![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis came up on my friend's page this morning.
followed by this .
When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.
But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.
Why is this?
-"Phanatic"
I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.
There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.
The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...
...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.
An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.
Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.
They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.
The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.
This is war.
Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.
All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.
Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.
Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.
followed by this .
When Rupert Hamer, the British journalist who served as the Sunday Mirror's war correspondent, was embedded with US forces in Afghanistan and was killed when an IED took out the MRAP he was traveling in, nobody seemed to give much of a shit. No general outcry, no "Those murderers!", no wailing and gnashing of teeth from blogs as different as Balko and BoingBoing.
But when a Reuters journalist is embedded with insurgents in Iraq who are approaching US armored vehicles while armed with weapons specifically designed to destroy such vehicles, and is engaged and killed in their company by a gunship crew who follows rules of engagement and directly asks for permission first, a whole bunch of people just about wet themselves in their eagerness to decry those who killed him.
Why is this?
-"Phanatic"
I have my own take behind the cut but I'm curious about what others have to say.
There is no discernible difference in my eyes, both were killed in action.
The responses to this incident reminds me of the Joker's monologue from "Dark Knight".
Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, it's all "part of the plan"...
...But if one of our Soldiers "The Good Guys", blows up a journalist everyone loses their freaking minds.
An american helicopter crew spotted a group of men gathering near an american convoy.
Weapons are clearly visible, 2 RPGs and a Light Machine-Gun. The standard AQ fire-team everywhere from Afghanistan to Chechnya for the last 15-20 years. Since the insurgents don't wear uniforms this armament and organization is the single best identifier.
They reported the situation and waited for permission to engage.
The enemy was defeated. Additional Insurgents attempted to extract the wounded before they could be captured but in doing so exposed themselves to American forces and were defeated as well.
This is war.
Support it, or oppose it, I won't judge.
All I ask is that you be intellectually honest about it.
Disclamer:
I am an Iraq War vet, and a helicopter crewman to boot, so this story hits a little close-to-home for me.
Edit:
In the interests of "citing sources" here is CENTCOM's official report on the incident.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 00:11 (UTC)While he was crawling on his belly leaving a smear of blood on the ground? I didn't see anything in his hands in that footage.
M; A van that rushes on cue into an opening where people were just shot with 30mm chaingun, while several blocks away there's a moving convoy of humvees and bradleys, looks more like more insurgents coming in to rescue their buddies.
"Rushes in on cue?" I didn't see anything to indicate that. It happened to be there. The driver saw someone who was obviously severely injured, and stopped to do the right thing.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 02:42 (UTC)Noone was shooting him while he was crawling there. He was shot before that.
p: "Rushes in on cue?" I didn't see anything to indicate that. It happened to be there. The driver saw someone who was obviously severely injured, and stopped to do the right thing.
Did you see another live soul on those streets when camera zooms out. Noone in their right mind will go ooh i just saw two gunships spewing 30mm rounds from their chainguns.... oooh and I hear some small arms fire and Bradleys 25mm cannon! Let me go check it out what's going on!
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 02:56 (UTC)M: Noone was shooting him while he was crawling there. He was shot before that.
Well since that sequence is the one I've been talking about, what relevance do you imagine him earlier taking a picture of a Humvee has in this context?
m: Did you see another live soul on those streets when camera zooms out. Noone in their right mind will go ooh i just saw two gunships spewing 30mm rounds from their chainguns.... oooh and I hear some small arms fire and Bradleys 25mm cannon! Let me go check it out what's going on!
According to the surviving family members, the man who owned the van lived nearby and was taking his two children to a tutoring session. I suspect gunfire is not an uncommon sound in that area, even today. The guns had been stopped for several minutes. I can easily imagine someone thinking, okay, the guns have stopped. I can get my kids to their tutoring session now, pulling out, finding the injured man, and stopping to help him.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 03:42 (UTC)Ok sequence of events from the view point of pilots:
1) a convoy consisting of us foces (bradleys and humvees) and iraqi police are clearing a really violent sector in Baghdad. Remember the escalation of violence in 2007? They loaned 2 gunships to assist them
2) They moved out at 6am and almost immediately engaged into fire-fight involving AKs and RPGs. What time was this video taken?
3) At some point while circling the deserted streets one of the gunships notices a gathering of a group of men armed with AKs and RPGs walking to the intersection 200 meters from the troops the gunships were protecting.
4) They see one guy kneel around the corner assembling a tube-ish object and another gunship sees a flash (that's when in the video you hear them say "he got an rpg" and "shots fired") - they showed a clear hostile intent and now 100% are enemy combatants.
5) At that point the "enemy combatants" at the corner are shot.
6) One man is trying to crawl away and gunships just observing
7) An unmarked van shows up with 3 men quickly jumping out trying to take one of the insurgents away. They are shot on presumption of being insurgents transporting combatants.
The man always drives his children with 2 other men in his vehicle?
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/10 06:47 (UTC)Don't see that. In fact, it looks as though at least one of those other men was another passerby who decided to help.
M: trying to take one of the insurgents away. They are shot on presumption of being insurgents transporting combatants.
A badly wounded and unarmed "combatant" who they were hoping would pick up a weapon so they could shoot him some more.
m: The man always drives his children with 2 other men in his vehicle?
As I've observed, at least one of those other men was obviously not in the car, and it's unclear that the additional man was. And strange as it may seem to you, I can easily envision someone who occasionally uses his van as a taxi -- as the children's now dead father apparently did -- having at least one other passenger in the car while running an errand with his kids.
Or do you find it more believable that he decided to take his young children along on trip expressly intended to gather up wounded insurgents after a gun battle?