-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
13 innocents get killed by American helicopter fire. On live TV.
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
- Status
Spike Spiegel
Member
When I saw this on the news yesterday, one of the first things that popped into my head was "Oh, great... here comes another multi-page, anti-Bush, anti-US thread on GAF."
Thanks for not disappointing.
Thanks for not disappointing.
There's quite a bit of evidence concerning torture and killings done for leisurely purposes at Abu Ghraib. That said, it's not really a part of this discussion, nor a part of the American military culture.
But it's also obvious that there are many cases where soldiers were trigger happy, resulting in the deaths of innocents as well as allies (the situation in Afghanistan where an American pilot killed Canadian soldiers in training).
Innocent people die in many wars, and the invasion of Iraq was no exception. It's a needless war that will cause more hatred for the US, giving people around the world more reasons to hate the US as well. Here's a newsflash for some supporters of the war, this war isn't seen as a defensive war on the part of the US, it's seen as bullying. Images like this support that idea.
My point is that the Bush administration is digging this hole to be a whole lot deeper. Can you blame the soldiers for doing their job? Perhaps you can blame the Pentagon for a horribly planned and rushed invasion. But most definately you can blame the President for putting the soldiers and the American name on the line by throwing them unprepared into a dangerous and risky situation.
But it's also obvious that there are many cases where soldiers were trigger happy, resulting in the deaths of innocents as well as allies (the situation in Afghanistan where an American pilot killed Canadian soldiers in training).
Innocent people die in many wars, and the invasion of Iraq was no exception. It's a needless war that will cause more hatred for the US, giving people around the world more reasons to hate the US as well. Here's a newsflash for some supporters of the war, this war isn't seen as a defensive war on the part of the US, it's seen as bullying. Images like this support that idea.
My point is that the Bush administration is digging this hole to be a whole lot deeper. Can you blame the soldiers for doing their job? Perhaps you can blame the Pentagon for a horribly planned and rushed invasion. But most definately you can blame the President for putting the soldiers and the American name on the line by throwing them unprepared into a dangerous and risky situation.
Goreomedy said:
not at all. you'd be an idiot to make that sort of a generalization. terrorist is a subset of the big set enemy.
terrorists are enemies, but not all enemies are terrorists.
lot of people hate america you know, they think america is utterly evil...hard to imagine, isnt it?
BigGreenMat
Member
I say we take the middle of the road here. The US was doing a simple routine response to a disabled vehicle, basically what it should, but fucked up because it took out a couple innocents. Happens all the time.
seismologist
Banned
I never see any of this shit watching Fox News. all you hear about is damage control for why Bush was awol during his National Guard service
Spike Spiegel said:When I saw this on the news yesterday, one of the first things that popped into my head was "Oh, great... here comes another multi-page, anti-Bush, anti-US thread on GAF."
Thanks for not disappointing.
why are you so predictable? can america never do wrong? you are sort of an embarrassment to the original american ideals.
Spike Spiegel
Member
So... I was wrong? GAF isn't predictable?nitewulf said:
America's situation right now in Iraq is strongly reminiscent of Israel's in Palestine.
In any case, I keep hearing that GAF is extremely liberal, as if it's a bad thing. Does this "criticism" come from the same half a dozen people in here who defend a US helicopter bombing a crowded area, killing 13 innocents?
Then I'd rather be liberal than a jaded asshole who condones murder.
In any case, I keep hearing that GAF is extremely liberal, as if it's a bad thing. Does this "criticism" come from the same half a dozen people in here who defend a US helicopter bombing a crowded area, killing 13 innocents?
Then I'd rather be liberal than a jaded asshole who condones murder.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
But it shouldn't happen all the time. And if it does, that doesn't make this event any more acceptable.BigGreenMat said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
"There was no warning not to be there, and definitely civilians and journalists will go to a place like this to see what has happened
Arabiya editor Nabil Khatib "
??? you mean a burning tank was not reason enough? dont know about you.. but most people i know dont go running into a burning building.
Arabiya editor Nabil Khatib "
??? you mean a burning tank was not reason enough? dont know about you.. but most people i know dont go running into a burning building.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
seismologist said:I never see any of this shit watching Fox News. all you hear about is damage control for why Bush was awol during his National Guard service
stop watching FOX news then.. there are better news channels out there.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
DarthWoo said:
gaper delay? are you talking about people that slow down to see whats happening? i have never seen a group of people gathering around a burning vehicle.. or crashed vehicle... they may slow down when driving by.. but they never get out just to stand on the ruins of a horrible accident.. that being a warzone.. and a burning tank (with possible ammunition that might explode) . should have been warning enough.
note:: im not excusing the incident.. but it was really stupid of those who were there in the first place.
quadriplegicjon said:
Not here anyway, but most of the car wrecks you see are out on a busy road. From what I was seeing in that clip, it was a relatively urban area, where a lot of the people may have little more interesting things to do. With the amount of military hardware in the area on a daily basis, it may as well have just been as though it was just a regular car wreck to them. Conversely, wouldn't you want to get a closer look if there was a Bradley sitting outside your domicile, burning or otherwise?
Phoenix
Member
Poor poor call to authorize missile fire against a burning fighting vehicle sitting in a populated area. There is no excusing it, there is no 'well maybe' about it. This was a poor decision. There was absolutely no reason to use those munitions against that target given its location.
I hate you and people like you.Mustang said:FUCK YOU BUSH!
FUCK YOU BUSH!!
FUCK YOU BUSH!!!
Thought I would get that in so one of the liberals here would not have to do it.
Sorry to seem a bit cold here but these media people should know the risk of being there.
Bang on. So careless.Phoenix said:
Phoenix said:
who cares?
I havent heard about this 'news' before. Unfortunately this happens way too much. As times goes on the the US will carry on creating more enemies as a result but they obviously know this and are allowed to carry on. Its sad to see that civilians are the ones who suffer on 'all' sides.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
Mustang said:
Might as well have been. He used poor intelligence to lie his way into a fraudulent war with Iraq. You don't think the decision makers in a war carry blood on their hands?
I love America.
Yeah, fuck Bush.
Where did I put my birkenstocks and pancho?
evil solrac v3.0
Member
this current situation is more like the israelis in lebanon. hopefully it wont end like that.
Knock it off. If you want to spout off your own personal views, fine -- and by "fine," I mean "fine in the sense of it's your right," not, "fine in the sense of agreeing with any of it." But putting words in the mouths of others is out of bounds...not to mention the fact that I don't know anyone who would EVER say anything that stupid.Mustang said:
What's sad is that you're mentally deficient enought that even if it WAS Bushy directly behind the trigger, saying on the record that he hates Arabs and wants all of them to die in a horible death, you'd still try to defend the situation.Mustang said:
Oh, and I hope the people trying to excuse this event never shed a single tear over fallen American soldiers. After all, the bad guys (terrorists, insurgents, whatever you want to call them) shouldn't be blamed for lauching mortars/rpgs at them, those soldiers knew how dangerous Iraq would be in war. They're the idiots. Right? RIGHT?
Spike Spiegel said:When I saw this on the news yesterday, one of the first things that popped into my head was "Oh, great... here comes another multi-page, anti-Bush, anti-US thread on GAF."
Thanks for not disappointing.
Of course, the irony here is the only guy to invoke Bush's name before this post was a guy who said it would be "what the liberals will do".
I'm sure a lot of the people in this thread are anti-Bush, but most were commenting on the incident rather than the president (and I'd say it was hardly overwhelmingly anti-US).
-SB
The whole thread is a demonstation of how low some individuals can go to defend the goverment. Hey people close your eyes it's an anti-goverment thread! And to the "humans" who defended the soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison they obviously haven't watched the fotos of that bi**h and these motherefers smiling in front of dead bodies and tortured prisoners.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Goreomedy said:
That's like blaming people for dying when the WTC fell. They probably didn't think it was gonna happen. Why use a missle on a crowd of people? Was the helicopter in danger? This is what happens. We are at war in a country that doesn't want us there. These type of casualties should be expected and we have to suffer the consequences.
I still can't get over the whole GWB = US logic. And this is not something I really "blame" on Bush so much as I do the Pentagon. It's a pretty significant military fuck up, and frankly I find the defense department's scramble to try and justify and cover its own ass and contradicting VIDEO EVIDENCE to be pretty sickening.Spike Spiegel said:When I saw this on the news yesterday, one of the first things that popped into my head was "Oh, great... here comes another multi-page, anti-Bush, anti-US thread on GAF."
Thanks for not disappointing.
From what I've watched of the news today (which wasn't very much), the big stories here seem to be the Michael Jackson trial and Oprah giving away a bunch of Pontiacs.
Phoenix
Member
skinnyrattler said:
Sorry, I call bullshit on this one. There is a difference between responsible and irresponsible operational behavior. The helicopter wasn't under fire - it was firing on a US Bradley vehicle to prevent its contents from being looted. These were 'preventable' civillian casualties. It would be different if they were out in the middle of a firefight, but they weren't. The vehicle had been sitting there for some time, the gunships were called in to destroy the vehicle, and the vehicle was fired upon and destroyed in the midst of a KNOWN civillian populated area. There is NO excuse that can be given to condone this. A similar parallel would be a burning military vehicle sitting outside your school/workplace and people are looking at it (which people do) and then BAMN, a Maverick blows open the vehicle killing everyone in the immediate vacinity and injuring many others.
No, sorry - I understand unintentional casualties as much as the next person, but this is NOT one of those situations.
skinnyrattler said:
Don't you fucking dare try to twist my statement into a condemnation of WTC victims.
It was stupid to congregate around a burning ammunition cache. And the fools who were waving Al qaeda flags potentially elevated/confused the situation.
Again, major fuckup by everyone involved. So to point the finger squarely at the US military is ignoring several contributing factors.
That we should never have gone is a given.
For all they knew the crew in the helicopter thought the bradley probably was being looted. People standing around it and poking at it with sticks from far away probably doesn't look much different than people trying to take equipment to a helicopter hundreds of yards away. It's a terrible fuck up, but these things happen.Phoenix said:
I once remember watching reporters in white SUVs with "TV" marked ontop of the hoods with black tape being shot at by an A-10 (tank killer plane that shoots Coke bottle sized bullets) back during the Kosovo conflict. You could hear and see the bullets hitting the ground around the SUVs as they tried to get away. Seeing as how the plane couldn't see who they were (?) they leapt out of the SUVs and ran as far away as possible from their SUVs all while filming what was going on. The A-10 made a second pass, fired again but stopped suddenly and changed course. Luckily, no one from this incident was injured.
Reporters know exactly what kind of shit will happen to you if you're mistaken for the enemy or are in "hot zones." Civilians really don't, but I sure as hell have enough common sense NOT to go out where there was just a fire fight between soldiers. This is NOT like a car crash or common accident to be gawked at. It's sad that so many people were killed and injured but it's still an accident.
First of all based on the information available, clearly the Helicopter made a mistake, or I guess, if you're inclined to conspiracy the helicopter and co-pilot conspired to kill civilians. Regardless, the appropriate measures should be taken against the pilot.
However, standing on top of a burning military vehicle in a war torn country was an unwise decision. It's kind of like that American guy, I forget his name, that was captured and beheaded a few months ago, the red headed one. He wasn't associated with any group in Iraq, he just kind of went there to hang out travel and help out, like Kane from Kung Fu. He didn't deserve to be beheaded, but he made a monumentally stupid decision in going to Iraq by himself as an American. I don't blame him for his death, it was wrong, and you can't blame someone for being killed by somebody else, but he definitely contributed to his death by making a dumb decision that made it possible. A similar situation here.
However, standing on top of a burning military vehicle in a war torn country was an unwise decision. It's kind of like that American guy, I forget his name, that was captured and beheaded a few months ago, the red headed one. He wasn't associated with any group in Iraq, he just kind of went there to hang out travel and help out, like Kane from Kung Fu. He didn't deserve to be beheaded, but he made a monumentally stupid decision in going to Iraq by himself as an American. I don't blame him for his death, it was wrong, and you can't blame someone for being killed by somebody else, but he definitely contributed to his death by making a dumb decision that made it possible. A similar situation here.
Phoenix
Member
luxsol said:
Sorry, but the rules of engagement should be clear in these matters. If you are in an area where there are clearly civillians - why in God's name are you firing several hundred pounds of shaped high explosive charge? Heaven forbid you miss - which does happen all the time. There was no reason why taking that risk should have been permitted. Are we saying now that its worth risking the lives of an unknown number of Iraqi civillians to prevent POSSIBLE looting? What if someone just happened to be walking by? What if someone was checking to see if there were any survivors? What if someone was trying to put the fire out? No, sorry - this strike in a civillian population center against an already destroyed vehicle with no ground intel doesn't make any sense at all.
Preventing looting does not seem to be a justifiable risk of civillian lives - especially when you're talking about firing missiles/rockets. That's not responsible. We wouldn't do it here (when people steal tanks or make armored cars we don't call in F-16 strikes in the middle of a city), so how can it be possible to justify it there?
You're more wrong on this one. It IS fairly common at this point for Bradleys or HUMMVEEs to strike or be disabled from roadside munitions. Its common for airstrikes to leave burning vehicles around. It is NOT uncommon anymore.
Just beause it needs repeating.
And do you guys really believe that in a war that has cost billions, the possible looting of a tank (and one that's still burning, no less) is such a big deal? Face it guys, it was a colossal fuck up. It was a reckless act with little regard for human life.
And for those saying "shit happens" or "it's war, what do you expect?", how would you have felt if someone said the same thing regarding the WTC victims? "Hey, what do you expect, the US is a superpower afterall".
videogamer
Banned
Miburou said:
It's just like that scene from "Control Room" where the Al Jazeera reporter gets bombed.
Honestly, standard practice. Vehicles that are dismantled like that are destroyed so A) They can't steal our shit and B) They can't use our shit against us. I know they were just arabs, but if we were fighting the chinese, it is so they can't steal it and reverse engineer it or something of that sort.
And if they were recieving fire, shit, you can't just sit around, maybe someone might've had an RPG too. You never know. Were they supposed to run away?
Someone that close to a burning heap of a MILITARY VEHICLE is not just 'curious'. They plan on taking something or celebrating.
Sucks innocents died, but there wasn't a viable alternative course of action.
And if they were recieving fire, shit, you can't just sit around, maybe someone might've had an RPG too. You never know. Were they supposed to run away?
Someone that close to a burning heap of a MILITARY VEHICLE is not just 'curious'. They plan on taking something or celebrating.
Sucks innocents died, but there wasn't a viable alternative course of action.
^^^ Of course.
It's like putting a pit bull alone in a room with a baby. Sure, let's not blame the pitbull, it's in its nature to do what it would do, but who created that very disasterous situation to begin with?
This is why I'm criticizing the Bush Administration (and all those who allowed him to do what he wanted with the US Army, ie. Dems who didn't oppose it), and not the soldiers involved. He put the pitbull in there, and created the precarious situation to begin with. I never claimed that Bush pulled the trigger and killed these people. He just put them in the crosshairs, that's all.
It's like putting a pit bull alone in a room with a baby. Sure, let's not blame the pitbull, it's in its nature to do what it would do, but who created that very disasterous situation to begin with?
This is why I'm criticizing the Bush Administration (and all those who allowed him to do what he wanted with the US Army, ie. Dems who didn't oppose it), and not the soldiers involved. He put the pitbull in there, and created the precarious situation to begin with. I never claimed that Bush pulled the trigger and killed these people. He just put them in the crosshairs, that's all.
- Status