Kalo, on 7 Apr 2010, 22:58, said:
I wasn't going to reply again. But every ones response about how horrible it is and how absolutely inhumane it is ; is just hilarious. You really think this video will stop this? No, not only that but there are more countries then just the United States that do this. Stop thinking the US is a horrible beast that needs to be stopped. Everyone of your countries was quick to jump on the "invade Iraq" bandwagon. It wasn't even funny. And before you go "Oh my Country wouldn't do this, that's just wrong." Simplest things can bring out a "monster" in any man. It's in you too, you ; under the right circumstances. Would do this too. And probably regret it obviously. I wouldn't doubt that the gunner is still probably thinking about this.
First, it's not about the US' Army in specific, they are simply the ones who f'ked up
this time, so naturally we are talking bout them.
Second, on the same line, instead of arguing that the US isn't a horrible beast because there are others like it, perhaps you might want to consider that the
actual conclusion from this is that the US simply
isn't the only horrible beast, no?
Third, many countries (not all, mind you) jump the bandwagon, but it's striking how often it's the US that was first and invites the others.
And last, the debate pretty much is about whether or not these
were the right circumstances to begin with...
Kalo, on 7 Apr 2010, 22:58, said:
They were not wrong for thinking it proper to engage those civilians which they thought were insurgents (Which was obviously bad in retrospect), They are wrong for shooting a Van with children in it. Even if they did not know. BUT I cannot say they "didn't have it coming" because a car like that can easily contain an IED or anything else of malicious nature. If the vehicle had been marked or something with a call sign or the fact that it was an ambulance and the US Military still engaged then I could recognize this as wrong. then I'd say "What monsters!".
Why should they be wrong for shooting at the Van? Yes, a warning of sorts might have been applicable, but to the crew there was no way of knowing that was a civilian target, as with the initial attack too. It comes down to the initial decision of categorizing the group as insurgents, with everything else that follows having been decided at that point already.
Kalo, on 7 Apr 2010, 22:58, said:
Would I do it? Yes. I'd have to live with that. but I'd also have to live with the fact that my inaction could have lead to the deaths of my brothers - Quoting my brother here. And I believe the same thing.
Every random stranger could potentially become a murderer of someone you know or don't know someday. You must be living with a lot of guilt, brotha.
Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 23:28, said:
Quote
They were not wrong for thinking it proper to engage those civilians which they thought were insurgents (Which was obviously bad in retrospect)
Then you and I are likely to never agree here, because they engaged civilians, that to me can never be right. Especially when you're engaging them from miles away, using poor quality video feed and a weapon that blow body parts off.
They identified them as insurgents, full stop. You can argue against that, I grant you that. But how is it wrong to attack after said appraisal
has been made? It's impossible to know every detail in a combat situation and judgment must be made depending on the situation. Otherwise, one could never make any decision because there's always the off chance that the target was just a civilian with a neurosis that compelled him to take up a toy gun and wave it at a soldier. To the crew, some of them were armed (you can see a couple of AK outlines), meaning that to them, the others were probably armed too, which makes it far more likely to identify the cameras as RPGs when the guy leans around the corner (4:07 in the first video).
Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 23:28, said:
Quote
BUT I cannot say they "didn't have it coming" because a car like that can easily contain an IED or anything else of malicious nature. If the vehicle had been marked or something with a call sign or the fact that it was an ambulance and the US Military still engaged then I could recognize this as wrong. then I'd say "What monsters!".
So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?
No one said they were wrong in a judicial or moral sense. But, that doesn't prevent them from being falsely classified as a threat too. Life isn't exactly fair.
W!, on 8 Apr 2010, 2:19, said:
After watching all that and reading some of the replies, all I thought/said was 'meh'.
Then I realised how apathetic and careless my reaction was and am now just a tad confused about how I came to be so desensitised.
Though, I'm sure it has somethign to do with playing GTA4 until late at night, how many people can I roadkill in that crowd? Maybe playing COD over and over amassing the biggest killstreak I could. Battlefield maybe? Gunning in an Apache, the fuzzy little black and white screen. Somoenes running to B flag. Fire a few shots, you see the tracers smash into the floor and throw dirt and debris 10ft in the air. 50 points. Sorted.
Why should you feel differently? You don't know any of them and aren't affected by any of those actions directly.
Jok3r, on 8 Apr 2010, 2:28, said:
Uh... no. The closest thing to what you're talking about are good samaritan laws, which protect those who choose to try to help someone. There are no laws that make not helping someone who's injured criminalized, unless the victim is under the responsibility of the caregiver (IE: Police, Firemen, Lifeguards, EMS personnel). This does not apply to anyone else... There are codes doctors follow about assistance, but again, that's only doctors.
Different situation in different countries. Over here in Germany, one
is legally obliged to help, though that doesn't apply when helping would put oneself at risk.
0
