss the most likely possibility from the given evidence and support a very unlikely guess because of prejudice (you come from a "military family", do you not?). Try looking at the truth. Although it may hurt, its gifts are well worth the path traveled.

[onethatcares]

36. winning hearts and minds,

one death at a time. Aw dude, this has to stop.

[w4rma]

51. Blame the Republican leadership for these deaths.

They are the folks who lied to get our troops there and who keep lying to keep our troops there.

[Radius]

67. You get it(nt)

[w4rma]

73. Yeah. There are some folks here who get caught up on tangents about how

they think that our soldiers should act under the life or death circumstances that Bush, and the rest of these neo-cons and idiot Repugs who are currently running our government, put them in.

They allow these psychos in power to shift the blame down by doing this, instead of targeting the psychos at the top.

[Radius]

77. Bingo.

People committing illegal acts should be prosecuted, but the vast majority of people doing their jobs are not at fault. The administration is responsible for death in Iraq.

[bvar22]

83. "The administration is responsible ..."

Those who tolerate or make excuses for this administration are also responsible.
Those who fund this administration are responsible.
Those who do the bidding of this administration are responsible.

[Paulie]

54. Listen to the breathing

slow and steady during the drop, and rapid during the "Aw dude".

My heart started pounding after the ordinance went off. I was thinking "OMG, what have we done." I wonder what the pilots thoughts were....

[bpilgrim]

80. reminded me of vader

:scared:

peace

[Radius]

102. Explosion, high order detonation, any secondaries?

Ever scuba dive? That is his oxygen system, similar to a regulator.

[Dangerman]

63. And I thought Saddam's regime were "murderous"

Now I see everything. All those innocent people getting napalmed by a smart bomb.

This is one of the reasons I can't support ALL our troops.

DAMN YOU BUSH! DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!

[Hutzpa]

85. SEND THIS SITE TO THOSE SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN N/T

:grr:

[Forkboy]

87. Do they love us yet?

[ILUVME]

88. ???

Move over there and see how good you have it here!

[Kool Kitty]

90. What the hell are you talking about?

[Forkboy]

95. 11 posts...I can hardly wait to see the other 10

:eyes:

[Yupster]

89. I've watched the thing about five times now, and

I can't tell who these people were or what they were doing.

It doesn't appear to be people just milling around the street or strolling.

There appears to be organization to the movement.

First I thought the people were grouped like they were guarding someone, like bodyguards, but after watching a few more times, I don't think that can be said.

So, the most I can opine is it looks like a group in organized movement. Perhaps a street demonstration? Perhaps a military or paramilitary small unit?

There's just not enough there for me to tell.

[Brundle_Fly]

93. There's just not enough there for me to tell.

Exactly.

They may have been a group of "insurgents" running to fire some mortars...but like it was said before, they'd be aware of the plane...

they might have been hiding huddled in a house, and insurgents may have taken cover inside, and they were made to run or escape.

we'll never know.

you know we'll never know.

sad.

[Radius]

100. You can not see a plane at 15K+ feet,standingoff(nt)

[nolabels]

91. Was somebody expecting different?

Any group of people without morals will have immoral things happen to it, be forewarned. This is common sense theme that is recorded as long as anybody has been keeping track of anything and recording in some way. Hell you can read in charcoal cave drawings


Monday, March 12, 2001____
Stories link people across lives, history
(snip)
Stories also serve to teach moral lessons or humanize abstract philosophies. All of us must have gleaned some elementary lesson from Aesop's fables. I know I learned never to cry wolf unless there's one actually ripping my leg off. Jesus forwarded Christian thought and taught his followers by telling them simple parables. Two thousand years later, they're still used in sermons and in Sunday school. And any beginning philosophy student is familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the ancient cosmological explanation of the physical versus the spiritual world.

On a grander scale, stories extend far beyond an individual's life; they encapsulate the entire history of mankind. After all, what is history but a drawn-out narrative? Legends of barbarians and family lines of kings, whether passed on through oral tradition or carefully transcribed by monks, constitute our "modern history" and will always be remembered as complex story lines, complete with introductions, conflicts and resolutions, played out by multiple characters in multiple settings.

Man's love of stories extends beyond borders, cultures and time, perhaps even defining the part of us that makes us human. We cement friendships by sharing intimate experiences. We give expression to our creative impulses by composing poetry or singing ballads. We are all born with the innate ability to comprehend and appreciate the narrative form.
(snip)
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/03/12/editorial_opinions/o0312/

[951]

92. Does anyone else have a high quality version of this video?

[Rose Siding]

101. You can bet that the Arab world doesn't have one.

Regardless of whether this was an armed group or a group of worshippers, this is the video that is being circulated.

[Rex]

94. These people are not designated as enemy combatants

at least not in the clip. The "aw dude" part seems to be the pilots way of saying "sucks to be them". IMO, what we are seeing (in the clip) is state sanctioned murder at its lowest common denominator.

[sam sarrha]

103. we need a good body count this week for the pResident's election campain