Well, isn't this deeply disturbing?

[[wcip]Angel]

Apache chopper vs Iraqi soldiers

I found this clip on the website of a Norwegian newspaper just 15 minutes ago. If the tape is authentic, it's quite disturbing. They're firing at wounded Iraqi soldiers.

What do you think? Is this for real? Normally I wouldn't doubt it, but there's been much of this in the news lately, with images of tortured POWs and so forth. Why is all this suddenly appearing all at once? I'm not saying it's all doctored, I just think it's a bit coincidental that all these occurrences are happening right now.

Secondly, are soldiers allowed to kill wounded soldiers? In the article I mentioned a French attourney says it's against some sort of law. (Sorry, don't know the English term for it.)

"roger, he's wounded. Hit him"
"Targeting the truck."
"Target him, go forward and hit him."
*gunfire*
"roger."

edit: I should mention that the short synopsis I wrote was what *I* heard. It was a bit blurry, so I might've been wrong. I'm not trying to paint a different picture here.

edit#2: The phrase is to "paint a picture", not "paint an image". You need the alliteratative aspect of the phrase.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

What the hell were you expecting?

[[wcip]Angel]

What the hell were you expecting?

I've spoken with two friends of mine. One said virtually the same as you. The other one said it was an obvious smear-campaign.

"It's war."

I thought the war was over. I mean, they've already planned the date for when Iraq will be returned to the Iraqis. Shouldn't the war be over before they make that decision? Didn't Colin Powell talk about "remnants" as the last surviving Iraqi soldiers? I am in no way trying to be 'cute' or sarcastic here, but isn't the war over?

Also, in war, aren't there rules? I'm pretty sure there are, or else we wouldn't have a war tribunal or something called "war crimes." Let's assume we have rules for warfare. I'm asking: Would it be completely insane to consider "Do not kill a wounded, incapacitated, soldier" as an acceptable rule?

I don't know the law, and I don't know the army. I just know how I feel, and there's something in me saying that although you need to protect yourself and your unit before anything else, you shouldn't kill a helpless victim, even if that victim is a soldier for the other side. If you can accept this line of argument, then we need to move on and discuss whether or not the soldier represented a direct threat. If you can't accept this line of argument, then we just have different opinions on the matter.

edit: You know what? From reading my post again, I discovered I *was* being a bit 'cute' in the second paragraph.

edit#2: I just heard from one of my friends (the who said the same as you) that this clip is quite old. It's not something that's happened within the last few hours or days. It's been out for months apparently.

Well, doesn't that put a whole new spin on things? I guess it *was* a deliberate smear campaign. I guess they saw the release of the pictures of the tortured Iraqi soldiers to the general public as a suitable opportunity to fool people into thinking they'd gone and done one more heinous act of unprovoked aggression.

There's a lesson to be learned from this, children: Never read the newspapers. Journalists are f*cking c*nts!

[Artega]

Angel,May 4 2004, 09:13 PM] Also, in war, aren't there rules?

The only rule of combat is to be the winner. How you go about doing it isn't important.

The so-called "war crimes" were established by moralists who believed that people following their orders should be punished.

[Mithrandir]

I guess I'm going to have to add yet another *shrug* here. What should those soldiers be expected to do? Let him live, perhaps giving him the oppurtunity to kill more American soldiers at a later date? Go and retrieve him as a prisoner, putting themselves in danger and their own lives at risk?

I guess I'm just completely missing what exactly about this is disturbing. A person died in a battle, and seemingly got a pretty quick and clean death out of it. Don't you think it's kind of silly if in the middle of a battle someone who is wounded, but not dead, suddenly becomes untouchable by the enemy? Your enemy is there to be defeated, not to be given ample chance to consistently strike back at you. Also, many types of wounds/injuries still allow the individual to fight back if pressed to do so - what do you do in those situations? Are they "hands off" because they're wounded?

This is just a smear campaign pure and simple. There is absolutely zero, nada, zilch, zip, etc. chance of this being illegal in any way whatsoever.

[SwissMercenary]

So, when OBL rams a plane into the Pentagon, it's terrorism. When US bunker-busters are dropped in Bagdad, because Saddam "Could have been there", it's a strategic military maneuver.

I may or may not be against what was done in Iraq. But I'm freaking sick and tired of war being glorified, instead of being called it's true name - terrorism. The US may have more justification for doing it, but it's still nothing short of terrorism.

[pakman]

That video has been out for a while, I have seen it before. It was out while the "war" was still going on. Yes, you now know what a .30 cal does to humans. You see that bright smear on the ground in the middle of the picture? However, you cannot tell if the people shot were soldiers or civilans unless the newspaper you downloaded it from says otherwise. However, I don't think that an apache would go around shooting civilians at random. The soldiers were doing their job.

War is hell..the guys in the video got the short end of the stick.

[gekko]

The only rule of combat is to be the winner.  How you go about doing it isn't important.

The so-called "war crimes" were established by moralists who believed that people following their orders should be punished.

I'd say that considering the aim of the 'war on terror,' I'd like to at least hope the means matter. I'd also like to think that 'war crimes' were established by those who understand that even in war, there are lines that we just should not cross.

Remember that the US is not (despite what they may claim) is not fighting to directly protect their citizens. They are fighting as the aggresor, far from their own soil, and the Iraqi's want them out. If they truly wish to be seen as the saviours they claim to be, they'd better be sure to conduct themselves in a humane, civil maner.

gekko

[Artega]

A good soldier never questions his orders. He carries them out to the best of his ability, regardless if he agrees with them.

Of course, it's hard to view things in such a black-and-white way.

The U.S. is indeed the aggressor in this war, and you are correct that they should act in a civil manner, but wouldn't waging war be considered to be something other than civil?

[gekko]

No, not always. It's not that simple (as you put it, it's hard to view things in such a black-and-white way). I would say that a good soldier would question his or her orders if they were immoral. In the real world, of course, this can't work -- if soldier's question orders, people die and the mission is often compromised.

The U.S. is indeed the aggressor in this war, and you are correct that they should act in a civil manner, but wouldn't waging war be considered to be something other than civil?

Again, not quite that simple. Saddam was a ruthless, brutal dictator and liberating the country was, from that perspective, a "good thing" (NB: I personally was and am against the war, as I believe it had everything to do with oil and little to do with Saddam. But that's a whole nother discussion). The obvious example here is WWII, of course. Going to war was neccessary, and though the costs were high, the alternative was much worse. A responsible nation (or army, if you prefer) would take care, however, that the manner in which it 'liberates' an oppressed country is not worse than the opression being lifted.

gekko

[SwissMercenary]

Then why do we trial terrorists differently then the way we trial soldiers? I'm sure not all of them make up their attacks on their own, and hey, they could also say that they are following orders.

[Sir_Die_alot]

NB: I personally was and am against the war, as I believe it had everything to do with oil and little to do with Saddam.

You must be #$%&ting me. Gas prices are at reacord highs even though the oil fields are well within our hands. If this was about oil we would already be stealing it, letting the rest of Iraq rot, not be paying the BILLIONS of dollars for troop support that comes with it, and I would not be paying $2.07 for a gallon of gas at the cheap gas station! You are freaking crazy if "no blood for oil" is STILL ringing this loudly in your ears!

[Fragbait]

Artega,

I decided to take some time to think about this first, and not rush in yesterday evening and reply something imprudent. Today, nothing has changed. I'm shocked to read such lines.

The only rule of combat is to be the winner. How you go about doing it isn't important.

I don't like to do it, but I'm going to adduce WWII. It is (within certain limits) very important 'how you go about doing it'. You know, with your point of view, the US could simply drop, say, 3 nuclear bombs on Iraq and they would 'win'.
This, and your next statement:

The so-called "war crimes" were established by moralists who believed that people following their orders should be punished.

make me very sad. I know that there have been brutal wars all over history, but I was thinking that we were living in the 21st century, not in medieval times. A certain humanity cannot be dispersed from the culturally high developed mankind that we like to regard ourselves as.
While I did serve in the army, and killing enemy soldiers is part of the battle, killing injured soldiers is rather part of the torture.
That's why I deprecate the deeds shown in the video.
The only thing one can say in favor of these guys, IMHO, is that these Iraqis didn't seem to be wounded too much from what can be told of the video. Had they been seriously injured, the wages of protest would have gone way higher.

Ruminative greetings, Fragbait

[gekko]

I never suggested the war was to benefit americans by "stealing" Iraqi oil. I wil, however, suggest that you take a good look at which companies are getting rich from the Iraqi oil fields just happening to fall into american hands (must've been a coincidence) after the invasion to continue the "war on terror."

gekko

[SwissMercenary]

Odd how Cheney also has no ties what-so-ever to the oil industry. And that Iraq was in the plans before 9/11.

[Zarathustra]

My mind wants to wander down far too many avenues on this topic to address them all. *looks up* Especially with issues like war crimes and just why the U.S. is in Iraq on their way through the woodwork. So I'll keep this as a direct response to the initial question.

I saw that video clip months ago; and yes it's real. It's been posted at various sources, though my initial link was from another gaming website.

Q: "Are soldiers allowed to kill wounded soldiers?"

A: If they weren't, the entire idea of weaponry would be out. Most of our current weapons of destruction do just that: destroy. If it were wrong to kill wounded soldiers, an enemy would be declared "hands off" as soon as he took the first bullet.

This just seems to me to be another reminder that war involves death.

[Mithrandir]

So, when OBL rams a plane into the Pentagon, it's terrorism. When US bunker-busters are dropped in Bagdad, because Saddam "Could have been there", it's a strategic military maneuver.

It's all about intentions.

Terrorists intend to kill innocent civilians. Americans dropping buker busters on military targets intend just that: to destroy the military target and keep civilian casualties at an absolute minimum.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Americans dropping buker busters on military targets intend just that: to destroy the military target and keep civilian casualties at an absolute minimum.

While in WW II, massive firebombing of civilian regions was considered a valid military tactic to cause the bombed country to lose the "will to fight". The fact that that never worked didn't deter anyone on either side. Now that policy would be considered "barbaric".

War has always had some rules (or at least has throughout recorded times) and has always had some rule breakers.

Little known facts: the reason the Vatican is guarded by Swiss Guards is that the Swiss were such good mercenaries that the use of them was restricted to the Pope. The crossbow was banned as a weapon of warfare because it was too cruel (read, a commoner with a crossbow could kill a noble in armor -- mustn't have that). All the countries that participated as judges at the Nuremberg Trials had anti-semitic laws in place at one time or another of their history.

And so forth and so on.

In the American military, the need to obey orders is tempered by the individual responsibility placed on each soldier. The circumstances, the order, etc. all enter into the question. An American soldier cannot just take refuge in "I was just following orders". Which is fair enough, since we didn't accept that excuse from Nazis accused of crimes.

The problem with the twenty second clip and the ten second sound bite is that they fail to consider the complete story.

And, yes, paradoxical as it might seem, it is permissible to go after wounded in battle, but not if they are in an ambulance, medivac, or hospital. Many reasons, not the least is the ability of a wounded person to fight on. Look for a list of Medal of Honor recipients, and see how often phrases like "in spite of being wounded twice in the legs and once in the chest, sergeant Unstoppable continued to engage the enemy, allowing his squad to escape with no further injuries." And, while you're at it, take a look at how many of those medals were awarded posthumously.

War is not nice. It is not meant to be nice. Which is why a country should have a good and considerable reason to go to war, and that only when all other steps have been exhausted. Only one ignorant of war and with the lack of imagination to know what evil war causes would advocate its use for trivial reasons, or use a lie to justify it.

--Pete

[jahcs]

I recieved information (currently unverified personally) from one of my military colleagues that at least one of the people involved in that video went to jail. The reason given was that the enemy in the video did not present a threat to the helicoper. I do not wish to propogate hearsay but my personal feeling is that the display of force in this video is a bit over the top. I do not know the full circumstances surrounding the incindent. I have tried to search out some more info on the subject, but nearly all the websites hostnig the video do not say much more than "Apache Chopper vs Iraqi Soldiers"

Against a conventional enemy wounding someone is considered an effective way to win. A wounded soldier requires an average of 3 to 4 of his mates to care for him.

[Cryptic]

A friend in the Army tells me that if you're facing a foe with shaky morale, the best thing to do is to kill, since that drives down the morale of the survivors; if you're facing a devoted and determined enemy, the best thing to do is to wound, because they *will* spend the time and resources necessary to get their wounded back to health.

Pretty depressing business, this War ...