In May 2007, [Ethan] McCord, a 33-year-old Army specialist, was engaged in a firefight with insurgents in an Iraqi suburb when his platoon, part of Bravo Company, 2-16 Infantry, got orders to investigate a nearby street. When they arrived, they found a scene of fresh carnage – the scattered remains of a group of men, believed to be armed, who had just been gunned down by Apache attack helicopters. They also found 10-year-old Sajad Mutashar and his five-year-old sister Doaha covered in blood in a van. Their 43-year-old father, Saleh, had been driving them to a class when he spotted one of the wounded men moving in the street and drove over to help him, only to become a victim of the Apache guns.
McCord was captured in a video shot from one helicopter as he ran frantically to a military vehicle with Sajad in his arms seeking medical care. That classified video created its own firestorm when the whistleblower site Wikileaks posted it April 5 on a website titled “Collateral Murder” and asserted that the attack was unprovoked. More than a dozen people were killed in three attacks captured in the video, including two Reuters journalists, one carrying a camera that was apparently mistaken for a weapon.
McCord, who served five years in the military before leaving in Nov. 2007 due to injuries, recently posted an apologetic letter online with fellow soldier Josh Steiber supporting the release of the video and asking the family’s forgiveness. McCord is the father of three children.
Wired’s Kim Zetter reached McCord at his home in Kansas. This is his account of what he saw.
Both Bobbo and Dallas don’t have a clue what they are talking about. Get up to speed then come back and join the discussion – you’re 5 years behind the real smart people.
I’m pretty sure that’s Jesus called out in the picture. Yeah, 99% sure.
#31
Bobbo is one hella funny person. He just loves to rant on and on no matter how ludicrous the discussion(s) get or how absurd he becomes and/or how WRONG he is. He’s God, he’s alright right LMAO *wipes laughing out loud tears*
It’s why I love seeing him, makes my day 🙂
#25 & 26 My comments if read as stated were neither a condemnation nor affirmation of the actions taken by the soldiers. The term War continues to be tossed around, “the war on terror,” “the war on poverty” Lets use the war on poverty, who is the enemy? how are they supported? The plan of attack is to eliminate poverty by destroying those things. A war is fought to be won. The end is to eliminate poverty, to eliminate poverty how far would you go? To what ends would you go to achieve victory? So in this case, what is the end of this conflict what determines a winning result? I did not in any way try to establish an endgame in my comments. In my comments did I in no way imply that American lives were more valuable than any other. What I did state was a question that was asked and what the correct or expected answer was. As for the internet it was an observation not an indictment. I find it interesting how many people said I knew it was a camera when I watched the video. Take a step back and forget that the video states that there were reporters present. Step away from your comfortable chair and 21 inch plus monitor, and the ability to rewind and watch again and again. Now put yourself in the gunner seat of an apache moving at speed swaying back and forth up and down side to side in what is considered hostile airspace. Watch the picture through a 5 inch monitor without the ability to zoom or rewind. Don’t forget to keep your eyes open for incoming fire or missiles and assist the pilot in flying the apache. Is that a camera? Those other two gentleman were carrying weapons. Is this one different? Your mission is to support that squad down the street. Is that a camera? Is that black van there to assist the enemy?
#27 Interesting, check world history and find a time when conflict was not occurring? We even mark significant moments in history by the wars? The boer war, the war of 1812, the revolutionary war, the war of the roses, the thousand year war, the crusades.
A hypothetical question, would you kill hitler? Yes I know its silly. If running down a child stopped 9/11 and all the after affects? When you sign on the line you become military property you are no different than a jeep or now days a Humvee. Your an asset to be used to achieve a goal. An ethical or moral compass is not part of issued equipment. With experience comes knowledge of what real right and wrong are and all the gray in between. That’s why young people fight wars that old men send them to. Basic training is designed to make an individual no longer an individual but part of the machine. That’s where the term green machine comes from. As military property you lose almost all the civil rights non-military personnel have. You are expected to comply with the orders from the chain of command. Failure to comply involves penalties, some severe up to death.
Your statement
“At best we killed combatants that posed an immediate threat to fellow soldiers (in the Hummer patrol) and combatants that were rescuing them and posed no immediate threat (still justified if they actually were combatants), at worst we killed innocent civilians and journalists that posed no threat at all and innocent children who arrived at the scene in a car with someone who got out to help the others.”
My statement
“If this is not a war than this was cold blooded murder. If this is a war than this was the business of war.”
Your statement
“The point is if you now know them to be innocent, moral people would feel and express remorse unless they have been programmed to kill indiscriminately or are emotionally damaged by war.”
My statement
“Every soldier, marine, aviator or ship driver has a regret for something they did.”
Your statement
“The country treated the Vietnam Vet’s very badly with terrible consequences, that was immoral. I do not blame the troops in situations like this and I truly appreciate their willingness to protect, I just think we should learn from the past and only put them in these positions when completely necessary and admit when we get it wrong.”
Agreed, but people regardless of political affiliation tend to ignore history quite often.
Thus endeth the sermon
Thanks for (my part of) the (interesting) sermon. I guess we really agree more than disagree.
A few further points and rebuttals…
“…check world history and find a time when conflict was not occurring?”
China, Russia, Indonesia and India are currently not at war (shooting), that is half of the world. There has been no war in Europe since 1944 except Yugoslavia and Spain, Australia got bombed once on one day in WWII, England since 1944, New Zealand / Canada never (unless you count European invasion). I guess it depends on what you mean by war (you changed it to conflict). You could argue that war of necessity happens very infrequently and that conflict and peace happen at the same time constantly in different places, but then it gets down to conjecture and semantics.
Regardless I get your original point, I just choose to see it differently. I think people that were actually the target of war would agree with me that peace is far from illusionary and war is not inevitable.
“A hypothetical question…”
Yes, I would kill Hitler (Saddam, Pol Pot, death camp guard, pilots that dropped bombs on my family in WWII, etc.) in a heart-beat.
No, I would not kill a (innocent) kid to prevent 9/11. I can only be responsible for my actions, I can not control (fix) the world. I would only target combatants who actually posed a threat.
“Your an asset to be used to achieve a goal. An ethical or moral compass is not part of issued equipment.”
You should not obey illegal orders. They still take an oath to the Constitution don’t they? The military command does not determine your morals (or issue them) and if they try to remove it, they are not working for the good of the soldiers or the mission.
“As military property you lose almost all the civil rights non-military personnel have.”
You should not be treated unconstitutionally. You can not sign away your Constitutional rights. There are a lot of things that are done these days that are not legal (I blame the voters).
“Every soldier, marine, aviator or ship driver has a regret for something they did.”
I understand that, I just think that admitting it, and offering repentance if it is sincere can help in many ways.
I do not want it to be an army of slaves, that defeats the point. I understand you need cohesion and a command structure, but free men and women should not be treated like equipment and cannot be (legitimately) charged for not carrying out illegal orders. I understand reality is a different matter.
#33–Clancy==you think just like Gen Westmoreland and Dallas: if we kill lots and lots of people we call then enemy, then we Win!
Murdering innocent civilians loses the war, thats the whole point.
Join the 21st Century.
Only half the world? What about the other half? Take a look at Africa, a civil war is still a war. Even if half the world is “at peace” it still does not negate the argument. What if hitler was that child? you are responsible for your actions Hitler was an innocent child at one time. At what point does killing him become justified? only in hindsight can we see what has happened.
The Etymology of the word “war” comes from varying sources as strife or conflict.
Agreed that an individual should not obey an illegal order. Who decides what is legal? When you join
Marine Corp enlistment oath
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
While being part of the Machine has drawbacks like the temporary loss of some liberties. The overwhelming portion of today’s military behave as professionals who understood and stand the consequences of taking that oath.
Bobbo who sometimes apparently doesn’t think with his words. Where did I say that attrition was an acceptable strategy or that murdering innocent civilians was acceptable? By the way I disagreed with Westmoreland then and now. Didn’t find McNamara, Kennedy, or Johnson all that convincing either.
@clancys_Daddy, #33
I see you didn’t answer the questions, “who is the enemy?” and “how are they supported?” Maybe it’s because poverty cannot be dealt with with a war mentality. Such is true with terrorism. Terrorists don’t have countries and bases and there is no endgame. In fact, the more you kill, the more terrorists join their ranks. This war is pointless as far as ending terrorism goes. It does help fund the military and contractors and gives politicians an excuse to tax and borrow money from foreign countries on the collateral of our children’s future income.
I don’t give a f*ck what the soldier sees in the 5” monitor. I don’t support the war. And I feel that I have the right to not fund a war I don’t support. A war that is going to put myself and my family in danger by creating more terrorists. If you support the war, then you pay for it, instead of mortgaging my children’s future to pay for it. I’m sick and tired of having to fund some sick politicians’ agendas.
There are better ways to deal with terrorists. There’s letters of mark and reprisal. There’s changing your foreign policy so you stop screwing foreign people over by supporting dictators. Warmongers, like the many on this forum, will always look for the slightest reason to go to war.
“Only half the world?”
I only mentioned the easiest half first and that would make war/peace equal. I also continued.
If you want to base it on conflict + deaths see: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ongoing_wars”
I was wrong about India by this definition.
“What if hitler was that child?”
No, I would not kill Hitler as a child.
“At what point does killing him become justified?”
When he becomes a combatant. I would kill Hitler the WWI soldier.
Also, I would rather arrest enemies, I would only kill them if I could not arrest them.
“Who decides what is legal?”
Society has laid out what is legal (and troops should be made aware of it before graduating) and in the moment they do. If you are wrong you are convicted for disobeying a lawful order, if not, you aren’t (hypothetically).
Clancy==you ask “Where did I say that attrition was an acceptable strategy or that murdering innocent civilians was acceptable?” /// Attrition was not mentioned nor raised in context.
“Murdering innocent civilians was acceptable” is what you said here: “My statement
“If this is not a war than this was cold blooded murder. If this is a war than this was the business of war.”
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
You set up too much of a head to head conflict. Even civilian murder allows for “heat of the moment” as an attenuating circumstance===but it is still murder.
Westmoreland did think he could attrit the enemy but he also defined “winning” by the body count separate from any overall attrition.
Actually I was asking you, since you brought up the parallel. Beyond that I really don’t have that much of a disagreement with your argument, or your right to make it. Isn’t free speech wonderful?
Clancy, thats great. Now, should we gang up on LDA for his preposterous position that he wouldn’t kill Hitler as a child?
That was an episode on Twilight Zone. I “love” the going back in History to make things better stories==playing with the devil.
Turns out our time traveler killed the natural child of Mr and Mrs Hitler which caused them to adopt the evil Adolf==and we all know how adoptees turn out? ((My mom was one, so I feel I can joke about it.))
But on the issue of “morality” how can one balance one innocent life off against 68 Million ((or whatever.)).
LDA I will grant you the rest of the world that is not fighting. So do you kill Hitler because he is a WWI combatant or for what he will do after WWI? Society makes laws those laws do not necessary coincide with JAG definitions of legal or illegal. Military civilian dichotomy. Its a toss up. We both agree with what is is not always whats best.
Bobbo To respond please explain this statement, Just a little clarification.
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
If I understand your context the statement is meant to say that only in the heat of battle is killing/murder acceptable. If not I apologize. In response is the sniper on the battlefield who kills/murders an unarmed but identified enemy combatant, guilty of murder to the point of prosecution? By military law he would not be. If the sniper shoots an individual he (currently women cannot be snipers, not a sexist comment) believes that the individual is an enemy combatant and kills/murders them under current JAG definitions he would not necessarily be prosecuted. However if the sniper knowingly kills/murders a non-combatant than he could be prosecuted for premeditated murder.
While much of combat has occurred in what would be defined a “firefight.” Today’s use of technology, smart bombs, predator drones, or snipers appears very close to the definition of premeditated murder. But the current definitions used by JAG allow for the use of these weapons.
I still think Westmoreland was an idiot. The concept of the body count was essentially an 18th century strategy that didn’t work in WWII or Korea and had no place in the guerrilla type conflict of Vietnam. The body count was a way of showing we were winning. We killed more of them than they did of us. I do not subscribe to the old adage “kill em all and let god sort em out” I would prefer that all combatants wear uniforms and stand up fight like in the john wayne movies. I have an even better idea let the politicians who want war go fight them. But then I’m an old fashioned guy. I doubt very much and hope very much that such a war will not occur in my remaining life time. War is not pretty or nice or clean, or antiseptic. It is not a video game.
Sorry that was not directed at LDA towards 37.
Aahh see now your getting into that angels asses pin thing. Hypotheticals are great after about ten or twenty beers you can always solve the worlds problems.
#41 bobbo
I know you love hypotheticals.
What if 10 years later Germany (no-Hitler, stabbed in the head by the doctor at birth) had developed Nukes and another crazy scum-bag took over and killed 227 million ((or whatever))? That would be your fault for killing baby Hitler (or mine for killing WWI Hitler).
Maybe we should not have fought Germany in WWI and then maybe, hypothetically, for argument’s sake, there would have been no WWII, Germany would rule all of Europe and a second global industrial revolution happened and we all had space cars and no-one ever died again.
The context that you ignore (not surprisingly) was “At what point does killing him become justified?”, the first instance is WWI, there are many other opportunities afterwards.
My killing WWI Hitler, solved the problem I was posed.
On the evil adolf thing, did he come from a russian orphanage?
LDA you need another beer.
and finally cause I am to old to up this late.
http://tiny.cc/7kx44
be up this late (told you)
#42 clancys_daddy
I take the opportunity to kill him as a WWI combatant because of what he will do later and because he is currently a combatant.
If it is just hypothetical then you could kill him any time before he comes to power and avoid the carnage. If you knew what he would become and your only opportunity to kill him was as a child and you knew that killing him would avoid more carnage than not killing him, I would.
That said, the kid in the road in Vietnam was not Hitler and the army has not got a time machine.
So to sum it up I would not have gone to Vietnam and would not have needed to choose weather to run over the child. Vietnam was a good example of ‘what if’. ‘What if we do not fight and the Commies take over the world’? Well we did fight, millions died, we lost, and the Commies still didn’t take over the world.
If you knew what you know now, would you have gone to Vietnam?
#47 clancys_daddy
You buying?
#49 clancys_daddy
Good night.
#42–Clancy==you ask: “Bobbo To respond please explain this statement, Just a little clarification.
“War” does not include, condone, or imply “cold blooded murder.”
If I understand your context the statement is meant to say that only in the heat of battle is killing/murder acceptable. If not I apologize.
Very straightforward–“Words have a meaning and a context:” killing can be legal as in war, or illegal as in murder. You should not use them interchangeably as you do.
The fog of war may make certain killings uncertain as to their legality but if the conclusion is “that in peacetime in would be cold blooded murder” then it would be in war as well.
Its all definitional. I use the dictionary.
#45–LDA–yes, I do love a good hypothetical, a tonic for the mind. Killing Hitler as a child–not so good but even it helped resolve a few issues?
I think your even worse outcome is possible, but not likely for while anti-antisemitism and racism was common in Europe at the time, I don’t think it was as virulent as Hitlers. But yeah, I have often wondered at the the fact that if Hitler weren’t so crazy, really crazy, he might have won.
Rereading–I took a wrong turn. Yes–any leader of Germany with a 10-20 year delay and/or an actual “inviting” of inferior human beings into the society of Germany before coming to power could well have allowed Germany to continue its technical edge on the rest of the world and nukes could have been developed by “reasonable” German leaders.
Hence: playing with the devil. Still, the world would go on and we could be living with greater freedoms from want under German Lieberstrom and socialized healthcare.
The USA has always had too much of a paternalistic attitude towards countries. Iraq is a 2500 year old culture, America is a 250 year old one.
The child is trying to tell the adult what to do.
Son of Cain==nice demonstration on the dangers of anthropomorphizing an issue.
Total NONSENSE.
# 29 smartalix said, on April 22nd, 2010 at 4:44 am
28,
First off, dumbass, this video is from Bush’s term. Second, the right continues to block everything Obama does and then accuses him of not getting anything done. Nice try, though.
================================================
Hmmm… if the evil Republican minority can thwart Obama at every turn, why couldn’t the glorious Democrat majority get us out of Iraq as promised?
You should get a different handle unless the “smart” is meant to be ironic.