Here is another movie.

There's a quote in there:

Quote: Woman in refugee camp: [looking at picture of dead Alex Grazier on TV] Did you know the man who was killed?
Claire: [she nods 'yes']
Woman in refugee camp: Fifty thousand Nicaraguans have died and now a Yankee. Perhaps now America will be outraged at what has happened here.
Claire: Perhaps they will.
Woman in refugee camp: Maybe we should have killed an American journalist fifty years ago.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Modern (asymmetric) warfare is a slaughterhouse. But only one side has to deal with civilian losses.

Wait, what are you smoking? I do hope that you are not suggesting that American and allied soldiers are the only ones killing civilians.

Thats not what he was saying, he was saying that only one side had to deal with civilian losses. iraqi insurgents are killing far more iraqi civilians than US civilians.

As for afghanistan its slightly different, the US did suffer fairly horrible civilian losses before the war, but starting a war to hunt terrorists doesn't seem like a very effective method. (The wars are likely to create more new terrorists than they'll remove imo)

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Modern (asymmetric) warfare is a slaughterhouse. But only one side has to deal with civilian losses.

Wait, what are you smoking? I do hope that you are not suggesting that American and allied soldiers are the only ones killing civilians.

Hazardous smoke, apparantly. I was ranting, but still I seem to be under the illusion that it's not the American civilians that have suffered so greatly since 2003, when the war began.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Yes, the Iraq Conflict was a botch job since the first gulf war, and like it or not, this is just a continuation of that war. If you want to claim only 'one side' suffered civilian losses, go read up on the Kurdish people's recent history.

Even though Saddam was the lowest scum, and killed thousands of Kurds in Iraq, he didn't attack American civilians during any of the wars. He could have, of course. But that's just the point I'm making. We can live with "clean" asymmetric wars, and accept the civilian "collateral damage" because we don't see the absolute horror of the reality of it. The footage released was not the first incident reported, and you can bet there are much worse footage yet unreleased.

Lost a great deal of respect for the G.I. Joe that I grew up with (you laugh!), when I heard that they had used DU shells near civilians in the first war, when I saw the tasteless and cowardly opening strike on Baghdad, that was broadcast to the western world as fireworks, the "shake-n-bake" tactics of Fallujah, the civilian casualties that were accepted, to spare precious own hides. Not to mention that the idea of American influence in the Middle East, only serves one purpose: realpolitik. America has demonstrated that since it is the only super power in the world, they can sacrifice a country with thousands of years of culture for strategic gain. Even more unfortunately, history would show that such adventures has severe long term back draws.

Quote: Original post by Talroth


Not to mention the numbers of civilians killed there by 'the other side'.

Okay, I guess that justifies it.

Quote: Original post by Talroth

As for Afghanistan, if you can't remember the US civilian losses that raised the conflict to a full open warfare, then you've had your head driven so far up somewhere that you've likely lost it. I'll give you a hint, it was kind of a big deal a few years ago.

You mean we did it as payback for those embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack?

And that other thing? Sad in so many ways. Still cry if I see certain NY footage from that day, and I ain't never been there. The terrorists had to pay, but nearly ten years later, they still haven't. I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you can't see that the other side is human, you've truly lost a part of your own humanity.

Edit: Simon, you beat me to it.

In the clips of the video that I've seen on television, it's very clear that most of the men are not carrying rifles, much less rockets. And when the van shows up it's really easy to see that the men who exit are not carrying rifles either.

This is just another case of war debasing human life. It should be a lesson to people in the United States who believe that they have what it takes to overthrow the tyrannical federal government. Fat chance of that! They should know that if they took up arms against the government and found themselves at the other end of the crosshairs like the people in this video, that they would be gunned down as readily and their deaths would be dismissed out of hand the same way they dismiss these deaths out of hand.

Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists

Quote:
...
Julian Assange (co-founder of wikileaks)

There may be some confusion as to whether two people are armed or whether there’s a camera or arm, but it’s clear that the majority of the people are in fact unarmed. And as it later turns out, two of those people are simply holding cameras. But we go on from there into seeing the shooting of people rescuing a wounded man, and none of those people are armed.

What’s important to remember is that every step that the Apache takes in opening fire is authorized. It does pause before shooting.
...
But yesterday, the Pentagon released on the CENTCOM website six files relating to this event. There is one that is the most important, which is the investigative report into whether this action broke the rules of engagement, really quite a telling report. So the tone and language is all about trying to find an excuse for the activity. I mean, this as if your own lawyer wrote a report for you to submit to the court. It’s very clear that that is the approach, to try and find any mechanism to excuse the behavior, and that is what ended up happening.
...

Setting this massacre aside for the moment, the legal assault on wikileaks.org is a far greater long term threat. Glenn Greenwald began writing about it last week: The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters. And he's been following up on the entire scandal: WikiLeaks releases video of slaughter in Iraq, Iraq slaughter not an aberration, Follow-up points on the WikiLeaks video.

Quote: you must shoot before the rpg shoots your chopper down.

Sorry, I've got to call bullshit on this one. Look at the range readout, and witness the flight time of the 30mm projectiles - that helo is FAR beyond the effective range of widely available RPGs. Sorry, but the apparent haste ("c'mon! let me shoot!") seems best explained by trigger happiness.

As to the resolution question: I'm not sure what's built into Apaches, but AFAIK the current state of the art for recon drones is the Wescam MX20 HD, which (as the name implies) provides 1080p, only slightly compressed. There's also an ~18x zoom, so even several km range isn't a problem.

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Even though Saddam was the lowest scum, and killed thousands of Kurds in Iraq, he didn't attack American civilians during any of the wars.

So, because the civilians who die aren't in our own backyards, we should just turn a blind eye and let such regions continue as such?

Quote: Original post by Talroth

So, because the civilians who die aren't in our own backyards, we should just turn a blind eye and let such regions continue as such?

Difficult question... Yes, US/UN must never ever bring military force into a sovereign nation without being requested to do so by recognized government.

It's important to differentiate between humanistic and ethical sides and international law. Iraq/Afganistan never requested military intervention from a foreign country. Yet half of the world brought troops there and started killing people and blowing stuff up. In Bosnia/Balkans, it was different. Upon breakdown, countries sought recognition. When granted, the governments of these newly recognized countries officially pleaded for help and military intervention from UN, and eventually received it. Until that point, only foreign military forces present were UN peacekeepers who were forbidden from interfering (which led to them witnessing a genocide first hand, but that's a different story - they could not interfere). Same with Kuwait invasion, where UN was immediately asked for help.

In case of Iraq/Afganistan what would be possible is:
- The regime is overthrown by citizens or army
- They establish temporary government
- This government seeks recognition by UN
- When recognition is granted, the temporary government can request military aid

Without these rules, without having internationally recognized government and sovereign nations, we end up with rule of the strongest.

But again, US/UN must leave citizens of other nations alone, even if dying. They can however bring observers (if permitted) and can petition to impose sanctions against offending nation to isolate it. In case of Iraq that would mean stopping buying all its oil exports (yea, right).

Quote: Original post by Talroth

Quote: Original post by Don Carnage
Even though Saddam was the lowest scum, and killed thousands of Kurds in Iraq, he didn't attack American civilians during any of the wars.

So, because the civilians who die aren't in our own backyards, we should just turn a blind eye and let such regions continue as such?

That's a job for the UN or perhaps the Arab League, not a completely uninvolved party.

Quote: Original post by Antheus

Quote: Original post by Talroth

So, because the civilians who die aren't in our own backyards, we should just turn a blind eye and let such regions continue as such?

Difficult question... Yes, US/UN must never ever bring military force into a sovereign nation without being requested to do so by recognized government.

It's important to differentiate between humanistic and ethical sides and international law. Iraq/Afganistan never requested military intervention from a foreign country. Yet half of the world brought troops there and started killing people and blowing stuff up. In Bosnia/Balkans, it was different. Upon breakdown, countries sought recognition. When granted, the governments of these newly recognized countries officially pleaded for help and military intervention from UN, and eventually received it. Until that point, only foreign military forces present were UN peacekeepers who were forbidden from interfering (which led to them witnessing a genocide first hand, but that's a different story - they could not interfere). Same with Kuwait invasion, where UN was immediately asked for help.

In case of Iraq/Afganistan what would be possible is:
- The regime is overthrown by citizens or army
- They establish temporary government
- This government seeks recognition by UN
- When recognition is granted, the temporary government can request military aid

Without these rules, without having internationally recognized government and sovereign nations, we end up with rule of the strongest.

But again, US/UN must leave citizens of other nations alone, even if dying. They can however bring observers (if permitted) and can petition to impose sanctions against offending nation to isolate it. In case of Iraq that would mean stopping buying all its oil exports (yea, right).

Please don't be too quick to lump Iraq and Afghanistan (You would think I would learn to spell myself by now.) together, as they are very different wars. Iraq is very questionable as to whether or not the initial invasion was completely illegal, however Afghanistan started as a legitimate war in retaliation for attacks by an armed group, of which the local governments offered no support in ending.

If someone is attacking you, you can't just say "oh, my bad." and then shrug your shoulders and ignore it just because the other group hides behind a paper shield.

Quote: Original post by Jan Wassenberg

Quote: you must shoot before the rpg shoots your chopper down.

Sorry, I've got to call bullshit on this one. Look at the range readout, and witness the flight time of the 30mm projectiles - that helo is FAR beyond the effective range of widely available RPGs. Sorry, but the apparent haste ("c'mon! let me shoot!") seems best explained by trigger happiness.

As to the resolution question: I'm not sure what's built into Apaches, but AFAIK the current state of the art for recon drones is the Wescam MX20 HD, which (as the name implies) provides 1080p, only slightly compressed. There's also an ~18x zoom, so even several km range isn't a problem.

I saw some pictures from the camera the guy was holding and there was actually a US humvee just down the street from them.

It is tragic, but I can't really fault anyone here. They did look significantly like insurgents and they were carrying weapons. They were in close proximity to US forces who had called in air support because they were encountering hostile forces. The camera man did look like he was carrying some sort of large weapon and he was pointing it at US forces.

It's a shitty situation, but when has Iraq not been a shitty situation?