Collateral Murder (Of The Truth)
Apr. 6th, 2010 07:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drewkittyThere is a shocking video floating around today, which you too can view at collateralmurder.com
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
It is described by its makers as "a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff."
Surface Truth: in two incidents a few minutes apart, apparently unarmed men (and two children, out of sight in a van) are chewed on by remotely directed 30mm cannon fire. If you look very closely, you get glimpses of what appear to be long sticks.
Lie: the men were unarmed, the shooting was baseless, their deaths were murder. Representing the Lie (or Big Lie) I have selected Glenn Greenwald's article, where he says:
"That includes not only the initial killing of a group of men, the vast majority of whom are clearly unarmed, but also the plainly unjustified killing of a group of unarmed men (with their children) carrying away an unarmed, seriously wounded man to safety -- as though there's something nefarious about human beings in an urban area trying to take an unarmed, wounded photographer to a hospital."
Deeper Truth: the men were armed insurgents, with two RPGs and an AK, and the cameramen were dressed like them engaged in behaviors that made them appear to be supporters. One was taking pictures of a US ground unit less than 100 meters away with a long-barrel camera in such a way as to look like he is firing on them; the other was talking on a cell phone, a common part of both tactical communications and IED (bomb) detonations. All of this took place in a closed military zone which nearby American ground forces were actively sweeping and clearing while under small arms fire.
New facts? Yes, lots. See a recent CNN article for the context the video and its adroit packaging deprives you of. See also here: one of the Army investigations into this matter. This forty-three page report goes into great and graphic detail.
The laws of war are clear: you hang with a group, you take your chance of sharing their fate. This is one purpose behind Red Cross and Red Crescent -- here, let's hang a big red sign on you which makes you less likely to be shot at. This is also why combatants are required by the laws of war to wear uniforms -- here, let's hang something on you that makes it less likely that civilians will be mistaken for you.
But I will not bore you with mere facts. Here is graphic evidence which a man died to bring you:
These three photos were taken from the memory card of a camera belonging to one of the dead journalists. Photos of a nearby American military vehicle.
You take photos like this of combatant forces in active combat operations, you risk sudden and immediate death. As happened.
A veteran comments further here:
"This entire incident is an unbelievably sickening tragedy, and I don't mean for my tone to imply that the loss of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh was anything but. But it was also a tragedy when it happened ... [to] any of the dozens, if not hundreds of Soldiers killed by [friendly fire] in this war so far. 90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists."
So behind the lie, a deeper truth. This is not atrocity, this is war. This is soldiers doing their job well, a job their country called them out to do. Be sickened by it, please. Don't send our soldiers out to war unless you are willing to own all the consequences. And once you have, don't blame them for what you chose for them to do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-07 08:58 am (UTC)I am in fact opposed to the Iraq War, and so is this post. Either you didn't read it, or you didn't get it.
When the American people and our Congress allowed Bush to launch us into an offensive war against Iraq, we acted in direct contravention of a large chunk of Constitutional precedent and a fair bit of international law. Congress could have stopped it by setting the funds available for the purpose to zero. Congress spent the money instead. Despite a clear mandate from the American people to Get The F--- Out of Iraq, Obama is taking his sweet time about it.
Bush may have pushed for it, and led it, and argued us into it. But it's our country and our soldiers and ultimately the blood is on our hands.
When you say "Go To War," what is going to happen is what you see in that video. It's not an atrocity, it's not a war crime any more than war itself is. Or any less.
Combatants wear uniforms. Insurgents choose not to. The vehicle picking up wounded was participating in a military operation and could have been engaged on the way to the site, at the site (as it was) or while driving away with wounded piled on top of each other in the back. The only way for it to be protected under Geneva is for it to be a marked ambulance or the men getting out of it to be marked as medics, preferably both. Just because it's not being used to transport insurgents today doesn't mean it won't be used as a car bomb tomorrow.
This was not a peaceful morning on a quiet urban street. This was active combat operations, the streets were empty of civilians and you can see this on the video. If an audio mike had been present on the ground, you would have heard the crackle of small arms in the distance and the growl of engines, whine of turbines and roar of circling helicopter blades, once in a great while punctuated by heavy weapons fire and/or an explosion. Civilians were not visible because they were ELSEWHERE, hiding, knowing full well that this is a battle area.
WRONG.
iraqbodycount.org puts the civilian death toll of the invasion and occupation at circa 105,000. That's in addition to about 24,000 insurgent deaths and 11,000 odd security force (Iraqi government) deaths. Call the total 140,000.
By contrast we're still under 5,000 for US servicemembers.
In the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqis suffered over 300,000 casualties while inflicting at least that amount and possibly up to three times more (1 million) due to suicidal Iranian tactics. Most of the soldiers were draftees. Although the true numbers will never be known, there is a huge gap in the military-age population in both Iran and Iraq in which a million men died.
140K (US Invasion of Iraq) < 1000 K (Iran-Iraq War)
Saddam still has us beat, even if you don't include the Kuwait War. Let's ask the Kurds instead, you know, the ones that aren't getting chemical weapons dropped on them any more. That's another 5,000 or so we can't ask thanks to Saddam hitting towns with chemical agents in 1988, but we're into small change now, along with other anti-Kurd operations and the massacre of the Marsh Arabs who foolishly believed that America would back their revolt after Gulf War I. Prewar population estimated at 150,000, all displaced and most killed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq)
Let's add in the UN sanctions, just to be fair, because they killed people without actually doing anything to weaken Saddam's grip on power. While the actual numbers are hotly disputed and inflated, that's at least another 100,000 right there -- most of whom were children.
So no, we're not any better at killing Iraqis now than either the Iranians or Saddam were. We ourselves probably killed as many innocent civilians in combat operations as we did prior to the invasion with "non-violent" sanctions.