Leaked footage of 2007 USAF engaging ''hostiles'' NSFW

[fansince'76]

If our armed forces really did make a practice of killing civilians indiscriminately the way this "exposé" paints it, Afghanistan and Iraq would have ended YEARS ago....

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by smokin3000gt

I don't care much for the way they paint our soldiers as GTA gamers that target and kill innocent people when they bored to rack up points. Unless the writer of that article has ever been to war, ever been shot at, been attacked by the enemy, or watched people/friends/fellow soldiers die in front of him then he should keep his opinions and articles to himself! If it was be out there witnessing those things then I would be saying the same if not worse.

LLT, Thank you for injecting a little logic to this thread!

You seem to be saying that journalists must not be journalists, but rather whatever profession they are covering. So, for example, they must be (or have been) politicians if they are to write about politics. Otherwise they simply won't understand.

It's an interesting theory, but it strikes me that you don't have an actual answer to the claims being made in the article, if your main criticism is that people shouldn't judge other people... especially when they are committing war crimes.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by fansince'76

If our armed forces really did make a practice of killing civilians indiscriminately the way this "exposé" paints it, Afghanistan and Iraq would have ended YEARS ago....

Do you mean because then we'd have "killed them all", as Vinny was suggesting in the other thread?

[MACH1]

especially when they are committing war crimes.

There are no such thing as war crimes anymore, just federal law suits. Besides you would actually have to be in a war, not a overseas contingency plan. No war, no war crimes.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by MACH1

There are no such thing as war crimes anymore, just federal law suits. Besides you would actually have to be in a war, not a overseas contingency plan. No war, no war crimes.

How convenient for us. If we don't have to worry about being tried for war crimes, then we should just go ahead and sign on to the ICC. It looks good on our resume.

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

You seem to be saying that journalists must not be journalists, but rather whatever profession they are covering. So, for example, they must be (or have been) politicians if they are to write about politics. Otherwise they simply won't understand.

It's an interesting theory, but it strikes me that you don't have an actual answer to the claims being made in the article, if your main criticism is that people shouldn't judge other people... especially when they are committing war crimes.

It's one thing to be a journalist and report what you see + facts. Not your (anti-war/American troops) feelings. That makes him more of a blogger.

It seems that you don't have an actual answer if your criticism is about my criticisms about someone else's criticisms.

My argument was this 'journalist' makes it sound like our troops kill innocent people purposely to 'rack up points'. If you don't think that's a stretch then I don't know what to tell you.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by smokin3000gt

It's one thing to be a journalist and report what you see + facts. Not your (anti-war/American troops) feelings. That makes him more of a blogger.

It seems that you don't have an actual answer if your criticism is about my criticisms about someone else's criticisms.

My argument was this 'journalist' makes it sound like our troops kill innocent people purposely to 'rack up points'. If you don't think that's a stretch then I don't know what to tell you.

You seem to be missing the point that s/he did not direct the video in question, but rather just posted it. Seems factual enough for me. Is it the whole story? Of course not, so you investigate, like they did in this article:

Nato investigates new Afghan civilian deaths

Nato is investigating whether its forces killed four civilians in an air strike on a compound in the southern Afghan province of Helmand.

It said it carried out the attack in Gereshk district after its troops came under fire from insurgents inside.

The bodies of four militants and two women, a child and an elderly man were later found in the compound, Nato says.

Civilian deaths at the hands of foreign forces have been a source of increasing friction between Afghans and Nato.

In a separate incident, Nato said it was also investigating reports that two children had been killed and two others wounded in a clash in the east of the country.

It said all four children were initially wounded in fighting between insurgents and troops of the Nato-led Isaf force in Kapisa province.

"The children were medically evacuated to an Isaf medical facility. Two of the children reportedly died of their wounds," a statement said.

"It is unclear who caused the children's injuries. The incident is under investigation."

Nato admits that its killing of civilians has undermined support for its mission in Afghanistan. But it points out that far more people are killed in attacks by the Taliban and other militants.

The allliance has ordered its forces to reduce the number of air strikes and night raids in order to cut the risks to civilians.

[fansince'76]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Do you mean because then we'd have "killed them all", as Vinny was suggesting in the other thread?

No, I mean our troops wouldn't be bothered to follow some bullshit convoluted "protocol" to engage an enemy when they're being shot at first, among other things. Fighting is exponentially harder when doing so with one hand tied behind one's back.

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

You seem to be missing the point that s/he did not direct the video in question, but rather just posted it. Seems factual enough for me. Is it the whole story? Of course not, so you investigate, like they did in this article:

I am not arguing the validity of the video, whether or not it happened, who made it, or if the people who died were innocent. Any time a claim like that is made will be investigated. It should be. It's only right that they do.

What I am talking about is how they took what was said under stress/adrenaline/fatigue of combat and twisted all around to make it seem as if they purposely targeting innocent people and killed them like they were hunting civilians. Obviously this person is against the war and/or our troops and wrote his story accordingly IMO.

I've haven't been in that situation but I certainly wouldn't have nice things to say about people who I believed to be the enemy. Every enemy that dies is one that won't be car bombing a check point, killing you, or a fellow soldier. I'd be excited to put one on their ass too.

[TheWarDen86]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

They missed that part entirely... not that it matters, of course, since Britain is just another US state, really. It's like New Jersey, but with nuclear weapons and less Italians.

Whatever that means.