Links not really broken...(thanks splinter, edit to correct myself)

But as far as making it a video game esque thing...that's not surprising. How many doctors talk in jargon about how screwed a patient is? How many lawyers discussing serious cases (such as death penalty) will "dumb down" the commentary. It's a form of escapism, a way to manage what's going on. Look through any military footage, almost all will have it to some degree, even back to the early dogfights.

It sucks...but how else do you rationalize acts your society and faith has trained you against doing? Especially if you're intending on trying to assimilate back into that society at some point.

For what it's worth there was infantry and if I recall the choppers themselves were under fire from the area by AK-47s and an RPG or two. Military command is stating that all proper ROE's were followed, but sometimes shit simply happens. The alternative is I suppose to state that when under fire by anything except someone directly in front of you, you can't shoot back. But thats...dumb? Perhaps as dumb as a nonsensical invasion, but still.

Very possible somethings were out of line. That civilians got killed is horrible...inexcusable is where I might say different. War sucks, (excepting PDS's War) and especially in an insurgency where civilians are used by the enemy, this sort of crap happens. When the taliban was using civilian populations to absorb bomb strikes that were called in after UAVs had left area, US forces learned to sit the UAV on target up to and past weapons release point. No US command is looking to murder civilians, it simply doesn't accomplish anything. Look at McChrystal as a clear example of this.

*edit due to splinter pointing out what should have been obvious to me. Thanks*

Dunno what's up with that, bug in the forum software.



I think there is a difference between how these guys are behaving and the use of professional jargon. Turning mass murder into a game is probably a very effective way to rationalize away any guilt you might feel. Even when they find out they just shot up a family they don't feel any guilt and blame the good Samaritans who stopped to help someone for "bringing kids to battle". It's a warped fucked up view of the world that excuses any atrocity.



It's my understanding that the gunner was over a mile away and was never fired on. There was a ground patrol in the vicinity but it was never fired upon. The guys they thought had weapons were both Reuters journalists carrying cameras.
Regardless of whether the original group was armed or not, the family that stopped to help that wounded man were clearly unarmed noncombatants.



I've never seen any credible accounts of insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan "using civilians to absorb bomb strikes". That seems counterintuitive, and considering that the Pentagon always makes up stories like that when they fuck up, I'm skeptical.
Clearly things were very out of line in this situation. You have video of Americans laughing while they shoot journalists and civilians, if nothing else it's a PR nightmare.



Funny you should mention that asshole, here is a recent quote from him regarding the high rate of civilian causalities in Afghanistan:

"We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat"

Yeah that's right, I fucking love it when journalists embedded with the US military get blown the fuck up or kidnapped.
I don't know why I am shocked when the American military kills civilians or why I expect better from them. Clearly I should of learned by now.



It was a family, the kids were on their way to a tutoring lesson. They didn't know the wounded man they stopped to help.

I forgot who said it, but "Friendly fire is anything but."

Its tragic when innocent people die. Watching that video, the pilots really do seem to go by the book. I couldn't tell what the heck that camera was. The person leaning around the corner with what I presume is a camera did look like a weapon for sure. Whatever, I'm not a military tribunal.

You've spoken to the pilots since then and found this out? I think it's pretty fucked up of you to suppose, sitting comfortably in Seattle, that they feel no remorse or guilt after this. Talk to any F*d up Vietnam Vet, I've actually done so, and if we ever get to the subject, they'll tell you one of the things that haunts them is almost exactly how inhuman they had to turn during the War to allow themselves to do what they did. Getting home, trying to turn back into someone with as many comforts as say, you, it almost, or does, destroy them.
Also, you have no right to call it murder. These are soldiers carrying out a mission under directions of their command, a civilian command. Thus, a civilian has issued them lawful orders to kill. Murder is the unlawful killing. That these were in the end civilians is what will be under review, but during the act the pilots and gunners were NOT commiting what they knew to be murder, one of the needed definitions to apply the charge in a CIVILIAN court.



Fire support activities by anyone except Boots are rarely fired upon. Surely you wouldn't accuse every artillery team in WW2 of mass-murder just because they weren't directly fired upon, right? No, instead the feeling of letting buddies die and not doing anything about it can actually key you up even higher. I've only been in training, unlike pDs War, but any situation where I'm to provide back-up or relieve another team that IS under durress has me more keyed up then when I'm getting attacked. Knowing you're supposed to be saving someone else is whole lot more stressful than knowing you're just trying not to get F*d up.
Family was unarmed and noncombatants. Explain to me how you know for a fact they had no pistols, bombs, or other weapons on their person, and how you know for a fact that despite entering a combat area, they had no intentions of doing anything combative? Or again, are you supposing that in a war zone, during a combat situation, our soldiers should wait to feel a bullet or an explosion before assuming combat?



I've seen several. Had a three star general brief us on a very explicit case in Afghanistan where taliban were present, firing at aircraft. UAV saw this, called in fire support, left target to be utilized elsewhere. As soon as UAV left seen, Taliban left, called up local persons and told them there was mucho $$ in the drop zone. When the bombs hit, taliban was already on the phone to news organizations to drum up what had happened.



Tends to be if you kill someone before they can commit an action, you can't prove their intent. Same flaw when I try and prove God doesn't exist. I can't believe you're actually attacking him though, as he's actually changed ROE's and behaviors to put Americans at higher risk in order to lessen the risk to Afghani's. Perhaps you just can't believe anyone with a uniform? Don't know, but I'd highly advise you to observe more of what he's doing. He's actually rather unpopular in certain military circles for seemingly putting Afghani civilians at a higher priority than American lives. Isn't that your position as well?

I hope they do feel remorse and guilt. If I'd shot up innocent civilians the way they did I'd probably wash down a bottle of sleeping pills with a bottle of booze and call it a day. It's one of the few honorable choices in my opinion.
You have spoken to them? Perhaps you could pass along my suggestion.



I have actually. My dad fought and killed in Vietnam, he still has nightmares. He made me promise that no matter what I would never join the military.



Murder for duty, profit, or fun is still murder. I may be weird in that I don't believe in station-sanction killing. In this case, the two journalists and the family in the van trying to render medical assistance were indisputably civilians. The review already happened, it was a good kill as they say. Gunning down unarmed civilians trying to provide medical assistance to mortally wounded journalists is A-OK as long as some kids sitting in an Apache a mile out think they are doing the right thing.



It's a city, they are civilians driving through their neighborhood. They found the little girl underneath the torn up body of her dad. She had a bullet through her gut. Now maybe she had a gun on her, it'd have to be pretty damn small for her to lift considering how tiny she was. Maybe her dad had a gun on him. That's his right. Having a gun isn't a crime, driving your kids to their tutor isn't a crime. He tried to help a wounded man and died for it, both of his children were horrifically wounded. Seriously, you think it matters whether he was a gun owner?




I recall hearing a joke once about the correlation between stars and bullshit. Something about needing at least one corroborating source per star, I'm sure one of your peers can share.



McChrystal? He's a political hack. I wish he put Afghan civilians at a higher priority than the lives of American soldiers, they didn't sign up to get assfucked by Uncle Sam.

http://www.lettertoiraq.com/