I'm not saying that justifies the shootings, just pointing out that the conventions need a refresh.

Outdated or not, that's the law.

The destruction of the Van was clearly murder. If I had done that, a Marine Corps Colonel would have had his boot so far up my ass after seeing that video, that there would not be much left of me to execute.

You know what the correct response is from a CO in a situation where a van arrives to pick up bodies? Hint: It's never 'Roger. Engage.'

Your guys told you that a van arrived to pick up bodies, and they ask for permission to engage. Correct response: 'Do they have any weapons?' or 'Negative.'

Now sometimes there is so much trust between a CO and a particular guy, that clarifying information will not be asked for. This is rare, but it may have been the case here. Which still calls that CO's ability to judge character into question.

Bottom line. In the Marine Corps, there would have DEFINITELY been consequences for this action. (the destruction of the van).

Also, I noticed that the individual who said they 'had no idea how the children were hurt' was a Major. Now I know there is no way a Marine Corps Officer would tell a lie like that. They would just not say anything. You lose a lot of respect for Army Officers after seeing something like that.

He was doing something else and these guys were a piss off that he trusted to actually be responsible. They weren't, and because of that his failure is highlighted as well.

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/bmooi/wikileaks_video_j...

It seems plausible to me that these guys are seeing this situation all the time: they fire on a group of people, some are left wounded, and vans show up to collect weapons, but also grab wounded/bodies to try and look legit from the sky. Being used to tactics like these, I can understand how anxious they were to get clearance to fire on the van; who knows if they are going to fire on the helicopter or speed off. It wasn't clearly marked as a medical vehicle, and it sounds like everyone over there knows that you will be fired on if you do something like this.

Also, the original group of Iraqis didn't notice the chopper at all, even though it was circling for a while. They surely would have had a potshot at it had they seen it, as they were supposedly all armed with AKs and RPGs. It's probably quite a distance from the target, with the camera zoomed in creating the illusion its a lot closer than it would appear. Notice the amount of time it takes for the rounds to strike the target. That's why I reckon the van pulled up, he thought the street was empty.

All I was saying before was that gunners like this are used to facing insurgent tactics. When they see vans like this, they aren't looking to give them the benefit of the doubt. They have been trained that, if they do, they may be putting their lives and the mission at risk. This guy is probably scared out of his mind. He has a huge responsibility, and screwing up - as we've seen today - has enormous consequences.

To me, the laughing and joking isn't making light of slaughtering the enemy, it's nervous laughs and desperate attempts to bring everyone out of it. We're human, we don't deal with this shit well. The comments here are good proof of that.

None of this excuses slaughtering innocent unarmed civilians, it's just my attempt at bringing some perspective.

Not that it makes the situation any more right, but it does make things a lot less clear cut...

Out of curiosity suppose you're the soldier in that situation and your CO says to engage. Do you refuse to do so? That itself has to violate military protocol right? Do you say "but they're unarmed, are you sure?" then follow whatever instructions you're given?

From what I've read/heard of Marines, the people in the field are expected to make more of their own decisions than in other branches of the military. There's less micromanagement I suppose would be a good way of summing it up, and as a result this would have been less likely to have happened in the first place in that branch. Is that true?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying if both of us had to go to Iraq, I'd probably come home alive (having killed a lot of people, probably some innocent people in the confusion) and you'd come home in a box because you assumed everyone was nice and wanted to buy you a beer...until they shot you.

In other words, in a war, my life means more to me than a civilian's who has a 50/50 chance of being a combatant. Again, this is why we shouldn't be there.

It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency. If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist, or if you're conscripted, get conscientious objector status to avoid being in a place where you'd need to kill. And the same goes for anyone else who has moral qualms about what's going on there.

If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.

>If you really believed that the killing is bad, you ought to not enlist

I really do believe that. I even donated thousands of dollars to a POTUS candidate that would have gotten us out of Iraq as soon as he took office. Sadly, 98.5% of Americans still wanted this war, since they voted for Obama or McCain.

>It seems that you're entirely too willing to throw out morals for expediency

If the expediency should mean the difference between my life or death, than yes. I'm just being honest here. In war, I'd kill anyone who I thought was a danger to me, but then I wouldn't go to war unless it was for self defense.

>If you go there willingly, knowing what's going on, you can't use the exigencies of the situation as an excuse, as they're perfectly foreseeable.

That's a good point, but why apply it to just the soldier, why not our Presidents? Wasn't it entirely foreseeable that innocent people would die by going into or staying in Iraq. Isn't it entirely foreseeable that the money we send the government is going to pay for all this to happen?

The reason I defend these heli pilots is 1) because the situation they were in was far more complicated than most people here will admit, 2) they probably didn't sign up to kill innocent people, just like I didn't pay my taxes to pay for the bullets.

Blatantly wrong. You are throwing away the rest of your point with this garbage.

You must think I'm wrong in some other way...please explain. Getting out of Iraq wasn't part of either candidate's platform. So, how was I blatantly wrong?

At the same time, your life in a gunship as the operator of a 30mm cannon is also rather more secure than that of of wounded individual reduced to crawling on the ground, or of unwounded people who choose to assist the wounded individual rather than first trying to secure the area (eg taking a shot at the helicopter). Of course it is difficult to weigh such subjective factors in an objectively dangerous situation but that is part of the training for a professional rather than conscripted military force, IMO.

Did not vote on your comment - don't agree with your perspective but it seems like a sincere effort to further rather than stifle debate.