'Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians'

So after reading the wired.com link it is clear from someone who was there that the attack was justified.

"Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?
McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."




As an addition to your post above. Housholds are allowed to keep 1, AK47 and 50 rounds for the AK. Thats it. No pistols, no PKM's, no RPK's, NO RPG's. RPG's have never been allowed in the hands of anyone but the military.
 
One policy that we had that was fairly similar or even more extreme than this was that if a roadside bomb went off then we were supposed to shoot anyone standing in that area. So it pretty much got to the point that the philosophy was to out-terrorize the terrorists. We were told that we needed to make the local population more afraid of us, so that maybe if they see someone trying to plant a bomb they’ll try and stop them rather than having to face whatever we might do afterwards.



Cheap SEO
 
Well, this is called terrorism.
And what if the terrorists decided to do the same? To force the population to attack the coalition forces or face the consequences of their "infidelity"?

This is criminal.
 
Well, this is called terrorism.
And what if the terrorists decided to do the same? To force the population to attack the coalition forces or face the consequences of their "infidelity"?

This is criminal.

Who told you they don´t?
Seriously mate, you need to not reply to these posts as you have no clue whatsoever about what an engagement is like..

As for the topicstarter, sure missengagements will happen.
Regretable, sure but engaging targets is what war is all about.
The only reason AQ isn´t engaging american civilians is that they can´t reach them...For now.

This is far from the worst one I have heard about.
Far from the strangest, and definatly far from the last..

Welcome to the reality of warfare..

//KJ.
 
KJ, well, if they do, it's called terrorism. And they are terrorists.

And it's not the military who have the power. They have the power we allow them to have.

We dont live in feudal times anymore... Wrong or right, it's the citizens who rule the world.
We trusted the military many times, and we were disappointed many times. Now they have to explain their reasons... Even when they are right.

And if we have to lose the war because of this, then so be it. Because if we stop questioning the actions of the military, then democracy has failed completely. We wont live under a military dictatorship.

Our values have a price. It's not cheap.

When we let criminals enjoy human rights, we dont do this to protect criminals because we love them, but because someone might use this power to abuse innocent people.
This position have a price, some criminals might get away with their crimes, people will die trying to respect the rights of a few criminals... And we decided to do this anyway, because it was worth it.
 
KJ, well, if they do, it's called terrorism. And they are terrorists.

And it's not the military who have the power. They have the power we allow them to have.

We dont live in feudal times anymore... Wrong or right, it's the citizens who rule the world.
We trusted the military many times, and we were disappointed many times. Now they have to explain their reasons... Even when they are right.

And if we have to lose the war because of this, then so be it. Because if we stop questioning the actions of the military, then democracy has failed completely. We wont live under a military dictatorship.

Our values have a price. It's not cheap.

When we let criminals enjoy human rights, we dont do this to protect criminals because we love them, but because someone might use this power to abuse innocent people.
This position have a price, some criminals might get away with their crimes, people will die trying to respect the rights of a few criminals... And we decided to do this anyway, because it was worth it.

You sent soldiers to fight a war you are ok with loosing because you don´t want to kill people?

You did.
You voted for the politicians who sent your troops out to wage war.
And even if you personally did not, you love democracy soo much so you will have had to accept that the majority did.
Do you take responsibility?

If you are ok with loosing the war, why did you send them in the first place?

Comparing AQ with criminals is all fine and dandy, but very few criminals have that amount of blood on their hands.
I am not only speaking of american blood, but afghani, spanish, indonesian, australian and so on and forth..
You reckon no one should stop it because someone might die?
You need to grow up, this is the world you live in.

I hope you have a very good day..

//KJ.
 
KJ, it's not that easy.
I dont ask anyone to fight a war without killing anyone... But I'm against these aggressive tactics in fighting terrorism. They are not adapted, they were made for the cold war... But in a war against terrorism it takes accuracy, intelligence etc rather than fire power.

I just dont believe you when you say that you cant fight a war without using these tactics. I dont call you a liar. It's just that it feels like a general fighting the last war...

And the thing you dont understand, is that you cant always win wars. Because when you want to win the war even when you have to lose... Then, you try to win at all costs... And it's in this context that you sell your soul to the devil.

Sometimes, you have to lose the war. We sent soldiers to fight in a war, not to win it.

War against terrorism is like war against crime, it's an endless process.

When you send soldiers trained to fight other soldiers in a hostages situation, civilians get killed...
But send the police... I mean like SWAT teams, who are trained and using the right tactics for these situations, and they will get the job done with minimum collateral damage...

And for the politicians, there will be others election after these mandates, and my voice will count again... So yes, I can change my mind in midway...
 
KJ, it's not that easy.
I dont ask anyone to fight a war without killing anyone... But I'm against these aggressive tactics in fighting terrorism. They are not adapted, they were made for the cold war... But in a war against terrorism it takes accuracy, intelligence etc rather than fire power.

I just dont believe you when you say that you cant fight a war without using these tactics. I dont call you a liar. It's just that it feels like a general fighting the last war...

And the thing you dont understand, is that you cant always win wars. Because when you want to win the war even when you have to lose... Then, you try to win at all costs... And it's in this context that you sell your soul to the devil.

Sometimes, you have to lose the war. We sent soldiers to fight in a war, not to win it.

War against terrorism is like war against crime, it's an endless process.

When you send soldiers trained to fight other soldiers in a hostages situation, civilians get killed...
But send the police... I mean like SWAT teams, who are trained and using the right tactics for these situations, and they will get the job done with minimum collateral damage...

And for the politicians, there will be others election after these mandates, and my voice will count again... So yes, I can change my mind in midway...


How the h-ll would you know what tactics are used, who made them and what they are intended to do??
You have NO clue whatsoever, nor will you ever get a clue before you pick up a weapon and stand a post.
You are a windbag, and a dangerous one at that.

You really think my mates who have died in The Stan died for something you don´t want to see through?
They died so you can change you mind?

Newsflash big boy.
IF YOU decide to send troops to war you better be damned sure it is the right thing to do, and that you want them to win that war.
If not you are a criminal, and as you want to draw parallels between AQ and criminals, please continue to do that..

Seriously, please don´t spout that **** to a veteran of any nation or unit.
They will end you.

Have a very good day.
//KJ.
 
KJ, easy man. We dont have to hate each others if our ideas arent compatible.

And let's not get emotional. I have nothing against emotions, but if they have to overwhelm the discussion and and deny us from looking for arguments, then we will be in trouble.

Men died in the war against terrorism. Discussing how the things happened and why these things happened is not an insult to the dead.

And many politicians use this "guilt" to push us to shut up. Let's avoid that kind of things...

You are right, I dont know the details about the tactics used... But I know that we are fighting terrorism with soldiers. Soldiers trained in war, in war against others soldiers...

And I think that using soldiers to fight an endless war like the war against terrorism is a big mistake.
In this video, we see an Apache helicopter, with its big guns, opening fire on personnel with light weapons... Oh, and in an habitation area.

And no... You send troops to fight a war, when you know it's necessary... You want them to win the war. But that's it... Someone have to lose the war. And it can be you.

The good people cant always win.

And the parralel between AQ and common crime is clear. Terrorism wont die soon. It's like a cancer, it will evolve, it will have different symptoms, but it's here to stay. Just like crime.

And by the way, I have more hate for a rapist or a pedophile than a suicide bomber... But it's me. Very personnal opinion.
 
The US military spends more money on weapons systems that are more precise and cause less collateral damage than any other nation in the world. US soldiers spend weeks training in COIN operations before they deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan to ensure that accidents DO NOT happen and so that the public is NOT alienated. Commanders and soldiers on the ground spend months building a rapport with the communities they protect and leaders within that community. We regularly set up clinics, build schools, construct playing fields, and give food to the locals in the areas we operate in. The Aggressive tactics that have been mentioned are a fallacy. Are we aggressive when we are engaged?Asolutely! DOinnocent people sometimes get killed, yes they do. BUT, far more innocents have died at the hands of suicide bombers, or insurgents murdering members of Iraqi families to intimidate them against coalition forces. You know what? The people still come to us, they still associate with us, and most of them by now realize that we are there for their best interest.

The US military puts a lot of responsibilty on its' leaders to make quick and accurate decisions on the ground. To take the information they have at hand and do what is necessary to accomplish their missions. The Apache pilot identified weapons in the hands of members of the group, there was an ongoing ground battle with American forces just blocks away, the judgment the pilot displayed was sound and justified given the circumstances. If this flexibilty is taken away from commanders on the ground then what you get is a paralyzed military unable to act, instead they are a reactionary force, which is no good to the public or the military.

It is unfortunate that these journalists died, but, journalists know the chances they take when they enter the battlefield, several have died while serving with American/coalition forces as well, where's the outcry for them? Warfare is not pretty and there is never any situation in it that is black and white. Soldiers understand this better than most. It's easy to pass judgment when you have the luxury to analyze an issue from every single angle and the time required to do it. Combat affords few oppurtunities to do this and all we can do is train and try our best to do the right thing, which, in my experience, is exactly what we do.
 
Yes, it's true, the US army is working on more precise weapons, I saw some of their projects, from non lethal rays to disperse crowds to GPS guided artillery shells...

The army is trying to evolve and adapt to the new battlefield, the new battlefield is more urban and the new enemies are sneaky as hell. They noticed that, and they are learning to fight this new kind of battles.

But I'm opposed to a politic of war against terrorism. And I mean by that using the military to fight terrorism.

The US army is not ready yet to be completely efficient in a battle against terrorism. These security organs (army, Marines etc) werent made to fight this kind of battles. They were made to fight in fast aggressive wars against an enemy like the Russian army or the Chinese Army... Cold war stuff...

They arent cut for peace keeping, policing, hostage situations and long term engagements against guerrilla warfare...
They can be used to do that, but they arent made for this kind of engagements...

In the beginning of the war, the soldiers didnt even have the cultural training to place road blocks... They werent trained in intelligence gathering, they didnt have as much translators as now, and they still need more good translators, even today after years of battle...

And they were sent to fight a quick war, bring down Saddam, and the population will start hugging and kissing, same in Afghanistan...
They werent correctly briefed. If they were told that the war was going to last for years, they would have acted differently. They had no foreknowledge.

The whole use of the army for fighting terrorism was a mistake. They started adapting much later... And too late if you want my opinion.

The war had a huge cost... Billions went in smoke because of that, and for those who care many US soldiers and coalition soldiers died following the orders of some ill-advised men...

You say that this Apache did the right thing? Maybe... But what I say is that the Apache shouldnt not be used in a small firefight like that. Apaches have to be used against tanks... Maybe to find and fight guerillas outside a city... Maybe as a support weapons when troops are engaged on the ground and that there is a clearly identified threat to suppress.

But to let them pick their own targets like that... And engage them with such big guns... It's some serious overkill, and this is not right in a war against terrorism.

Dont you see that there is a real racism in this kind of things? If tomorrow there is terrorists in your home country, not a foreign country like Iraq... Do you want to see Abrams tanks and Apache helicopters opening fire on maybe terrorists in your neighborhood? next to your children?

Why in the US they have SWAT teams to intervene against hardened criminals and hostage situations? why they dont send battle tanks and attack helicopters?

Because they want to risk police units maybe... No, they do that, because they want to use adapted techniques and tactics to spare the innocent.

Why we dont do that in Iraq? Let me give you an answer... Because no body cares much about Iraqi blood...
 
I disagree with the idea of not having air cover for troops on the ground during ongoing combat operations. A lot of times, these gunships can see things and identify threats, or lack there of, that the ground pounders cannot. The thing about combat is that you never know how big a fight is when you get into it. Most of the time it's brief and over before you know it, but sometimes it's big, and for that you can't afford to micromanage these guys on the ground (or in the air). We spend millions of dollars and years of training to ensure that these guys can make the correct judgement when the time counts. If there is regulations and commanders breathing down these guys necks all the time then ultimately, it gets guys killed. They are sluggish to react, wary of indictment for whatever they do, which makes it much harder to do the job at hand.

It sounds like the beef is with the politicians rather than the military. Had the last administration exercised some forethought into the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then the military WOULD have been able to handle these situations. The US military has been taking part in peacekeeping operations for some time now and I don't think you give them enough credit for the work that they have done in past and present. Your argument would have been sound in the early part of the insurgency in Iraq, but since 2006 the military has taken a completely different approach and if you haven't noticed, there's been significant progress made in that theater. Is Iraq a beacon of democracy in the middle east, no it's not and it will remain that way for a while. But, it is certainly in a much better position than it was four short years ago. We are about at the point where all we can do is take of their training wheels and let them ride it out themselves.

SWAT stands for special weapons and tactics. They are the elite force of any police department and they are very expensive to train. Their mission is to resolve the issue with the minimum force necessary. This is because they rarely come into contact with a criminal that is willing to kill and kill themselves in the process. Most people value their life and if they see the hopelessness of a situation then most will likely surrender. Why not send tanks to deal with them, well, because most of them don't have heavy weapons like RPGs, PKCs, IEDs, Mortars, Assault rifles, hand grenades, explosive vests, organized ambush tactics etc. Do you remeber the LA bank robberies where the two stoned bank robbers seriously invalidated the LAPD and LA SWAT for several hours because they had WAY more firepower. Well, the terrorists and insurgents I dealt with in Iraq made them look like rainbow bright. I'd imagine that this is true across the board. THAT"S why you need tanks and APCs and Gunships flying around. The terrorists are dicidedly more lethal and their intention is to KILL YOU and anyone who gets in their way by any means necessary. Many of these guys were not even Iraqis. I'd say about half of the a$$holes we dealt with were foriegn fighters that wanted to kill Americans, Europeans, Indians, basically anyone who did not follow their version of Islam. The idea that the insurgency erupted so violently because of the simple fact that we are there is overstated. Most the Iraqis I knew didn't like it, but they understood it, and hell some of them even loved us.

Regardless of what the movies portray, every single soldier cares about the blood they spill and spill themselves. Every single soldier is affected by the charm of the kids and the families they come from. Most of the Iraqi deaths from coalition forces come from the simple fact of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Would I want to see abrams and apaches deal with terroists in Kansas...well...let me put it this way i don't think we'd need them here. A terrorist can blend in in the middle east, it's much harder to do so here. But for arguments sake would I, your damn right I would, I would want the military/ law enforcement/ citizens to kill any known terrorists in my neighborhood with extreme prejidce. But that's an oversimplification. There would never be a operation phantom fury type fight in the US, it just wouldn't happen, so pondering if we would like Our military engaging terrorists here is useless.

How do we fight the terroists then? What do we do to "win"? The US military is not in the business of ceding defeat. We are not in the habit of going, "well, i guess we're not really trained for this so let's just forget it" The US military is made of people that want to get results and live by the creed improvise, adapt, and overcome. We're not one to make excuses for our failures and really try to learn as much from them as we can. Was the military slow to change it's tactics to accomodate this new type of fighting, I think not. All you have to go off of is what the press reports. Sorry but schools, power, working sewage, weekly meetings with community leaders, months of patrols providing no "action", training the Iraqi/Afghan forces to stand on their own two feet, etc don't sell stories and don't generate interest, but they are the most important things we do and it happens every single day. Sadly, death, tragedy, and controversy sell the stories and it is what you read or see on the tube. We see the results, you see the failures. It seems there is a gap here.
 
A can of man, why should I? I'm against the use of anti tank weapons to engage personnel in an habitation area.

Send these Apache choppers to Afghanistan... The population density is lower in that country. And the ground is harsher over there.

And if an Apache helicopter killed US journalist and US citizens in the US in a raid against alleged terrorists... You would be all barking here like madmen and calling the military leadership names...

You dont deploy Marines to fight crime in New York or Detroit...

Yes, I know that the situation in Iraq is bad... I know about the bombings, the torture, the kidnappings, the corruption, the crime level, the general insecurity...

But do you think that there is a military solution for these things? When you reach these levels of chaos, the military are useless... The best thing they can do is kill people. And these shock & awe theories arent working... This constant fear you want to put on your foes will only bring more violence...

all these "let's terrorize the terrorists" is bullcrap... These guys are twisted. You wont scare them. But you will make more of these guys by pissing off the populations and heir friends (foreign fighters)...

you wont win against terrorism with violence. I'm not non-violent. If the north koreans invade, I want you to drop everything you got on them... But not this shock & awe BS against terrorists...
 
A can of man, why should I? I'm against the use of anti tank weapons to engage personnel in an habitation area.

Send these Apache choppers to Afghanistan... The population density is lower in that country. And the ground is harsher over there.

And if an Apache helicopter killed US journalist and US citizens in the US in a raid against alleged terrorists... You would be all barking here like madmen and calling the military leadership names...

You dont deploy Marines to fight crime in New York or Detroit...

Yes, I know that the situation in Iraq is bad... I know about the bombings, the torture, the kidnappings, the corruption, the crime level, the general insecurity...

But do you think that there is a military solution for these things? When you reach these levels of chaos, the military are useless... The best thing they can do is kill people. And these shock & awe theories arent working... This constant fear you want to put on your foes will only bring more violence...

all these "let's terrorize the terrorists" is bullcrap... These guys are twisted. You wont scare them. But you will make more of these guys by pissing off the populations and heir friends (foreign fighters)...

you wont win against terrorism with violence. I'm not non-violent. If the north koreans invade, I want you to drop everything you got on them... But not this shock & awe BS against terrorists...


No you don´t have a clue about ground conditions in either Iraq and/or Afghanistan, what makes you think you have?
Wrong. I would say the same things I have said had the journalists been american..Even better Swedish.
They know what risks they take entering a combatzone.
Risks that the shielded will never know of.

The sulotions to an insurgency is twofold, each depending on the other.
Hearts and mind, to win the local populations trust and military force to provide sucurity enough to be able to perform that Hearts and Minds campaign.
Fact IS, unless you have basic security you can never win the trust of the local population..
It HAS been done succesfully before.
You wouldn´t know about that either since all you read are leftwingpress.

LeMask, seriously, I have a saying for you to adapt.
"Better to keep silent and look lke an idiot then to open your mouth and remove all doubts.."

Sit back and read what the adults write and learn instead.

Have a nice day.
//KJ.
 
Nice saying...
But dont you see how arrogant your argument is? You use authority arguments. "You dont know what you are talking about." Maybe that you know best?

And you bring liberal and left wing press into the debate. Who said I do?

And I can use the same arguments as you. Send the soldiers into the battlefield without fire support... They know the risks...

But no, I wouldnt do that, because I think it's stupid.

I'm not stuck in this context. I dont speak just about this event where journalists were killed.
I say that in general, we shouldnt a security organ designed to fight against armies to fight against terrorists/guerrilla.

Do you think that Apache helicopters were designed for these kinds of missions?

Do you think that terrorists will line up in front of your canons so you can use your big guns... That is just stupid...
 
Last edited:
You are seriously oversimplifying the entire issue.

The Apache was designed to provide ground support, not just take out tanks. The 30 MM cannon is DESIGNED to take out tanks as well as personnel. It's very good at this job. If a terrorist knows that an Apache is on station, then there is a very good chance they will not engage.

QUOTE "And I can use the same arguments as you. Send the soldiers into the battlefield without fire support... They know the risks..."

No you can't, soldiers DO know the risks but they also have NO CHOICE in the matter. Shouldn't we send troops into combat with every tool available? Of course we should, that's what the tax dollars pay for. Journalsits have the CHOICE to be there. Do you have an understanding of how the military works..combined arms...flexibilty...training for every scenerio? If you did you would realize the absurdity of the comment that you made.

Historically insurgencies produce a far bloodier atmosphere, and produce innumerable civilian casualties. I think it's a testament to the professionalism of all parties involved that there hasn't been MORE. How many "innocents" were we purposefully killing in WWII. 20-30,000 at a crack during the height of the Allied bombing campaign. I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying that we've come a long ways. Stories, once again stories, dead civilians sell papers...the other 99% of the effort we do does not.


Should we design millions of weapons systems that are "designed" for every single situation then?

Wouldn't you expect soldiers to be flexible and resilient?

What's the solution for the "war" on terror then? If the military cannot do the job then who can?

You make it sound as if Iraq is on the verge of collapse and it most certainly isn't. Since early 2007 Al Anbar province has been virtually silent. Since early 2008 most the rest of the country has done the same. Sure, there is a flair up now and again, but nothing like it was 4-5 years ago, and if there IS a flair up the Iraqi forces deal with it. Something that was impossible 4-5 years ago. Believe it or not, but we ARE winning in Iraq. The Security forces while not perfect, are more than capable of stabilizing the region. SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY...without it, nothing else can be done.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let's speak about equipment.
Did you notice the explanations they gave in the report? About how the Apache gunner screen is small? That the details we could see zooming on these videos may not be as clear for the gunner.

Can we say that:
the Apache is equipped to provide high quality intelligence so they can identify their targets correctly before engaging them.
or
The Apache is equipped to give a huge amount of firepower (accurate fire with powerful munitions).

This is why I say that we have to send soldiers to do the job... I know it's dangerous, but with their training, their equipment, they will always win against these poorly trained/equiped terrorist.

It's much easier to kill when looking through a screen, quite the opposite when you're on the ground and have to deal with the situation first hand.
Guess who said that...

by the way:
I dont have to chose between soldiers or journalists. I want them both to live and I have no preference.

If you ask the military, they will tell you that the soldiers are in fact volunteers. They signed the papers by their own will.
And I'm for the some "human rights" like to give the soldiers the right to leave the battlefield at any time. If their sense of duty tells them that they have to leave, or that they have to stay...

I'm an idealist, call me an idiot or a naive idiot if you want. I dont care much. I'm a real extremist when it comes to moral values.

for me, war is about sacrifice. because when it's not, it's about gain and power... And then, everybody involved have to die because they are the enemy...

And a big part of the sacrifice is to put your life in danger to not endanger the innocent.

These kind of events dont happen in a just and fair war.
 
Last edited:
By going toe to toe with the enemy you level the playing field for them. If you want to win a fight you bring to bare all the firepower you have available. This is military doctrine 101. The smart commander never gets into a fair fight with the enemy, there's too much at stake and to allow it to come down to that, then the commander will be writing a lot of letters to the families of the soldiers under his command that he got killed so his enemy could be afforded the maximum amount of oppurtunies to kill them.

Yes, I said that war is personal...that was in reference to complete automation of the military. If I'm under fire, I want those Apaches to make that fire stop. I want anything to make that fire stop. We're not robots, we do care about our own lives and the lives of our brothers in arms.

Yes the military is all volunteer, but when we get orders for going downrange, WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER. "Just" war or "unjust" war, we follow orders, soldiers and militaries don't have the luxury of picking the wars we fight in. The COC sends us and we go. Journalist on the other hand can quit, elect not to go, or whatever. If we do that, we go to jail or worse are outright shot(which technically is allowed in a time of war)

If you want soldiers and journalists to live, then ending the fight as quickly as possible will save more lives in the long run. Drawing it out so that the ground pounders can go one for one with the enemy will not only cause more casualties for us, but much more for the civilians in the area that will be caught in the crossfire. Fighting in a city is the nastiest type of fight you can get into and it takes A LOT of troops to hold ground. Apaches are what we call combat multipliers. They allow us to do more with less.

Quote:"And a big part of the sacrifice is to put your life in danger to not endanger the innocent."

Don't tell me what the sacrifice entails, I am well aware of it! I'm much more aware of it than you or any other civilian because I've medevaced MY buddies, I've seen the carnage that a battle produces, and I've buried my friends. I HAVE gone out of my way to prevent civvy casualties AND EPW casualties. So don't get on a moral high horse with sacrifice when you have never sacrificed anything like what a soldier does. It's easy for you because you are not the one that is putting your life in danger.

Besides, US soldiers are not just indiscriminately killing innocent civilians. We take MORE precautions than most other countries to prevent civilian loss of life. We get extensive training in ROE and escalation of force to prevent these types of incidents. Fact is, you can't prevent them all. Some innocent people DO die, it's a fact of life and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. They are tragic, but they will happen. All we can do is try to minimize the occurence.

These incidents of civilian death DO happen in a just and fair war. Are you kidding me? They happen in every war. Name me a war where everyone died that should have and no "innocents" were killed and I'll show you a liar. WWII was a "just and fair war" if there ever was one and the "good" guys killed civilians by the thousands. No weapons ID or ongoing operations, it was straight up bombing of the population centers. Ever heard of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima.?..Just in those three examples more civilians were killed than all of the civilians that have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the war on terror started COMBINED. What are you, 15 years old? Have been ever been in combat? Do you understand the complexity that is involved? Seriously, I want to know. There is no situation you could ever imagine being more complex, and foggy, and uncertain, and scary than combat. Soldiers aren't robots, they're not superhuman, they do make mistakes. Give them a break. Theres a reason that civilians don't come up with our doctrine, because a civilian doctrine gets a lot more people killed. What you speek of would certainly get ME killed in a hot situation so you can sleep better at night. At that point whos hands do my blood go on, the enemy, or the a$$hole who wouldn't let me fight the war with all the tools at my disposal?
 
I dont deny that. I'm talking here about limiting or even denying the troops who are fighting terrorists a large part of their arsenal.

The result will be less desperate terrorists. Less desperate enemies mean less aggressive enemies.

And this military doctrine 101 gave birth to terrorism. Why the terrorists attack civilians? because attacking military units is suicide.

I know about the exact context when you said that. I just took some aspects of what you said. Killing people through a screen is too easy. Sometimes, killing people is not the right option, because sometimes, you mistake innocent people with your enemies. And even friendly troops are not safe from these mistakes.

Killing people with a knife is hard. Killing people with a rifle is easier. Killing people with a joystick while watching a screen is even easier.

How much collateral damage can you do with a bayonet?

Once again, in my ideal... All wars can be just if they are fought correctly.

And yes, I agree with you. A quick and aggressive war followed by peace is much better than a slow war.

But you have to agree with me that this war lasted for 7 years... The quick aggressive war to take down a corrupt government succeeded. The government fell... But where is the peace now?

I know, peace is a slow process... So? can we please adapt the tactics for a slow process?

Dont get me wrong... I'm not "on my high horses" spiting on the sacrifices of soldiers on the field. I recognize their sacrifice.
My critics are not aimed at the soldiers. But the leadership, the military doctrine... The general strategy in the war against terrorism.

We are not fighting the roots of this evil.

If you care about your buddies who are fighting or recovering from their injuries and losses, know that the opinion of this ignorant civilian... is that the people who sent them to fight dont give much value for their blood or the blood of the people they are supposed to help.

They dont value them by ignorance or because of a high level of corruption.

I'm not asking for a war without civilian casualties... WWII was a just war. But a lot of bad things happened in that war. Things that could have been prevented if there was some care for justice.
From executed prisoners of war to the bombing of civilian areas...

You put soldiers in harms way to not endanger civilians (even civilians in enemy territory) .
You dont harm civilians to save soldiers or money... (hiroshima etc)

The military leadership ignored some moral rules to succeed in battle... And it happened many times through history.

In the past, the Gauls ate women and children to survive sieges when fighting the Roman legions. (Vercingetorix)
In the colonial era some commanders allowed their men to rape women to "preserve troops morale"...
In the religion wars, they slaughtered whole cities and pillaged to pay for food, weapons and mercenaries...

Dont tell me that things changed... Mankind knew no fundamental revolution, it's just the choices that changed...

The people in power cant be trusted. That's a fact, it's not negotiable.

If I was a religious person, I would tell you that I dont care about your life, but about your soul.

If you follow my way of thinking, there will more soldiers dying in battle, but less soldiers committing suicide because of guilt.
And war will cost less because less heavy equipment would be used... and there will be more troops on the field to secure the combat areas...

Well, things would be very different...
 
Back
Top