Gunship video in Afghanistan

[mtkafka]

Check out this video of a gunship attack in Afghanistan.

Link from coasttocoastam.com

Also can download from this SR-71 site...

http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/ac130_gunshipmed.wmv

Imagine these gunships in Iraq... yeesh, it's gonna be a killzone! They won't attack Mosque's, so they are showing respect...

Oh yeah, its a prop ac 130... those things still do there job!

etc

[chet]

I guess playing video games does help you kill when you are in the military.

Chet

[SpoofyChop]

That video is excellent. Shows the professionalism of our soldiers.

I have a more propoganda-ish video that was linked from Instapundit.com for everybody:

Cool Propoganda Video (http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/hq/video/misc/ef.asf)

[Bub, Andrew]

What are they shouting when they fire? It sounds like: "Go!" "Got it!" But that's not it.

[Jakub]

OK, that's terrifying how ... distant all this is.

I mean, you're looking at little black and white dots, not people. I imagine this feels less personal than what bomber pilots during World War II felt when blasting cities. And here they're aiming artillery (105mm cannon IIRC) at specific targets, not just randomly dropping bombs.

[Paxton]

I have a more propoganda-ish video that was linked from Instapundit.com for everybody:

Cool Propoganda Video

wow the original source material for the sublime satire that is Starship Troopers. thanks for the link.

[Kalle]

OK, that's terrifying how ... distant all this is.

I mean, you're looking at little black and white dots, not people. I imagine this feels less personal than what bomber pilots during World War II felt when blasting cities. And here they're aiming artillery (105mm cannon IIRC) at specific targets, not just randomly dropping bombs.

Aint it great how modern technology can circumvent our natural instincts by making killing people so...impersonal.

[chet]

OK, that's terrifying how ... distant all this is.

I mean, you're looking at little black and white dots, not people. I imagine this feels less personal than what bomber pilots during World War II felt when blasting cities.


What?!!?!!

Yeah, when they were dropping bombs from 20,000 feet they really got a good look at the individuals on the ground. Especially the British during their night raids, it must have been like they were holding the hands of the guys they were bombing.

Chet

[Anonymous]

The prevailing anti-war sentiment on this board seems to be just that...anti-war, absurdo reductum.

The philosophy is no more complex than "What's all this fighting about? Isn't there a better way? Aren't we all human beings, after all?"

When even Christopher Hitchens is lambasting your contentless beliefs, it's time to reexamine what you're saying.

[Jason McCullough]

The prevailing anti-war sentiment on this board seems to be just that...anti-war, absurdo reductum.

The philosophy is no more complex than "What's all this fighting about? Isn't there a better way? Aren't we all human beings, after all?"

When even Christopher Hitchens is lambasting your contentless beliefs, it's time to reexamine what you're saying.

As much as I'm in favor of invading Iraq, Hitchens is a friend-betraying fuckhead drunkard who's just been *waiting* to pull a fast one on all his "right-thinking liberal friends" by switching sides. Hating Kissinger doesn't automatically make you a liberal; he's been a neocon in hiding for years.

[Anonymous]

Jason,

It's a bad idea to say things like that about people on the internet. Apparently, it's possible to be sued for libel.

I'd also recommend against calling Tom Cruise gay (http://www.msnbc.com/news/859961.asp) since it isn't true.

[SpoofyChop]

What are they shouting when they fire? It sounds like: "Go!" "Got it!" But that's not it.

It sounded like "Birdie!" or "Thirty!" to me.

My feeling is this:

The AC-130 video was terrifying. I would NOT want to be on the receiving end of ANY sort of smack down from the U.S. Military. They are NOT kidding around.

The "propoganda" video was awesome. I'm very glad that this country is the one that has the armed forces shown in that film. Yay armed forces! Yay U.S.A.!

[Supertanker]

It sounded like "Birdie!" or "Thirty!" to me.

I believe it is the loader for the 105mm shouting, "Gun ready!"

[Jason McCullough]

Jason,

It's a bad idea to say things like that about people on the internet. Apparently, it's possible to be sued for libel.

I'd also recommend against calling Tom Cruise gay (http://www.msnbc.com/news/859961.asp) since it isn't true.

Can't be libel if its true.

[Jakub]

What?!!?!!

Yeah, when they were dropping bombs from 20,000 feet they really got a good look at the individuals on the ground. Especially the British during their night raids, it must have been like they were holding the hands of the guys they were bombing.

Chet

No, there's no denying that they knew they were killing civilians. Especially not the thousand-bomber raids over Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Dresden. When your bomber is right over a bunch of houses with no factories in sight and you're dropping bombs, you know you're not hitting the traditional military target. Watch Discovery Wings, they have a few shows about the raids and one or two talk to bomber crews about it.

You still see people, buildings, vehicles. Not black and white moving pixels. Anyway, I'm just speaking of my own feelings when watching the videos. Seeing bombing runs makes me think of all the people that died. Watching this AC130 strike is a little surreal. The first thoughts that struck me were that after hitting the obvious targets, all they did was go for the moving ones. It was like duck hunt. With crappy graphics and a better projectile physics engine. I'd have fewer qualms about doing that than unloading a dozen 500lb bombs over a suburb of Kabul.

[Ben Sones]

Can't be libel if its true.

Libel is also pretty difficult to prosecute, even in the best of circumstances. I'm sure one of the lawerly types can chime in here, but don't libel cases place a heavy burden of proof on the victim (especially when the victim is a public figure)?

[Captain Cookiepants]

I'd have fewer qualms about doing that than unloading a dozen 500lb bombs over a suburb of Kabul.

Just pretend the suburb is populated by gimps.

[Jakub]

Just pretend the suburb is populated by gimps.

Yeah, exactly, you've got it. Wow, that makes it so much easier. :thumbsup:

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Can't be libel if its true.

Libel is also pretty difficult to prosecute, even in the best of circumstances. I'm sure one of the lawerly types can chime in here, but don't libel cases place a heavy burden of proof on the victim (especially when the victim is a public figure)?

The Libel Defense Resource Center (http://www.ldrc.com/LDRC_Info/libelfaqs.html)

Internet Law Focus - Libel on the Internet (http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html)

Defamation on the Internet (http://pnews.org/mall/defamation.shtml)

[Jason McCullough]

Wow. That last link is insane.

[Anonymous]

Jason,

It's a bad idea to say things like that about people on the internet. Apparently, it's possible to be sued for libel.

I'd also recommend against calling Tom Cruise gay (http://www.msnbc.com/news/859961.asp) since it isn't true.

Can't be libel if its true.

Which is why Derek's freight train has been derailed and he is unable to sue anybody even though he has been making threats for years, as even Derek knows that Truth is a absolute defence against libel!!! :lol:

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

I know you think that there are morons here like on Usenet, which is why you keep trolling these boards looking to turn it into Usenet or another VE forum.

Yes, everyone already knows that you folks take threads from here (this recent one for example (http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=v29h0t8udg6d6d%40corp.supernews.com)), post it on the Usenet - and then you folks flock here looking to troll.

In case you hadn't noticed - nobody feeds trolls around here. So, just keep talking to yourself, y'hear?

[Sean Tudor]

]I know you think that there are morons here like on Usenet, which is why you keep trolling these boards looking to turn it into Usenet or another VE forum.

I rarely use usenet nowadays - apart from C programming newsgroups. Too many anonymous morons these days and the quality of postings on newsgroups has really taken a dive.

[Brad Grenz]

Hey, I hear the video is bogus. It's some footage for a Paramount film or something. No confirmation, but that's the word on the street.

[Guido Jones]

.....I would think that It's A. too long and B. too crappy quality to be from a actual movie.

Unless it's video of some paramount executives hunting down Rick Berman and Co for the crappy turnout to the new Star Trek film.

[Brad Grenz]

It isn't neccissarily an element that would fill the screen for any length of time. Uncompressed, the quality could certainly be high enough to play on a monitor some characters are watching, or something of that nature.

[Guido Jones]

I don't think compression has anything to do with it - if you look at it you'll see the wavring lines at the edge of the image. Telltales of a crappy military video. Hollywood isn't usually so complete in it's reproductions of things, and tries to add it's on version of realism in to things. Anyway I'd be interested if anything else is heard.

[DennyA]

I can't see any reason that Hollywood would have done a video of that length, with that much detail. I believe it's real.

It's pretty horrifying to watch.

[SpoofyChop]

It's pretty horrifying to watch.

I agree that it's chilling to watch something like that, although at the same time I say that it's an excellent education into how our troops operate. They're professional and they do the job they're assigned.

It gives me confidence that there's not a bunch of maniacs out there pointing their guns at babies. They've been given targets, they've been told what to avoid shooting at, and they carry out their orders exactly.

In recent cases where soldiers made mistakes, they've been held accountable.

[Aszurom]

The video is absolutely real. The first 60 seconds of it aired on CNN and MSNBC back in Oct-Nov I believe. I was sitting there watching it. However, they certainly DID cut all the chasing-down of two legged targets out of their footage. They only showed the AC130 engaging vehicular targets.

When I saw the "full length" version of the film, I was aghast. Perhaps it is precisely for moments like this that the USA has been exempted from charges of war crimes by the UN? It is MOST DEFINITELY an offense to the Geneva Convention to single out and engage human targets with a 105mm.

[Brad Grenz]

It is MOST DEFINITELY an offense to the Geneva Convention to single out and engage human targets with a 105mm.

Really? Got a link on that?

[SpoofyChop]

Yes...a link please. I'm not calling bullshit yet, but people seem pretty quick to throw out "geneva convention" without knowing what they're talking about.

Incidentally, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that shooting somebody with a small caliber weapon should be ok while shooting them with a large caliber weapon is not ok. Bullshit. Dead is dead. You don't shoot guns at people to make them feel bad about themselves.

[Jason McCullough]

The video is absolutely real. The first 60 seconds of it aired on CNN and MSNBC back in Oct-Nov I believe. I was sitting there watching it. However, they certainly DID cut all the chasing-down of two legged targets out of their footage. They only showed the AC130 engaging vehicular targets.

When I saw the "full length" version of the film, I was aghast. Perhaps it is precisely for moments like this that the USA has been exempted from charges of war crimes by the UN? It is MOST DEFINITELY an offense to the Geneva Convention to single out and engage human targets with a 105mm.

I don't see anything in there (http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html) about what you can do to soldiers. How is killing a soldier with an artillery shell a war crime?

[Bernie_Dy]

The Geneva stuff is a bit of a joke, really. Few nations abide by it in times of war. POW soldiers in Vietnam and Desert Storm were both tortured by their captors. It's been documented, and I don't think torture is OK by the geneva convention. BTW, I'm not trying to single out American opponents either...Americans are guilty of war crimes too.

[Jason McCullough]

The Geneva stuff is a bit of a joke, really. Few nations abide by it in times of war. POW soldiers in Vietnam and Desert Storm were both tortured by their captors. It's been documented, and I don't think torture is OK by the geneva convention. BTW, I'm not trying to single out American opponents either...Americans are guilty of war crimes too.

I was about to say "name one," but then I remembered what Nixon got up to. I can't think of anything after him, though.

[Supertanker]

I think the portion of the Geneva Conventions that you want is this one (http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/f6426235883f9d62c125641e0052d53d?OpenDocument).

It contains vague language about weapons with "Excessively Injurious" or "Indiscriminate Effects." This echos language from the Hague Convention of 1899 (skip down to Article 23.e. (http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/hague2.html)).

Some people argue that this precludes hollow point bullets, or shotguns, or large caliber sniper rifles (the US Army refers to its .50 caliber sniper rifle as an "anti-materiel" weapon). Them Canadians sure made some fine shots with their .50s (http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/2430kill.htm) though, so maybe a .50 doesn't violate the rule. The US military also issues shotguns for certain uses, mostly guard duty, but they see combat use, too (http://www.geocities.com/commande1/vnshotguns.html).

As far as blasting individuals with cannons, that is a military tradition. That was the whole point of Napoleonic-era artillery (http://web2.iadfw.net/napoleon/footartillery.html#In%20general%20about%20foot%20a rtillery). I mentioned the use of direct-fire 8" howitzers at Aachen in a previous post, but all armies used some form of assault gun in WWII, which are armored vehicles primarily intended to fire high explosives into enemy positions. StuGs, SU-152s, Sherman 105s - the list goes on. In Vietnam, US armored units would fire their main gun into bunkers at point blank range (if you read Tank Sergeant, by Ralph Zumbro, he describes putting the muzzle into a bunker slit to ensure the complete destruction of wooden bunkers). The NVA used old Russian SU-76 assault guns with good success. All of these methods could be described as "excessively injurious" since they blow the target person into mushy scraps, but they are not considered to violate the restrictions on such weapons.

[Jason McCullough]

(e.) To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause
superfluous injury;

What does "superfluous injury" even *mean*?

[wumpus]

I think it means injury for the sake of causing injury. Torture and such. Contrast with, say, causing injury to someone because they're about to shoot you.

[Jakub]

Canadians sure made some fine shots with their .50s (http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/2430kill.htm) though, so maybe a .50 doesn't violate the rule.

Coolest link ever. Wow. I mean, yeah, it's cool that Canadians did it... but 2,430m? That's a mile and a half. You'd have to drive for over a minute at 60mph to cross that distance!

Anyway, bearing in mind that Russians basically have a rapid-fire grenade launcher, I think a .50cal weapon is small potatoes.

Also, IIRC most rules about conventional weapons went out as World War II went along. In fact, given the heavy presence of the .50cal Browning in anti-infantry roles, I don't think there's ever been problems with .50cals. But the US started fighting with regular .50cal ammo in their machine guns but it quickly became apparent that the bullets just cut clean through their targets. No stopping power at all. Soft-compound bullets became available by the time Vietnam started for sure. I'm 95% sure that they were used in Korea and about 80% sure that light vehicles and infantry had them by the end of WW2.

[Jason McCullough]

Speaking of unsavory wartime activities: is burying (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt24.html) enemy bodies in mass graves using bulldozers covered?

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/images/turnley/25.jpg

[Brad Grenz]

I suppose it's better than forcing prisoners of war to do the digging.

[Jakub]

Speaking of unsavory wartime activities: is burying enemy bodies in mass graves using bulldozers covered?


... And 8 pics later, we have http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt33.html which shows a US soldier helping an injured Iraqi get to a POW camp. What a Fascist, despicable act.

[Jason McCullough]

Speaking of unsavory wartime activities: is burying enemy bodies in mass graves using bulldozers covered?


... And 8 pics later, we have http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt33.html which shows a US soldier helping an injured Iraqi get to a POW camp. What a Fascist, despicable act.

I didn't say we were evil. Burying corpses with bulldozers is still a tad bit unsavory.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Jason McCullough]a US soldier helping an injured Iraqi get to a POW camp. What a Fascist, despicable act.

He's actually knifing the guy in the back.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of unsavory wartime activities: is burying enemy bodies in mass graves using bulldozers covered?


... And 8 pics later, we have http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt33.html which shows a US soldier helping an injured Iraqi get to a POW camp. What a Fascist, despicable act.

I didn't say we were evil. Burying corpses with bulldozers is still a tad bit unsavory.

What are we supposed to do? You just can't leave thousands of corpses exposed out in the desert to rot. Not only is that unsavory, but it can breed disease. The POW's we had were in no shape for burial detail, and there was no one else to do it. Our own burial details were overwhelmed with that job.

So what we usually do is give them some kind of burial, mark the burial sites on a map, and then we give that map to the proper Iraqi authorities so that one day they can go and recover their dead if they want. Or negotiate with Kuwait to recover their dead, though that won't happen until Saddam is out and a new, and hopefully much more peaceful, regime is in place.

[Anonymous]

Our own burial details were overwhelmed with that job.

THEN HIRE MORE PEOPLE.

[Guido Jones]

No offense, but it's not like the dead bodies are gonna complain that a bulldozer was used to push them in a hole. What difference does it make if 2 guys throw them in the hole, or if a bulldozer is used to push them in?

Anyway, bearing in mind that Russians basically have a rapid-fire grenade launcher, I think a .50cal weapon is small potatoes.

Americans have a automatic 40mm grenade launcher, it's called the Mk19 (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm) and is mounted on Humvees, Navy SEAL inseration craft, etc. etc.

[Anonymous]

Our own burial details were overwhelmed with that job.

THEN HIRE MORE PEOPLE.

Hire them from where? The States? Not a lot of folks who would jump up for that job, no matter how much it would pay. So you've got to hire them, train them, fly them to Iraq. How long does that take? The bodies need to be buried now. Not 3 weeks from now.

The dead bodies were already mangled or burned beyond recognition when they were cooked inside their destroyed vehicles. A bulldozer burial is the least damaging thing we did to them.

[Jason McCullough]

It's not that a bulldozer was used; it's that they were dumped into mass graves. I have no idea if this is standard, though, but bleagh.

[Kyle Wilson]

It's not that a bulldozer was used; it's that they were dumped into mass graves. I have no idea if this is standard, though, but bleagh.

If they wanted individual graves, they should have dug them themselves before they died.

[Bernie_Dy]

I was about to say "name one," but then I remembered what Nixon got up to. I can't think of anything after him, though.

My Lai 4...though I'm not sure if that's considered a war crime or civil crime. Ramsey Clark's The Fire This Time also notes all these horrible things the Americans supposedly did in the Gulf War and how Clark tried to work with various organizations to get George Bush tried for war crimes (interestingly, your reference to the bulldozers was one of the things he mentioned).

Note that I don't necessarily agree with him, and the book is actually pretty bad and at times ridiculous. It's full of flaws and places where he says, "The American military is evil, I just know it! No, I don't have proof."

For all the book's flaws, I do think it's remotely possible that a lot of shit that happens on the battlefield we never hear about.

Anyway, my original point was neither for or against America. I was just noting that the Geneva Convention gets ignored.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I was referring specificially to Nixon/Cambodia, but yeah. And I don't think burying Iraqi soldiers in mass graves is a war crime, it's just awfully unpleasant, and not something you think of as particularly "American."

The thing I can't believe is that the public was *upset* that Calley was convicted in the My Lai trial (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/SurveyResults.html)! 78% disagreed with the verdict, and 51% thought Nixon should have set him free. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

it's just awfully unpleasant

War is not a picnic. War forces people to do things they would never consider doing under any other circumstances.

My girlfriend's dad told me how he had to pick a piece of skull and fleshy bit out of his eye when his buddy next to him took one to the head in Vietnam.

[Bullhajj]

not something you think of as particularly "American."

I don't really have an opinion on this but the above quote made me chuckle. Maybe we should setup an unAmerican commision to look into it?

[DennyA]

I guess what gets me about this is that we're "starting" the war. History buffs, has there been a time before where America did that?

It seems to me our role has been to come in and finish the wars that the bad guys start. To fire the first shot is anethema to me...

[Captain Cookiepants]

Speaking of unsavory wartime activities: is burying enemy bodies in mass graves using bulldozers covered?


... And 8 pics later, we have http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt33.html which shows a US soldier helping an injured Iraqi get to a POW camp. What a Fascist, despicable act.

I didn't say we were evil. Burying corpses with bulldozers is still a tad bit unsavory.

I just gotta add: How do you think those people died? The soldiers burying them were probably ducking the shots those guys fired at them ten minutes ago.
Also just think how it is the other way around; they would have dragged the soldier's bodies into town and hung them from poles while they spit on them and threw fruit, firing their guns in the air to celebrate.

And the U.S. is about the only country that follows the Geneva convention (Germany had a pretty good record too) Amnesty International is STILL suing over the 'inhuman' treatment prisoners in Cuba are getting. We're a country who complains when our ENEMIES, that wouldn't hesitate to kill any of us, are treated bad. Like I said in my 'Rant of the Year': We treat our ENEMIES better than they treat their citizens.

I guess what gets me about this is that we're "starting" the war. History buffs, has there been a time before where America did that?

It seems to me our role has been to come in and finish the wars that the bad guys start. To fire the first shot is anethema to me...

Ummmmm...we DID start that one war against England...
Many people think we started the war of 1812, but that was England trying to take us back.
Civil war? Kinda...
We DID go and 'bargain' for the use of Panama to build the canal, but we gave that back to them.
Hmmmm, 'America the Peacekeeper' seems so WRONG! So I'll just say we started EVERY war AND deserved them for being so fat.
THAT should make them filthy foreigners happy.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah yes: other people are bad, which makes us not bad. Because war crimes are defined by what everyone else is doing.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Ah yes: other people are bad, which makes us not bad. Because war crimes are defined by what everyone else is doing.

Noooo...' war crimes' are defined by people who never had and never WILL be in an actual war situation. I.E. YOU wouldn't be whining about how we treat their dead if you weren't 60,000 miles away on your computer drinking a latte. (no offence)
And 'the enemy' does bad things, this is how we define them, if they weren't doing bad things, they wouldn't BE the enemy. After you kill the enemy (who just MAY want you dead as well) what does it matter what happens to the chunk of flesh they leave behind? It's not like they don't know if these guys are guilty 'Hey he's shooting at us! Let's go start a discourse to ascertain his status vis a vis hatred towards us.'

[Ben Sones]

I guess what gets me about this is that we're "starting" the war. History buffs, has there been a time before where America did that?

It seems to me our role has been to come in and finish the wars that the bad guys start. To fire the first shot is anethema to me...

When did Iraq become to poor harassed victim in this scenario? Saddam agreed to peace terms, and then failed to abide by them. Is it wrong to respond with military action when one party breaks a peace agreement? Would we have been wrong if Saddam had refused the terms from the start and we continued to fight?

[Anonymous]

The main problem with the anti-war movement is that they've allowed themselves to be hijacked by the loony left to the point that to be anti-war is to be anti-American. Not that I usually see eye-to-eye with Michael Kelly, but he does make some very salient observations about this.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/862778.asp

A lot of those anti-war protestors in those marches would rather blame America for everything and defend Saddam Hussein.

There was an interesting piece in the NY Times a few months ago where they talk with quite a number of the more respected liberal intellectuals in the country, all them were anguishing over the debate, but most of them were leaning toward the belief that a war to take down a throroughly evil dictator like Saddam as a necessary thing, and a good thing for the people of Iraq in the long run.

The 90's changed a lot of their views. They saw American air power defend the Kurdish enclave in Northern Iraq, keeping Saddam at bay. They saw American power used to end the tortorous Bosnian War that the main European nations were helpless to stop, and then American power used in the Kosovo war to stop the opression of the Kosovars. (All of those examples had the US defending primarily Muslim populations, by the way). They also saw the unwillingness of the US to intervene in Uganda result in the genocide of over a million people (and the US failed there because of the disasterous Somalia mission, which itself was started on humanitarian purposes). In short, used properly and wisely, American military power can be a force for good in the world. The only trouble is figuring out when those proper and wise moments are.

I'm a liberal who voted for Gore, but I see the need to take down Saddam. I am also frustrated by the way Bush seems to be stumbling toward war. The administration needs to make its case and shut everyone up. I'm really starting to worry we don't have as much evidence as they say we do, because this "trust me, I know what I'm doing" shit is unsettling when you're talking about war.

But those spoiled and pampered anti-war protestors need to take a look at the man they're defending, as well. I can't believe they actually think George W. Bush is as evil as Hitler, and Saddam is innocent. They lose all credibility in my eyes when they tout shit like that.

By the way, cleaning up bodies on a battlefield isn't easy. There are few places more dangerous than a battlefield, even after the shooting stops. Unexploded munitions, mines, noxious chemicals (from brewed out vehicles); they are everywhere. Bodies on the ground are still carrying their ammo and grenades, which you have to safely remove. It's not a task you just hire some third-world workers to do. You gotta do it yourself.

[Jason McCullough]

Ah yes: other people are bad, which makes us not bad. Because war crimes are defined by what everyone else is doing.

Noooo...' war crimes' are defined by people who never had and never WILL be in an actual war situation. I.E. YOU wouldn't be whining about how we treat their dead if you weren't 60,000 miles away on your computer drinking a latte. (no offence)
And 'the enemy' does bad things, this is how we define them, if they weren't doing bad things, they wouldn't BE the enemy. After you kill the enemy (who just MAY want you dead as well) what does it matter what happens to the chunk of flesh they leave behind? It's not like they don't know if these guys are guilty 'Hey he's shooting at us! Let's go start a discourse to ascertain his status vis a vis hatred towards us.'

Ah yes, the old "unless you're getting shot at you have no authority to talk about war" line.

Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

' war crimes' are defined by people who never had and never WILL be in an actual war situation.

A ridiculous statement. I doubt you've ever been in a war situation (nor have I), yet there are many Vietnam veterans today and who have very strong feelings about war atrocities and argue fiercely against using war for cynical political ends. You sound like you've watched too many Dirty Harry films where the cops are always complaining about and breaking those damn rules, procedures, and constitutional protections.


I.E. YOU wouldn't be whining about how we treat their dead if you weren't 60,000 miles away on your computer drinking a latte.

What's your excuse for whining about Jason's reaction to the photo? You aren't there, either, macho man. Takes a lot of balls to pretend to speak for the soldiers who are actually risking their lives while you sit 60,000 miles away drinking a Mountain Dew.


And 'the enemy' does bad things, this is how we define them, if they weren't doing bad things, they wouldn't BE the enemy.

Gee, gawrsh. If life were that simplistic, I guess the reverse holds true as well. We must be doing bad things, otherwise we wouldn't BE the enemy of Sadaam Hussein and assorted terrorist rabble.


After you kill the enemy (who just MAY want you dead as well) what does it matter what happens to the chunk of flesh they leave behind? It's not like they don't know if these guys are guilty

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you were wonder what happened to your brother after the war and a body never came back. Maybe you should put an order in on one of those POW/MIA t-shirts. After all, those guys must not have families. They're spawned from the mud like orcs in Lord of the Rings. Shit.

[Brad Grenz]

A lot of those anti-war protestors in those marches would rather blame America for everything and defend Saddam Hussein.

Tell me about. At another message board I frequent, the John Shirley Message Board (http://members4.boardhost.com/JohnShirley/index.html?1043394927) (he's a seminal cyberpunk author), someone mentioned they ran across a story on MSNBC's web site talking about a group of anti-war protesters who were planning to go to Iraq, into major cities and act as "human shields"...

Here's my reply:

You know, I get the overwhelming feeling that a majority of the people participating in these anti-war protests basically do so because they see the potential war on Iraq as Bush's. Not because they have anything approaching a cohesive counter-argument, just because they don't like him and they want him and his policies to fail. That, or they've romanticized the notion of the anti-war movent based on the peace protests of the 60s and have some unheathy need to recreate the phenomenon. Basically marching for peace cause you've an idealized notion or fantasy of such an act, completely divorced from the facts or reality of the situation.

I mean, I've participated in a number of ongoing debates around the net, including here, and in my real life, and it's just ridiculous how easily the common arguments agaist a war can be refuted. That whole Sean Penn letter/trip to Iraq thing was so not about the facts it isn't funny. As for these nuckleheads who have designs to become political prisoners... uh, I mean human shields, well I hope they're stopped at the border. If not, well they deserve whatever happens to them. If we're talking about US citizens, which I presume we are, and we do end up at war with Iraq, which seems likely, then such an act would be tantamount to treason. Stay here and protest all you want, it's your right. But for God's sakes, don't throw you lot in with a dispicable dictator.

The whole thread can be found here: http://members4.boardhost.com/JohnShirley/msg/12002.html

[Captain Cookiepants]

' war crimes' are defined by people who never had and never WILL be in an actual war situation.

A ridiculous statement. I doubt you've ever been in a war situation (nor have I), yet there are many Vietnam veterans today and who have very strong feelings about war atrocities and argue fiercely against using war for cynical political ends. You sound like you've watched too many Dirty Harry films where the cops are always complaining about and breaking those damn rules, procedures, and constitutional protections.
You'd make a good point if you had actually READ the rest of the thread, as it stands you read MY statements, took them completely out of context, the 'schooled' me. Way to be!
And war situation? Yes. Not army of course (don't ask don't tell lolololololololol!!!) But if by 'war situation' you mean 'People shooting large guns back and forth with the intention of killing and/or maiming eachother' Then yes. Also: Not a police officer either but procedure and 'rules' ARE a pain in the ass. America is restrained by rules in this war enforced by our own media and watchdogs, the enemy is not

I.E. YOU wouldn't be whining about how we treat their dead if you weren't 60,000 miles away on your computer drinking a latte.

What's your excuse for whining about Jason's reaction to the photo? You aren't there, either, macho man. Takes a lot of balls to pretend to speak for the soldiers who are actually risking their lives while you sit 60,000 miles away drinking a Mountain Dew.
Said the anonymous person in an online forum where registering is free....
And 'the enemy' does bad things, this is how we define them, if they weren't doing bad things, they wouldn't BE the enemy.

Gee, gawrsh. If life were that simplistic, I guess the reverse holds true as well. We must be doing bad things, otherwise we wouldn't BE the enemy of Sadaam Hussein and assorted terrorist rabble.

In THEIR eyes we are the enemy by virtue of living, in THEIR eyes our not conforming to their ways IS bad. Thus: WE are doing bad things by living a different way then them, THEY are doing bad things by killing innocent women and children blahblahblah... You're an idiot if you think making something simplistic for the sake of brevity is the same as having a hard-coded system of beliefs. Check that: You're an idiot anyway.

After you kill the enemy (who just MAY want you dead as well) what does it matter what happens to the chunk of flesh they leave behind? It's not like they don't know if these guys are guilty

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you were wonder what happened to your brother after the war and a body never came back. Maybe you should put an order in on one of those POW/MIA t-shirts. After all, those guys must not have families. They're spawned from the mud like orcs in Lord of the Rings. Shit.

And I bet they all have pets and loved to visit zoos too, what's your point?

I know who this is anyway so it's no point talking to you, just leave me be. Stay out of my face and I'll stay out of yours.
Also: Take down that CUTE little site you made about me you creepy stalker fuck.

[Captain Cookiepants]

Ah yes: other people are bad, which makes us not bad. Because war crimes are defined by what everyone else is doing.

Noooo...' war crimes' are defined by people who never had and never WILL be in an actual war situation. I.E. YOU wouldn't be whining about how we treat their dead if you weren't 60,000 miles away on your computer drinking a latte. (no offence)
Ah yes, the old "unless you're getting shot at you have no authority to talk about war" line.
Sheesh.
But YOU couldn't come up with a comeback, I win!

Seriously though, I'm not in it either, I wasn't refering to YOU defining what a 'war crime' is but the people who had written the definition according to the 'Geneva Convention': diplomats and dignitaries who've never been in a war (mostly, mostly). I said 'no offence' cause I meant it.
You have every right to talk all you want, just like I have every right to disagree and so on and so forth, I'm just a jerk.

The point I'm making is that, as a nod to the ass above: 'Sometimes you gotta forget the rules to get the job done chief. You want my badge and gun? Take'em...this is personal.' Or: Your love of dogs might change if one had you by the throat.

The fact that they took the time to bury the bodies actually says a lot, the fact that they were burying them with a bulldozer says they didn't know the photographer was there.
I'm not sure how body cleanup was conducted in past wars, but I'm sure they didn't track down the closest cemetary and priest. What they DID do is a mystery to me so hey, maybe they did.

[Jason McCullough]

In THEIR eyes we are the enemy by virtue of living, in THEIR eyes our not conforming to their ways IS bad.

You know Iraq is one of the most secular nations in the middle east, right? And that Saddam Hussein doesn't give a shit about Islam? He's an Nassarian type.

The point I'm making is that, as a nod to the ass above: 'Sometimes you gotta forget the rules to get the job done chief. You want my badge and gun? Take'em...this is personal.' Or: Your love of dogs might change if one had you by the throat.

So it actually is a Dirty Harry thing. A question: are dead Iraqis a threat? You know, it's wartime, your head's spinning, there's a bunch of dead Iraqi solders in the desert you justifaible offed, and now you've got to clean up.

BUT WAIT! Who says Saddam doesn't have EVIL ZOMBIE TECHNOLOGY? Why, those dead Iraqis might rise up and fight back: better bury 'em with invulnerable combat bulldozers! Making a "chaos of wartime" argument for the right way to dispose of corpses is silly.

The Geneva conventions are based on one thing, really: would you want your soldiers to be treated that way, whether you win or lose? Would you mind American soldiers being buried in mass graves?

Brad, the protestors do have exactly one good argument, although they almost never use it: if you think Bush will just install another dictator to replace Saddam, then the war's arguably unjustifiable. God knows I'm not fully convinced Bush will refrain from installing a puppet government, but I can't really see him doing something that pure evil.

[Brad Grenz]

Brad, the protestors do have exactly one good argument, although they almost never use it: if you think Bush will just install another dictator to replace Saddam, then the war's arguably unjustifiable. God knows I'm not fully convinced Bush will refrain from installing a puppet government, but I can't really see him doing something that pure evil.

Yeah, I'm surprised they don't go after that, but they're too caught up in their "no Blood for Oil" reader-boards/fantasies. But this presumes an awful lot, and is in my opinion (and your, apparently) highly unlikely. The rest of the world might stand by and watch us topple Saddam, they don't much care for him anyway, but I'm sure there will be many, many fingers in the post-war pie. Setting up a new government will certainly be a multi-lateral effort.

[Captain Cookiepants]

In THEIR eyes we are the enemy by virtue of living, in THEIR eyes our not conforming to their ways IS bad.
You know Iraq is one of the most secular nations in the middle east, right? And that Saddam Hussein doesn't give a shit about Islam? He's an Nassarian type.
Yoops! I phrased that wrong, I know it's the gulf war, in fact I looked all over that site to see if I could find SOMETHING to put those pics into context, hell who says they were killed by Americans? They might have just been left to rot in the desert after falling to Kuwaiti citizens. (just an example)
I didn't mean for that to have a religious overtone, sorry.
The point I'm making is that, as a nod to the ass above: 'Sometimes you gotta forget the rules to get the job done chief. You want my badge and gun? Take'em...this is personal.' Or: Your love of dogs might change if one had you by the throat.

So it actually is a Dirty Harry thing. 'IN A NOD' means I did that on purpose based on his uninformed statements
A question: are dead Iraqis a threat? You know, it's wartime, your head's spinning, there's a bunch of dead Iraqi solders in the desert you justifaible offed, and now you've got to clean up.

BUT WAIT! Who says Saddam doesn't have EVIL ZOMBIE TECHNOLOGY? Why, those dead Iraqis might rise up and fight back: better bury 'em with invulnerable combat bulldozers! Making a "chaos of wartime" argument for the right way to dispose of corpses is silly.
See? You can be a jerk too without me rolling my eyes and dissmissing you. That IS a kick-ass bulldozer though.
And I didn't make a 'chaos of war' argument for the clean up after, where did I do that? All I said is that it's ironic that you want their dead bodies treated with respect by the people that killed them in self defence. You get MAD at the people trying to kill you, and STAY mad even after they're dead. The 'honorable enemy' went out with chivalry.

The Geneva conventions are based on one thing, really: would you want your soldiers to be treated that way, whether you win or lose? Would you mind American soldiers being buried in mass graves?
And the alternative would be? The bodies on the bulldozer where OBVIOUSLY in VERY advanced stages of decay, the stage where the meat literally slides off the bone. Just look at the other pictures, some of those bodies have hit that stage too (making me think maybe some where dead long time before the GI's got there) But most of them are in their own personal blanket. Perhaps they AREN'T being buried, but just 'delivered' without having to touch them (note the sticks) to an area where they can be wrapped up?
We're both making a lot of assumptions here based on the scanty info and the pictures of the 14 year olds in push up bras. But if you found some background info then please share. I'd be happy to see it. Without it I'm just digging a verbal hole where I can't seem to make myself clear no matter what I say.

Edit: SHIT! I did it again. I'm going to bed after this: In the above statements about background info, I meant to ask for independant info, for all we know this is propaganda, I mean it's sponsored by NPR for Christ's sake.
I also forgot to post this url http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt05.html That pic makes it look like they are picking up the bodies instead of dropping off (to back up my thoery. Goodnight

[Anonymous]

[...]I'm just digging a verbal hole where I can't seem to make myself clear no matter what I say.

Brutal, but refreshing honesty. Now, where's a bulldozer when we need one to cover up the hole?

[Anonymous]

That video is legit. Watching a NOVA documentary on UAV's, and they're showing that footage as an example of Predator surveillance in action. A Predator caught those Taliban forces on the ground, and they brought in the gunships to hammer 'em. That ain't no Hollywood recreation.

[DennyA]

This week's Aviation Week & Space Technology also confirms that this video is the real thing. Shot by a General Atomics Predator UAV while an AC-130 takes out the guys on the ground.