Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok - Can't see another thread on this Video and did a search which yielded no results. Sorry if it has been posted already.


www.collateralmurder.com - *Disclaimer - this video shows real war footage and death and is disturbing.


This raises a number of issues; Wikileaks endangering US military by revealing tactics, the current rules of engagement in a combat zone; the cover-ups of US military and dishonesty in reporting incidents of this nature.


My question is; do you think it is normal for soldiers at war to be so comfortable with the actions they committ or is this video an extreme example of almost gleeful slaughter.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/11064-collateral-murder/
Share on other sites

It it very disturbing and on the face of it wanton. But then we really have no idea about context at all do we, and without that it's nigh on impossible to be able to come up with any judgement on what the specifics of this particular situation (and there clearly are armed men there).


What helicopters are doing raining large calibre fire into a densely populated urban area and civilian vehicles in Iraq in the first place is another matter, though the US fliers have a certain reputation for trigger happiness.


As the Germans in Normandy used to say

"When the RAF fly over we duck, when the Luftwaffe fly over nobody ducks, when the USAF fly over everybody ducks"

I've just read Nathaniel Fick's (he's the thoughtful platoon leader portrayed in Generation Kill) Autobiography of his time in the marines and it makes for very interesting reading.

He pretty much says what Huguenot just has that in war there are only bad decisions and worse decisions. His main motivation was to try and get everyone out alive and try to minimise the harm caused, but I suspect that he's something of a minority that way, especially in the marines which values aggressivenenss. Probably why he quit the military soon after.

Anyway, it's borrowable if anyone's interested.

Read The Naked and the Dead, it explores the US war pysche pretty well and still pertinent today I reckon. Conceptually, and moving morality aside, you could argue that if the ultimate objective of war is to defeat the enemy then this type of approach is the right one and that hearts and minds and dealing with the aftermath is the job of politicians and civilians.

I have indeed read Mailer's masterpiece.


My main issue with the situation filmed is it isnt really war is it.

It's occupation.


So you invade and occupy a country, install a client government, but do little to resolve the centrifugal forces unleashed by your actions. This incident it seems to me is more like a wermacht gunning down of russian men because they are either partisans, potentially partisans or aiding and abetting partisans and are thus the enemy, regardless of the fact they'd much rather not be the enemy but you had to go and invade didnt you (instant godwin).


Plus, most people wandering around neighbourhoods toting guns in the fashion of some of those shot were probably just neighbourhod protection forces, defending their immediate community from bandits, criminal gangs and sectarian death squads. Seems doubly harsh to gun them down for doing their best to get through an awful set of circumstances you've created and then go 'down another terrorist'.


But like I say, I don't know the ins and outs of that specific act.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think going to war will completely change your

> perception of right and wrong. That's why armies

> are so hot on discipline.

>

> I think the US armed forces confuse ill-discipline

> with motivation.


I personally am undecided whether the actions are wrong or right. As MP says it is clear that some men, not the jorno's from reuters, are armed which means that engagement was likely.


What freaks me out is how calm and collected they are. Which I guess is the training or repetition of similar situations. Maybe if it was the first time they had ever engaged then it would be a different story.

Has anyone considered the impact of video games on this generation of military front line personnel? the pilot and crew were monitoring the scene and "enemy" via screens, head up displays and IR imaging. This both depersonalises the enemy and makes the whole look like a video game or battlefield simulation exercise.


The calmness and pride apparently displayed may have owed something to the fact that they didn't really recognise the difference between reality and simulation.

I found that whole episode completely disturbing and almost sickening.


Clearly these individuals were oblivious to the presence of the Apaches, there were more than one firing on the film.


Therefore there was not an imminent threat to those in the air..


Ground elements were 8 minutes away, which suggests a mile maybe more from the event site, so there was not immediate danger to them either.


In that situation as the OC, I would not have given permission for the helicopters to open fire in the first place.


I would have directed ground elements to the scene to determine the intent of the people located there.


When the van arrived on the scene, it was clearly not collecting weapons, it's entire focus was on the one casualty still moving.


I cannot rationalise the order to fire on it...


It would have been easy to bring it to a halt at a mobile VCP and check those in the vehicle.


All in all a shocking and unnecessary waste of human life.

Re: Marmora Man's question. Isn't it a symptom of the increased mechanisation of warfare throughout the last century rather than the last generation. There's plenty of similar examples from previous generations wars.


I would also be interested to know if you or Santerme have come across S.L.A. Marshall. Was he given much credence in military circles? If so would that have affected modern US military training?

I have read S L A Marshall book Men Against Fire and it contains some interesting points....however, I think we have to take with a pinch of salt most of his findings as he was liberal with the truth about his experiences.


I know he used to address the US War College, but his 'experiences' are somewhat outdated now.


In terms of war becoming a video game, there are aspects which have devolved to that experience for the operators..RAF officers fly drones over AFG from the air conditioned luxury of a US airbase in the Nevada desert...to them, the bad guys are extremely remote.


I can see the disconnect happening there.


I am guessing one of your examples from previous conflicts could allude to RAF bomber crews carpet bombing German cities...and to an extent their targets were even more remote....no satellite imagery, or wounded crawling away on a cathode ray screen...


But factor in also, they had a one in two chance of survival.


Today's video warriors most dangerous mission is driving into work.

I have watched it three or four times now. It seems to me that they are going through the motions of appeasing the rules of engagement.


At one point the guys says "I think that's a weapon" to enable him to engage but his colleague says that it isn't.


They are so keen to engage "Let us fire, let us fire" which i could understand if they were in any kind of immediate dangers but clearly they aren't.

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...