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: 2010-04-08 05:34 am (UTC)War is a VERY messy business. No matter what. No matter who's doing it, and to whom. People DIE. INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE. Don't engage in wars unless you're willing to accept that.
The 15-6 report on this incident was remarkably cover-up free as official Army reports go. Makes sense, fits the evidence-- having actually served time once in Iraq myself and knowing what life is like in a combat zone (as well as having been thoroughly trained in the soldier's level view of the 'Laws of War')-- I do see some tragic events and effects, but I DO NOT see any war crimes knowingly committed by US Forces here. Those who scream cover-up on this one because no charges are being pressed evidently see cover-ups everywhere they look, where none are really to be found.
Vans picking up wounded personnel-- several problems here-- the moment that van picks up any weapons or moves to evacuate combatants who are not wounded and clearly out of the fighting, it loses whatever 'protected status' it might have had under the Laws of Land Warfare. If it wasn't clearly marked as an ambulance/casualty evacuation vehicle, it never had a protected status in the first place under the laws of war. Given the situation and past/present actions of insurgents in Iraq (none of whom are wearing uniforms or any other item of clothing to distinguish themselves as combatants btw-- which is itself a probable violation of the laws of war on their part)-- there's a good legal presumption to make that that van was there to provide evacuation to live, able, hostile combatants and their weapons, not as transport for a mercy mission-- thus, it's a legal target.
Regarding the Reuters journalists-- sucks to be them. But-- they were travelling WITH Armed Insurgents (not sure how so many people MISSED that point), who were engaging in combat with US Forces, and acting in such a way as to appear to be armed, hostile insurgents themselves, even though they in fact were not. Which made them legal targets. For all I know-- they WERE there on a sideline business of shooting and producing combat propaganda for the insurgency, not just collecting news. Being in a warzone in any capacity is dangerous-- being a journalist doesn't give you some magic protection that will keep you safe, and it certainly won't protect journalists from their own STUPIDITY if they insist on putting themselves into the line of fire.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-08 05:39 am (UTC)And, in spite of the crocodile tears of the international press, there actually is NO special protected category for 'journalist' under the Laws of War, and never has been-- Journalists have no more (and also no less) protections than any other non-combatant under the Laws of War (presuming they are truly non-combatants).
No effort?
Date: 2013-07-30 08:09 pm (UTC)Re: No effort?
Date: 2013-08-30 09:36 pm (UTC)The M-230 chain gun carried by the Apache attack helicopter has a range of 1500 meters.
Against the background of a modern city, let alone the fighting taking place in the city that day, it is completely reasonable that the sound of the rotor blades at distance would be missed.
Obviously once the helicopter begins firing it is too late for the insurgents and the embedded photographers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M230_chain_gun
http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter.htm