Wikileaks video is just cover for troops haters
I read comments by Josh Stieber and his friend and I commend them for defending the soldiers (although it’s half-hearted) however that’s not what folks are thinking. Some anti-war types are using it as an excuse to condemn the troops. For example, someone sent me some screen shots of Dede Miller’s Facebook Wall. For those of you who may not know, Dede Miller is Cindy Sheehan’s sister.
It was almost funny to watch through several conversations she was having, Dede tried to garnish sympathy for herself using Casey Sheehan’s death, all the while she was tearing the troops still serving to shreds;
I have mountains of screen shots in which Miller, that paragon of moral authority hiding behind Casey Sheehan’s body, refers to the troops as “heartless killing machines”.
So this is not a dialogue about the war and it’s conduct like the peawits at Wikileak claim, it’s providing cover for the anti-war doofuses to tear our military apart. Anti-war doofuses who don’t live the real world – they live in a world insulated from reality by the very people they attack.
Oh, and, Dede, in the event that you come here and read this, because most of you meglomaniacs do come here to This Ain’t Hell eventually, it was one of your friends who sent me these screen shots. They agree with you to your face, or say nothing, and then send me proof that you’re nothing but a brainless bimbo for the anti-war crowd. Better check your six.
Category: Antiwar crowd, Usual Suspects
NATH, You’re willing to cede the benefit of the doubt to those who kill our soldiers, but not to our own soldiers. I was even willing to cede to you the benefit of the doubt on this, i.e., that with hindsight being 20/20 – though still not knowing all the facts – that perhaps they shouldn’t have shot on the van or the crawling reporter. The reality, however, is that the shooting of the crawling reporter was within the rules and is not a Geneva violation. I was against this war from the beginning, but I’m no advocate of sending our troops over there to have them be sacrifical lambs for barbarics who have so little regard for human life that not only do do they oppress women, they will use their own children as shields. While I would prefer for the US to stay out of all these Middle East wars to begin with, since they ARE there and I don’t have the power to bring them home, I am no advocate of them standing there to be shot and killed, as you are apparently advocating. If the enemy operated according to the same principles as what the US did, there would be no war. And regardless of the dubious social skills of the combat veterans and active duty here at TAH (of which I am not one; I am a military veteran and former antiwar protester), I’m sure there’s nobody here who doesn’t feel badly for the kids But you keep on and on and on, NATH, to where finally I just have to say, if the reporter who was crawling on the ground hadn’t been with insurgents who were SHOOTING at US troops to begin with, he would still be alive today. There was nothing to distinguish him from the insurgents who were shooting, there were US soldiers on the ground in the area, and a wounded enemy can still pick up a weapon and shoot. And they had stopped shooting anyway until the van arrived, which was associated with vehicles that had been picking up and… Read more »
Oh, goody…another fucking Monday morning quarterback trying to tell those who have BTDT how it is. Face it, dude–you’re pissing in the wind and you’re the only one getting messy. I do feel badly if civilians are caught in the crossfire, but the ROE we’ve established and practiced goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even at the risk of our troops lives. How many examples of that would you like before you admit you’re wrong in your broad-brush bullshit analysis?
NATH:
Suppose the Jihadis look out the window and see an unarmed humvee picking up wounded US GI’s, and shoot at it; is that not wrong?
The difference, in Iraq, of a militant and a civilian is that the “civilian” has hidden his weapon. Men, women, children, and TAXI DRIVERS, have proven themselves to be combatants.
Nuf Sed
You do know that they pay a lot more for confirmed medical personal killed. When I went over there in 2008-2009 it was 10,000 if you killed a US medic.
DEBRA (oops, sorry for “screaming”) Debra: “You’re willing to cede the benefit of the doubt to those who kill our soldiers, but not to our own soldiers.” There was no-one in or around the van who showed either the intention or the means to kill any of your soldiers in the area at the time. “I was even willing to cede to you the benefit of the doubt on this, i.e., that with hindsight being 20/20 – though still not knowing all the facts – that perhaps they shouldn’t have shot on the van or the crawling reporter.” Good! that’s all i wanted. i just wanted to see if you could see the unnecessary slaughter of innocents that i see. Unfortunately, you then qualify this concession to truth and sanity into oblivion: “The reality, however, is that the shooting of the crawling reporter was within the rules and is not a Geneva violation.” I don’t even know if it is true that the shooting was ‘within’ the rules (and surely we would want it to be more than just ‘allowed’) as i have yet to read the r.o.e. that were published by wikileaks. have you? in any case — as i said before — the supposed fact that it was ‘within the rules’ does not mean that it was not wrong and should not have happened. it rather implies that the rules were wrong and if they are still the same, that they should be changed. this is an obvious fact about morality, right?! i mean historically speaking many an army had ‘rules of engagement’ according to which they committed what are undeniably atrocities. in any case, that this incident happens not to be covered by the geneva convention is purely the result of bush and his cronies’ cynical invention of the spurious category of ‘enemy combatant’ to cover anyone they might want to kill, torture or imprison indefinitely without charge. “I was against this war from the beginning, but I’m no advocate of sending our troops over there to have them be sacrifical lambs for barbarics who have so… Read more »
“I don’t even know if it is true that the shooting was ‘within’ the rules”
And yet you’re so fucking quick to judge. Asshat, party of one!
NHSparky, what ‘in the rules’ do you think could possibly show that it was not morally wrong to fire on the van? if the rules say it was right to do something which was obviously morally wrong, then those rules are morally wrong and should be changed
The attack on the van was wrong in what respect? Morally or legally? I think that all war is a horrible travesty. But as a writer friend of mine, George H. Smith, just wrote to me a few minutes ago, “As for the children in that van, it was nearly impossible to see them, and even when the Wikileaks video highlighted them (or one of them), they were still difficult to make out. I was opposed to the Iraq war from the start, and I still am, but when you put American soldiers in stressful combat situations, you cannot expect them to be omniscient. At no point is there any indication that the helicopter pilot thought he was shooting at anything other than enemy combatants. The notion that he deliberately ‘murdered’ those reporters is absurd.”
Which is the greater “moral wrong”, numbnuts–firing on a van which strays into a firefight, which, given previous experience, bad guys love to use to rearm, regroup, etc? Or deliberately putting innocents in harm’s way for the sake of political points and propaganda to rile up mindless drones such as yourself?
NOTH,
Not everything that is immoral should be illegal. Do you agree with that statement, or not? If you don’t even so much as agree with that statement, then I have to conclude that you are incapable of rational thought and it is a complete and utter waste of time to argue with you.
But if the question is, do I think that firing on the van was justified, under those conditions and circumstances, given the limited information that is available, my answer is yes.
NATH:
On my previous question regarding shooting at an unarmed Humvee,,,,,,, That humvee is to the Jihadis as the black van is to us. They do not have military vehicles per se, but use vans, taxis, donkey carts and more as their military vehicles.
During the war where Israel finally spanked Hamas in Gaza for shooting thousands of rockets at them, Hamas was transporting troops in UN MARKED Ambulances, shown on video. this enemy has no scruples, none, zero, nada! They use any subterrfuge available to promote their useless killing. Hell, using kids for shields, storing weapons under their kids beds and worse is in their training.
That Taxi/Van/Truck/whatever you choose to name it was a military vehicle, unmarked and as legal a target as a humvee, stryker, or Apache helicopter.
Nuf Sed
In my comment above, lest anyone confuses my intent. The sentence would read: ….Hamas was transporting troops in UN, (as in Useless Notions), MARKED Ambulances. Sorry for the confusion.
Nuf Sed
debra: i agree that it is not the case that not everything that is immoral should be illegal, but that statement isn’t inconsistent with my argument. my point is simply that if there was a law — in the form of a rule of engagement — that told you to do something immoral, then that law should be changed. this argument requires only that SOME immoral acts should be illegal.
for me it is clearest that an act is immoral when it essentially involves harm to people or certain animals whose continued existence presents no credible threat to me or anyone else. killing such people or animals is not necessarily murder (though mostly it is) but it is DEFINITELY morally wrong. if it isn’t wrong, what is? if you have a law or a r.o.e. telling you to do it or telling you it’s fine to do it, then that law or r.o.e. is wrong and should be changed.
but the question wasn’t that, the question was: “the attack on the van was wrong, it shouldn’t have happened – true or false?”
frankly opinionated: i don’t see how you imagine you can go from the premise that insurgents use vans like the one that was shot up directly to the conclusion that it was itself definitely a ‘military vehicle’. are you saying that any van in iraq is as clear a military target as humvee?! what about all the people with vans who aren’t insurgents?!! no weapons were visible and it was clearly engaged in the medical evacuation of a severely wounded man. “nuf sed”
Holy Bejeebus, can’t you get your one-track mind off the van? It was wrong, for the driver to take his, or someone else’s kids on a joy ride in a combat zone. If you were driving kids somewhere and heard gunfire, would you drive to the sound of guns, or away? Tell me this slick, were the “civilians” dressed any different than the insurgents who were firing on US troops? Do the insurgents commonly use unmarked vehicles to transport fighters and do they use unmarked vehicles to pick up their wounded? Do they commonly use unmarked vehicles to transport and pick up weapons? If you answer yes to any of the above, the argument you make is lame, in the extreme.
even if i grant the proposition that it was wrong for a father to drive his kids to class in his own neighbourhood where the sounds of war had been an everyday backdrop for four years, where the original gunfire occurred fully minutes before his van drove there, even if i grant that (which i don’t) that OBVIOUSLY does not mean that it was not ALSO wrong for the apache to fire on the van and the unarmed civilian-looking men trying to use it to medevac an unarmed severely wounded man crawling in the dirt.
NOTH, why does it matter if the attack on the van was wrong or not? What is your purpose and motive in pinning down a true or false to that question? I answered that in my opinion, it was justified. I don’t see where anything else, whether it was right or wrong, is of any relevance to the purposes of this discussion. This isn’t church and we’re not here confessing our sins or hoping to be saved. My former profession in the US Army was a CID agent. The wartime mission of the US Army CID is the investigation of war crimes. Do I consider this to be a war crime. A resounding NO.
NATH:
Dumbphuck! Where did I state that the van was “definitely a ‘military vehicle’”? As per Upnorth, he had kids in the van, he was in a “hot” combat area, (Screw your conception that he was in his neighborhood.) And, all vans in Iraq? Not the discussion at all, dummy. Fer Christ’s sakes, I have known many Brits, but none as chowderheaded as you. 1. Van in “Hot” combat area. 2. Occupants doing things combatants do. 3. Troops need top cover. All equals, Send ’em to Allah.
I was not anywhere near the scene, as you weren’t, and have accepted that both the US Military and the Iraqis have made an investigation that satisfied them.
Anything further is cruel and unusual punishment of a keyboard.
Nuf Sed
i have enough material now. see y’all in hell
I have to ask, have you ever been in a situation even close to something like this where you had to make a choice in a matter of seconds. If so when and where?
ooh, ooh, nota is now gonna run off to his lefty, American, Brit and anyone else, troop hating buds, and tell em, “see, they do murder on a routine basis, and they don’t even apologize for it. I told you all along they were killers”.
One other point, for nota’s pointed head, “civilian-looking men trying to use it to medevac an unarmed seriously wounded man” would mean that the “civilian-looking” men looked the same as the insurgents, because, wait for it, they weren’t wearing uniforms, so they do, indeed, blend right in with insurgents. Can’t tell the players without a program.
NATH, sorry to see you go so soon, but glad we were able to help! Thanks so much for stopping by! Will we be seeing you there – in hell? If not, please be sure to drop us a link to your article when it’s published, ‘kay? We would certainly enjoy seeing your work!
Also, please don’t forget our idea that they stop shooting at our soldiers over there. That would help SO much. Thanks again!
Claymore I really hope that you recognized the sarcasm directed at NATH. I don’t think that either having journalists wearing red vests or using nerf weapons in war are a good Idea. Just to be clear, my comments were made in a sarcastic manner and intendend to humorous.
I don’t think using nerf weapons is such a bad idea…long as both sides adhered to the rules of warfare. 🙂
You know, having journalists wear distinctive vests or body armor WAS one of the recommendations made as a result of the investigation…this was signed off by a general…
Just to be clear, my comments were made in a sarcastic manner and intendend to humorous.
Roger. 🙂
Whew! Can we now bury this thoroughly beaten “Dead Horse”?
Nuf Sed
Did we leave anything out?
My favorite comment from NATH,
“note that jason’s suggestion that press be made to wear red shirts to mark them out wouldn’t have helped in this case, since the gunner’s screen is black and white.”
Still makes me laugh…
That would be funny if you were fighting with nerf weapons and not real bullets…
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2010/04/20104159123873370.html
Ivan Eland did a good job.
Ivan Eland: (16:09) “part of the problem that we are seeing with the people in the helicopter is they may be blamed for rules of engagement er that er you know were too were too loose.”
Damn, and we thought you left us.
C’est dommage.
With all due respect, our ROE have never been as loose as that of the insurgents and terrorists.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
Wow that horse is really stinky now…festering kinda gross, so why would you want to kick it again?
From your own link;
We were engaged in our own conflict roughly about three or four blocks away. We heard the gunships open up.
Seriously, noth–your bullshit starts with your name, and just goes downhill from there.
“Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary”.
Well then, sonny, ain’t it a good thing that people who know better than you make those decisions while you just sit back on your ass three YEARS after the fact and second-guess them? Seriously, go suck a grenade already.
Ethan McCord: “Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary”. QUOTED from http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
It may not have been necessary, but was it a war crime? No. What NHSparky said.
the unnecessary killing of people is wrong
What is your goal in this continued harrassment? There were no unnecessary deaths that were deliberate or intentional.
Even now, how can it be known for sure what the intent of the occupants of the van was (other than the innocent children)? If all occupants of the van were completely innocent and their true intentions were not in support of the goals of insurgents, then what remains is a tragic consequence of war – something that could be prevented and stopped by none other than insurgents and terrorists themselves by laying down their arms and fighting no more.
NOTH, you could make yourself really useful by directing your humanitarian concerns toward proselytizing the insurgents and terrorists.
the apache gunners deliberately targeted unarmed men attempting to provide first aid to an unarmed man. that IS deliberate unnecessary killing
Man, that horse is really starting to smell now. Doesn’t it feel gross, getting that all over your shoes? Or sandals? Again, what Debra said, go tell the insurgents not to use civilian vehicles to do their work, and to leave their kids home when they go out to do what insurgents do.
But, nota won’t say anything about the insurgents, it doesn’t fit his pre-conceived notions of what happened here. So, carry on, troops hater.
Ethan McCord: “Now, as far as rules of engagement, [Iraqis] are not supposed to pick up the wounded. But they could have been easily deterred from doing what they were doing by just firing simply a few warning shots in the direction…. Instead, the Apaches decided to completely obliterate everybody in the van. That’s the hard part to swallow. And where the soldier said [in the video], “Well, you shouldn’t take your kids to battle.” Well in all actuality, we brought the battle to your kids. There’s no front lines here. This is urban combat and we’re taking the war to children and women and innocents”.
Quoted from: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
Warning shots in a war zone. Now I’ve heard it all.