majorspark wrote:

Footwedge wrote:Just like they did whenever Pat Tillman was murdered for his outspoken negative opinions regarding Iraq.

I bet it was a plot hatched by the dreaded neocons. What good does it do to throw out accusations like this without proof? There is no hard evidence to support this conspiracy theory.

I would suggest you google Pat's mother and read up on the story. Tillman quit pro ball to join in the fight against those that were responsible for 9-11.

As he wanted, Tillman was deployed in Afghanistan.

After 9 months or so, Bush ordered the vast majority of troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Pat's mother has spoken about this many times.

Pat openly criticized his commander in chief for doing this. Pat was shot by "friendly fire"....which was covered up for a period of time.

As a sidebar Spark...I don't understand how you or others can mentally compartmentalize the differences in valuing life....or devaluing it.

You are very much against abortion and the right to life. Are abortions also "mistakes" in your view?

Or is there a different value for innocent lives because they happen to live in a different country?

Glory Days wrote: when did Pat Tillman speak out against Iraq? must have missed that headline.

Look it up. Cover ups by the military are a lot more common than you think. If it weren't for Reuters wanting to know how their employees were killed, this video would never have show it's ugly face.

Footwedge wrote:

WebFire wrote:

You don't know any of this. How do you know the van was transportation to a hospital? How do you know the men were unarmed? How do you know the van didn't have armed occupants?

You dont.

Apparently you didn't have the stomach to watch the video. The vehicle was a fuggin bus/van...not an armored vehicle.

So my assumption that this vehicle would have been headed to the hospital is wrong?

Where else do vehicles go after scraping off the ground a mortally wounded individual? The amusement park?

Hahahaha! Are you serious? Armored vehicles?

And if you think this video is graphic, YOU don't have the stomach for much.

WebFire wrote:

Hahahaha! Are you serious? Armored vehicles?

And if you think this video is graphic, YOU don't have the stomach for much.

Just like the people that carried out the assassinations in the video, you apparently think the whole thing is funny.

But you're right about me not being able to stomach much. I'm not a big fan of killing non combatants.

Non-Combatants don't carry RPGs!

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: when did Pat Tillman speak out against Iraq? must have missed that headline.

Look it up. Cover ups by the military are a lot more common than you think. If it weren't for Reuters wanting to know how their employees were killed, this video would never have show it's ugly face.

not how the politics forum works.

Footwedge wrote: Just like the people that carried out the assassinations in the video, you apparently think the whole thing is funny.

But you're right about me not being able to stomach much. I'm not a big fan of killing non combatants.

why were non combatants hanging out with insurgents? how many allied news reporters walked around with the nazis in WWII? they were there at their own risk.

Footwedge wrote:
Look it up.

I warned you once before, this is not a "look for it yourself" forum.

This is your final warning.

Footwedge wrote: I would suggest you google Pat's mother and read up on the story. Tillman quit pro ball to join in the fight against those that were responsible for 9-11.

As he wanted, Tillman was deployed in Afghanistan.

After 9 months or so, Bush ordered the vast majority of troops out of Afghanistan and into Iraq. Pat's mother has spoken about this many times.

Pat openly criticized his commander in chief for doing this. Pat was shot by "friendly fire"....which was covered up for a period of time.

I have read up on this. I am quite sure the military tried to cover up the fact that it was a friendly fire incident. But there is no hard evidence to support that his death was anything other than a tragic accident. There definitely is no hard evidence whatsoever that Tillman was murdered for political reasons.

Footwedge wrote: As a sidebar Spark...I don't understand how you or others can mentally compartmentalize the differences in valuing life....or devaluing it.

You are very much against abortion and the right to life. Are abortions also "mistakes" in your view?

Or is there a different value for innocent lives because they happen to live in a different country?

I don't like killing of any kind. Especially the killing of innocent life. When a life is taken we humans judge what killing is justified (self defense/war/capital punishment) and what killing is unjustified (murder). We also hold those acting irresponsibly accountable for taking the life of another human unintentionally. This is why we also draw a line between civilian and martial law. Things are done under martial law that would be considered unacceptable under civilian law, not saying murder does not occur in war, but the law is different. This is why I have always advocated the declaration of a formal state of war, it brings to the nation the gravity of the decision being made. When the dogs of war are unleashed it is best their is no ambiguity.

As for the video I found no joy in watching it. Judging the actions of the the gunship crew in the video in the context of a war zone is difficult. They are called on by their government to become killers of the enemy. The enemy in Iraq did not wear uniforms or drive marked vehicles. They dressed as civilians and used civilian vehicles in their fight against us. This makes it difficult for individual soldiers to discern the enemy and make correct decisions in the the midst of the war zone.

In the video I did not find the actions of the gunship crew to rise to the level of murder. They definitely had a certain callous attitude to the ending of human lives. If I was their CO I would have had a talk with them about it. It is hard for those watching the video to understand their attitudes. When a soldier witnesses death day in an day out, sometimes being its instrument, a callous attitude can develop to protect them from the emotional turmoil killing brings on a man. Such is war. War is quite terrible.

The one thing I did find troubling in the video was the targeting of the wounded (not saying that the killing of wounded in some cases in not justified in war). In this instance the killing appeared to not be necessary as there was not any friendly troops on the ground in direct danger. Wounded enemy can serve a greater strategic purpose in that they take effort from the enemy to remove them from the field of battle and treat their wounds. If I were giving orders in that particular situation I likely would have allowed the van to pick up and remove the wounded suspected enemy. I saw no reason to engage at that point even if I feared the van contained combatants. I would have judged that if the van had cared to stop to pick up a wounded individual, that they would proceed to some type of rudimentary care facility, thus temporarily removing any potential combatants in the van from the direct field of battle. This is only my assessment of seeing a few minutes of video.

I think much of the attitudes you see from many on this thread is because they detest this video being used as propaganda for those opposed to the war in Iraq, in an attempt to paint all soldiers as callous killers.

As for any sanctioning by the government of the taking of a human life in any context (abortion/war/capital punishment), it should only be allowed through the legislative process as defined by the constitution. Not nine people in black robes and not one man in the oval office.

majorspark wrote: When a soldier witnesses death day in an day out, sometimes being its instrument, a callous attitude can develop to protect them from the emotional turmoil killing brings on a man. Such is war. War is quite terrible.

basically what happens, especially when the people you are trying to kill would not hesitate to behead you if they had the opportunity. i can sit and watch terrorists and insurgents get lit up by 30mm and hellfires all day.

The one thing I did find troubling in the video was the targeting of the wounded (not saying that the killing of wounded in some cases in not justified in war). In this instance the killing appeared to not be necessary as there was not any friendly troops on the ground in direct danger. Wounded enemy can serve a greater strategic purpose in that they take effort from the enemy to remove them from the field of battle and treat their wounds. If I were giving orders in that particular situation I likely would have allowed the van to pick up and remove the wounded suspected enemy. I saw no reason to engage at that point even if I feared the van contained combatants. I would have judged that if the van had cared to stop to pick up a wounded individual, that they would proceed to some type of rudimentary care facility, thus temporarily removing any potential combatants in the van from the direct field of battle. This is only my assessment of seeing a few minutes of video.

if this was the only opportunity to kill those insurgents i have no issue with the helicopters continuing to fire. if there were troops working in conjunction with the air unit that could be there in a minute or so to capture and treat the wounded before they were taken away by their insurgent buddies, that is a different story. i came across several insurgents who were missing legs and were shot multiple times, being wounded is not going to stop them from fighting again.

this is on the lower end of the stuff that goes on....thats why its war and people dont like it. if you are outraged by this you dont have a clue. it goes both ways these guys drag bodies thru the streets and beat them with sticks....behead people

If a country started blowing up shit all over the US, killing lots of civilians because they said our government was oppressing the people I imagine many of us would do the same thing.

It's a hypothetical and our military would be much more apt to defend us but I think it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

"Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded, do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. So, the wound part of that I find disturbing, being that you clearly have people down, you have people on the way there. Speaking as an intelligence officer, my intent is to capture people, to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not really doing that, you're not really doing precise combat."

Salon writer Glenn Greenwald, who also appeared on MSNBC to discuss the leaked video, later wrote that the footage " is truly gruesome and difficult even for the most hardened person to watch, but it should be viewed by everyone with responsibility for what the U.S. has done in Iraq and Afghanistan (i.e., every American citizen)."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0405/ret-intel-officer-us-shooting-violated-rules/

I Wear Pants wrote: If a country started blowing up shit all over the US, killing lots of civilians because they said our government was oppressing the people I imagine many of us would do the same thing.

You bet your ass we would.

It's a hypothetical and our military would be much more apt to defend us but I think it's an interesting thought nonetheless.

Nooooooo.......like Cheney and Wolfowicz said..."they will shower us with flowers and candy".

majorspark wrote: I have read up on this. I am quite sure the military tried to cover up the fact that it was a friendly fire incident. But there is no hard evidence to support that his death was anything other than a tragic accident. There definitely is no hard evidence whatsoever that Tillman was murdered for political reasons.

What is hard evidence is that he was shot in the head 3 times from 30 feet. 30 feet is half way to a pitcher's mound.

I have no idea how someone could misidentify Tillman from a mere 30 feet...not once...not twice...but 3 times.

It was initially covered up by the entire military chain of command.

Pat's mom believes it was murder...and so do I. I have read the quotes from her, and I have heard here speak over the net on the subject. I will dig a little, and then I will link them.

Glory Days wrote: basically what happens, especially when the people you are trying to kill would not hesitate to behead you if they had the opportunity. i can sit and watch terrorists and insurgents get lit up by 30mm and hellfires all day.

I understand. That is my point. It is not natural for humans to enjoy watching humans being lit up by 30mm and hellfires. The circumstances in war and human depravity will callous those natural emotions. Just speaking reality in war. It is what it is.

Glory Days wrote: if this was the only opportunity to kill those insurgents i have no issue with the helicopters continuing to fire. if there were troops working in conjunction with the air unit that could be there in a minute or so to capture and treat the wounded before they were taken away by their insurgent buddies, that is a different story. i came across several insurgents who were missing legs and were shot multiple times, being wounded is not going to stop them from fighting again.

As I said there are certain circumstances that the killing of the wounded is justified in the context of war. I said I made my judgment on a few minutes of video.

If I was on the ground in that situation with the intelligence available to me at that moment, I can't say for sure I would not have given the order to engage. I realize that in the context of war split second decisions matter. Removing a wounded combatant from the field of battle takes more than one man (as the video demonstrated). It takes several individuals and a means of transportation. Treating the wounded can tie the hands of your enemy. That is of course they care about their wounded.

Having to decide whether a wounded individual is a danger, moral imperative, or an advantage is one of the ugliness's of war. These decisions must be made quickly in the field of battle. Sometimes by individual soldiers. Sometimes by CO's. Incorrect decisions will be made in war. As long as they are not made with malice its hard to find any fault in them. Such is war.

Footwedge wrote: What is hard evidence is that he was shot in the head 3 times from 30 feet. 30 feet is half way to a pitcher's mound.

How does this provide hard evidence of murder in a war zone? Are you saying it is impossible for a soldier to put 3 rounds in in the head of what he may believe is the enemy possibly surprising him by popping out of the brush suddenly at 30'? I don't know the exact circumstances as to why he was fired on and neither do you. I doubt it was as clear as a pitchers mound.

Footwedge wrote:
I have no idea how someone could misidentify Tillman from a mere 30 feet...not once...not twice...but 3 times.

That is understandable for those who have not walked through the brush in a strange countryside with an ever present fear that death lurks all around them. As for the three rounds, you imply there was thought between them. No way there was. One round in the head will drop a man instantly. The rounds were no doubt fired simultaneously. Either in a three round burst or clicked off with three quick pulls of the trigger. Foot if you feared an intruder was in your home and he rounded the corner would you rely on just one round to assure your personal safety?

Footwedge wrote:
It was initially covered up by the entire military chain of command.

Likely the military sought to cover up the embarrassing death of their potential hero to friendly fire. Their is no hard evidence to suggest otherwise.

Footwedge wrote:
Pat's mom believes it was murder...and so do I. I have read the quotes from her, and I have heard here speak over the net on the subject. I will dig a little, and then I will link them.

Quotes from his mother would not hold water in a court of law. Murders happen in civilian life as well as the military. The fog of war can provide an individual with the opportunity to cover his tracks. Their is still no hard evidence this is the case, although I would not be surprised if one could easily get away with murder in the fog of war. Tillman's killing is not outside of that possibility, there is just no hard evidence to support that claim

You have suggested that Tillman's killing was political in nature to shut him up. An outrageous claim without any concrete evidence. How far up the totem pole does this one go? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?

Wow after reading all of this,I am glad footwedge is not running our military.

I truly believe there are many people out there that absolutely hate war and think any and all of it is wrong, which is fine. But think they are being naive, and maybe intentionally, and giving credibility to those whose only intent is to conjure up anti-American stories. Essentially their concern for life, a good-natured view as anyone's standard, becomes a vehicle to exacerbate the negative feelings towards America.

Myself, I would not have invaded Iraq had I been the decider. I think a lot of the guys in power truly fucked up big time. But let's be honest folks, we're way passed that point. The ousting of Saddam was like seven years ago, the objective is nation building (which Bush ran in 2000 opposing fervidly, opposite of Gore, which is why I don't blame him so much) and creating a power opposite of Iran--that's the strategic goal in my opinion.

footwedge this is war, I suggest you man up soon. I think you've got to understand the military brass have done anything and everything to stop another My Lai. They all know full well how damaging a My Lai or Abu Ghraib can be to the ultimate goal. I have 100% confidence in saying that there is absolutely zero intentional unnecessary killing being ordered. The days of Dresden bombing are long gone, and you'd be a fool to say that there isn't a major effort to minimize civilian casualties present.

I am truly happy you didn't get to Vietnam, you wouldn't be around today. You'd have seen some wounded Vietnamese soldier and not finished him off and he'd have killed you as a favor. But to be honest though, it's a terrible comparison as the Vietnamese probably wouldn't have pulled something like that--but I don't know I didn't serve in Vietnam my dad did. The truest comparison with a jihadist would be the Japanese in Word War II. If I was serving in the Pacific alongside my grandfather, I wouldn't have saved any of them. They don't want to be saved, they want to kill you no matter what. A wounded Japanese soldier would pull a grenade on you both, so would a jihadist. If you want to go about with the "oh no he's wounded" with your life while at war, that's fine go ahead. You'll die sooner or later.

Personally I didn't see much wrong in that video. Colateral damage is probably the saddest part of war, it truly is. But it happens in every war unfortunately and you should probably quit being such a pansy about it, as you're furthering the cause of the myriad enemies of the United States.

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:Personally I didn't see much wrong in that video. Colateral damage is probably the saddest part of war, it truly is. But it happens in every war unfortunately and you should probably quit being such a pansy about it, as you're furthering the cause of the myriad enemies of the United States.

+1

Well said.

I don't particularly think there was malice towards civilians or wounded in this video. They made what they thought to be the right decision and maybe they made the wrong one but it's hard to tell in the moment.

But, I find it disturbing that some of you seem to think that the United States can or does do no wrong militarily. Hint: We do shady stuff all the time.

believer wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:Personally I didn't see much wrong in that video. Colateral damage is probably the saddest part of war, it truly is. But it happens in every war unfortunately and you should probably quit being such a pansy about it, as you're furthering the cause of the myriad enemies of the United States.

+1

Well said.

How so? I mean, i understand the rest of your post, but how does his disgust at what happened further the cause of enemies of the US? You sound like Isidore from the old politics board.

Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

cbus4life wrote: You sound like Isidore from the old politics board.
Bin Laden thanks you for your support.

Isi was ALWAYS ready for a good fight!

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Wow after reading all of this,I am glad footwedge is not running our military.

I'm happy that I'm not running the military too.

I truly believe there are many people out there that absolutely hate war and think any and all of it is wrong, which is fine. But think they are being naive, and maybe intentionally, and giving credibility to those whose only intent is to conjure up anti-American stories. Essentially their concern for life, a good-natured view as anyone's standard, becomes a vehicle to exacerbate the negative feelings towards America.

This story was not "conjured up" by anyone. And the Tokyo Rose argument is really stale. It really is. Giving carte blanche approval to anything the military does, even if it borders on war criminality, shows how perverse our collective way of thinking has become.

Today, we torture people. Even though we were the original signatories to the Geneva Conventions. But those of us Americans that denounce torture are guilty of "aiding and abetting" the enemy. What a perverse and sadistic lot we have become.

Myself, I would not have invaded Iraq had I been the decider. I think a lot of the guys in power truly fucked up big time. But let's be honest folks, we're way passed that point. The ousting of Saddam was like seven years ago, the objective is nation building (which Bush ran in 2000 opposing fervidly, opposite of Gore, which is why I don't blame him so much) and creating a power opposite of Iran--that's the strategic goal in my opinion.

This thread has nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. But since you voiced your opinion, I would counter and say that invading Iraq disrupted the balance of power over there...not enhanced a balance. Most people would agree with my assessment.

footwedge this is war, I suggest you man up soon. I think you've got to understand the military brass have done anything and everything to stop another My Lai. They all know full well how damaging a My Lai or Abu Ghraib can be to the ultimate goal.

I get what you're saying....because "this is war"...abiding by the war rules are not relevant...that anything goes.

I have 100% confidence in saying that there is absolutely zero intentional unnecessary killing being ordered.

Aapparaently you didn't watch the video.

The days of Dresden bombing are long gone, and you'd be a fool to say that there isn't a major effort to minimize civilian casualties present.

That is your opinion. The video suggests otherwise.

I am truly happy you didn't get to Vietnam, you wouldn't be around today. You'd have seen some wounded Vietnamese soldier and not finished him off and he'd have killed you as a favor. But to be honest though, it's a terrible comparison as the Vietnamese probably wouldn't have pulled something like that--but I don't know I didn't serve in Vietnam my dad did. The truest comparison with a jihadist would be the Japanese in Word War II. If I was serving in the Pacific alongside my grandfather, I wouldn't have saved any of them. They don't want to be saved, they want to kill you no matter what. A wounded Japanese soldier would pull a grenade on you both, so would a jihadist. If you want to go about with the "oh no he's wounded" with your life while at war, that's fine go ahead. You'll die sooner or later.

Apparently you didn't read the quote I posted above whereby a top military official stated that it was wrong in opening up the second barrage of fire.

Here is the actual quote from above.....

"Now, most importantly, when you see that van show up to take away the wounded, do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. So, the wound part of that I find disturbing, being that you clearly have people down, you have people on the way there. Speaking as an intelligence officer, my intent is to capture people, to recover them. That is the idea here. If you're not really doing that, you're not really doing precise combat."

Personally I didn't see much wrong in that video.

If you did watch the video, and that's your take on it, then I wouldn't want people that think like you back in our main stream society without undergoing some evaluations.

Colateral damage is probably the saddest part of war, it truly is. But it happens in every war unfortunately and you should probably quit being such a pansy about it, as you're furthering the cause of the myriad enemies of the United States.

Yes indeed. I am a pansy for being digusted by the borderline criminal activities of the state. And of course you close with the oh so typical "Tokyo Rose" argument.

Since 2003, there are somewhere between 150.000 and 1,000,000 dead Iraqis depending on which source you want to believe.

Maybe you would have a little different opinion on what collateral damage is had you had not won the demographic lottery, and instead of being born here, you and your family were born in Mesopotamia.

believer wrote:

sjmvsfscs08 wrote:Personally I didn't see much wrong in that video. Colateral damage is probably the saddest part of war, it truly is. But it happens in every war unfortunately and you should probably quit being such a pansy about it, as you're furthering the cause of the myriad enemies of the United States.

+1

Well said.

Yes...the "embolden the enemy" argument. So fucking overused and incredibly flawed.

-2.

majorspark wrote:

Likely the military sought to cover up the embarrassing death of their potential hero to friendly fire. Their is no hard evidence to suggest otherwise.

Why is it OK to cover up this incident?

Quotes from his mother would not hold water in a court of law. Murders happen in civilian life as well as the military. The fog of war can provide an individual with the opportunity to cover his tracks. Their is still no hard evidence this is the case, although I would not be surprised if one could easily get away with murder in the fog of war. Tillman's killing is not outside of that possibility, there is just no hard evidence to support that claim.

There is no hard evidence that this wasn't a deliberate act of murder either. Tillman's mother knew how her son felt regarding the change in course in afghanistan. Therec was clearly a motive for someone to take out Tillman. sAs I stated above, Pat's mom believed he was murdered. I respect her opinion, and whereby the military can cover all tracks, there is no way of proving anything.

You have suggested that Tillman's killing was political in nature to shut him up. An outrageous claim without any concrete evidence. How far up the totem pole does this one go? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?

If you think it's an outrageous claim, then take it up with Mrs. Tillman. Her son quit professional football, in order to get the bastards that orchestrated 9-11. He did not enlist to fight Saddam Hussein. His mother has publicly stated that her son Pat did not like Bush's switching of gears and focusing instead on Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11.

The Pentagon has already admitted that a cover up occurred regarding the death of Pat Tillman. The Pentagon has admitted horrible systemic problems as it relates to Abu Ghraib. It has come to light that the US tortured POW's at Gitmo.

Yet, you want to tell me that somehow the opinion of Mrs. Tillman that her son was murdered is "outrageous"?

Well I think you completely ignore the mindset of a soldier fighting in a war. You're being ridiculously naive.

You know what's more fucking overused and incredibly flawed than my "emboldening the enemy" argument? The "we were the original signatories to the Geneva Conventions" is completely fucking lame and useless in this war. Not to mention, you're wrong; the first Geneva Treaty was signed in 1864, we didn't ratify it until the 1880s.

The most civilized countries on the planet signed the first Geneva Treaty, because it was a gentlemen's war so to speak and they basically treated it as game. Back then war was little more than bringing players to a field and lining up and shooting each other. So they made rules for the game. Places where wounded were being helped were out of bounds, the Red Cross symbol, and anyone wearing it, was essentially a referee and couldn't be shot as he was just taking care of the wounded, and don't shoot the civilians as they're just there to watch. That was basically it. Don't kill anyone that doesn't need to die because the war is over trivial objectives anyway.

It worked well in European wars, in World War I/Word War II when the Germans knew they were defeated in a particular battle they laid down their arms and surrendered at the first opportunity. To them the game was up, and hopefully they could get back to their fields by spring. That was their mindset. It worked against Iraq too as many of them were just in it for a paycheck.

Today, things don't work that way. Once again, the jihadist's goal is very similar to the Japanese in World War II: they will kill as many of us as possible, and surrender is not an option. They do not "play by the rules," so why should we so limit ourselves? IEDs, guerrilla warfare, suicide bombing, etc have completely shattered the level playing field they hoped to create with the conventions.

I'm not in any way shape or form advocating shooting civilians for shits and giggles, and I'm not the biggest fan of torture. I'm simply saying you are not being cognizant of the fact that these jihadists are just as willing to kill themselves and American soldiers whether they are wounded or not. To them the game is not up until they're dead. And I am PERFECTLY FINE in forcing them to meet Allah as soon as possible.

You wouldn't survive a week on a battlefield. You need to read some Machiavelli not attempt to guilt people with the "oh you won the demographic lottery." Because it's false, I simply decided not to be a jihadists, and that's why I'm not the one being blown to bits over in the sandbox.