Wikileaks US Apache helicopter

[P3nT4gR4m]

It's a symptom of the increased televisation of war. Before there were live feeds from every soldiers helmet the uninitiated public were more than happy to swill the official stories about glorious acts of heroism and brave soldiers putting their lives on the line to protect our way of life. Now the same public are only a gagging order away from seeing just how brutal and ugly that particular passtime is, in visceral high definition, with subtitles.

Nothing much has changed other than the fact that a whole bunch of people who have never been faced with that situation now feel qualified to pass judgement on those same brave soldiers, based on what they like to think they'd have done in a similar situation with the benefit of hindsight and an infinite number of annotated youtube replays.

You can tell by the comments - "OMGZ they was laughing." Like why not? - your job is to kill people, you have no contractural obligation not to enjoy your work. Most civvies can't get their head around this - that's why most civvies (myself included), imo, have no fucking business commenting.

[LMNO]

That's kind of the opposite of what I was saying, but... whatever.

[Cramulus]

one interesting note from the Julian Assange interview...

he believes that the issues is not about civilians getting gunned down. It's that the order to fire was given before the weapon was identified. Nobody said the word RPG until after the journalist was shot.

[Doktor Howl]

You can tell by the comments - "OMGZ they was laughing." Like why not? - your job is to kill people, you have no contractural obligation not to enjoy your work. Most civvies can't get their head around this - that's why most civvies (myself included), imo, have no fucking business commenting.

Gallows humor is part of the job of soldiering.

But civvies ALWAYS have business commenting.  After all, we're responsible for them being there in the first place.  This isn't a moral issue of some soldiers laughing while they engage what they perceive to be enemy forces, this is a moral issue of why, where, and how we decided to use military force to resolve an issue.  Because it WAS us, at least in the US.  80%+ of our population agreed to that war, back in March of 2003.

And, given the nature and circumstances of that war, we hardly have the moral authority to get angry because some stressed and jaded soldiers made a crack or two.

[Doktor Howl]

one interesting note from the Julian Assange interview...

he believes that the issues is not about civilians getting gunned down. It's that the order to fire was given before the weapon was identified. Nobody said the word RPG until after the journalist was shot.

If you trust wikileaks.  There was some mention of them altering footage, back in 2007.  I'll search for the incident in question once I get back to my laptop.

[Cramulus]

according to the interview, they released two versions

- a short version with a provocative title, meant to piss people off and draw attention. It was not meant to be "objective journalism", but to raise awareness.
- a full unedited version of the whole tape. I believe the military has confirmed that this tape is uncut. Julian Assange says there are 20 minutes of missing footage which the government refuses to supply or comment on.

[Doktor Howl]

- a short version with a provocative title, meant to piss people off and draw attention. It was not meant to be "objective journalism", but to raise awareness.

Then they're no better than Fox News.

[P3nT4gR4m]

You can tell by the comments - "OMGZ they was laughing." Like why not? - your job is to kill people, you have no contractural obligation not to enjoy your work. Most civvies can't get their head around this - that's why most civvies (myself included), imo, have no fucking business commenting.

But civvies ALWAYS have business commenting.  After all, we're responsible for them being there in the first place.  This isn't a moral issue of some soldiers laughing while they engage what they perceive to be enemy forces, this is a moral issue of why, where, and how we decided to use military force to resolve an issue.  Because it WAS us, at least in the US.  80%+ of our population agreed to that war, back in March of 2003.

No argument from me there but this is a specific battlefield incident. Call it friendly fire or collateral damage or whatever - it's part and parcel of what letting the dogs off the leash entails. The grunts on the ground, or in the air were simply doing what they are paid to do and the general tone of righteous outrage seems directed more at them than the fact that the whole reason they were there in the first place is morally dubious.

[Doktor Howl]

You can tell by the comments - "OMGZ they was laughing." Like why not? - your job is to kill people, you have no contractural obligation not to enjoy your work. Most civvies can't get their head around this - that's why most civvies (myself included), imo, have no fucking business commenting.

But civvies ALWAYS have business commenting.  After all, we're responsible for them being there in the first place.  This isn't a moral issue of some soldiers laughing while they engage what they perceive to be enemy forces, this is a moral issue of why, where, and how we decided to use military force to resolve an issue.  Because it WAS us, at least in the US.  80%+ of our population agreed to that war, back in March of 2003.

No argument from me there but this is a specific battlefield incident. Call it friendly fire or collateral damage or whatever - it's part and parcel of what letting the dogs off the leash entails. The grunts on the ground, or in the air were simply doing what they are paid to do and the general tone of righteous outrage seems directed more at them than the fact that the whole reason they were there in the first place is morally dubious.

While it is not wise to grab their elbows while the events are taking place, it IS wise to review them later (bearing in mind that they aren't performing these acts with the benefit of hindsight), and pass judgement on them.  An army without accountability is really just a pack of brigands.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Couldn't agree more. Lets just hope the ones sitting on the tribunal are a bit more qualified to sit in judgement than the "OMGZ the bad man shot someone" - brigade.

[Doktor Howl]

Couldn't agree more. Lets just hope the ones sitting on the tribunal are a bit more qualified to sit in judgement than the "OMGZ the bad man shot someone" - brigade.

They will be.  Military justice is harsh, but more fair than civilian justice, IMO.

[LMNO]

one interesting note from the Julian Assange interview...

he believes that the issues is not about civilians getting gunned down. It's that the order to fire was given before the weapon was identified. Nobody said the word RPG until after the journalist was shot.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/14/julian-assange/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-tells-colbert-per/

The word "RPG" was not used until later.  But the words "weapon" and "AK-47" were used prior to the order to fire.

"There's one, yeah," says one of the crew members on the Apache.

"Oh yeah," says another.

"That's a weapon," the soldier says.

"Yeah."

Behind Noor-Eldeen is the other Reuters journalist, also with a camera.

But then the cross-hairs in the camera pan to a couple of the other men farther back in the group.

"Yep, he's got a weapon too," the soldier says.

The soldier radios back, "Have 5 to 6 individuals with AK-47s. Request permission to engage."

"Roger that...You are free to engage. Over."

[Cramulus]

hah! great find, LMNO

[LMNO]

I am amazed at how honest politifact is.

Naturally, this makes me wonder what they're hiding.