Video: American Soldiers Shooting Iraqi Civilians

Originally posted by deltaboy
As an insurgent, I would wear a uniform to show that I am a soldier fighting for my country, it makes me distinguish from civilians who are not involved in anyway.

Then you would be a very short-lived insurgent — might as well just wear a big orange bullseye on your back. All of the other insurgents would be scrambling and ducking for cover everytime you approached.

Yep, the life of the uniformed insurgent is all too lonely and all too brief.

— Doc Velocity

As seen on some of the History Channel docs, some of the one that are in militias ie.. Al-Sadr militia they may wear the black shirts with black masks but that doesnt mean they all do that.. thats as close as some of them will come to wearing a "uniform"

I think the insults, the shouting down, and the calls for ending the thread have all gone too far.

It all boils down to if you believe the people being shot at were 'insurgents' or not.

Without there being any evidence of this in the video the people who believe they must be insurgents are basing their beliefs on assumptions.

No weapons, no offensive actions taken, just scared people running away in terror from their shot up cars.

It is possible that the people were involved in hostile action, but no proof for that is to be seen in the video. This is assumption created in your own mind.

Without evidence of hostile action by the victims, without uniforms of military service the rational conclusion is that you see civilians being shot at by US soldiers.

Make your own assumptions, but don't go claiming you have proven anything with your fairy tales, and leave the insults for lower class forums.

This is ATS and we deny ignorance!

LMAO naa doc they would in fact be making side bets on his survival or lack there of.
1st insurgent, i bet you my 12 yr old virgin sister that he gets it by the second day..

quote]Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by deltaboy
As an insurgent, I would wear a uniform to show that I am a soldier fighting for my country, it makes me distinguish from civilians who are not involved in anyway.

Then you would be a very short-lived insurgent — might as well just wear a big orange bullseye on your back. All of the other insurgents would be scrambling and ducking for cover everytime you approached.

Yep, the life of the uniformed insurgent is all too lonely and all too brief.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Then you would be a very short-lived insurgent — might as well just wear a big orange bullseye on your back. All of the other insurgents would be scrambling and ducking for cover everytime you approached.

Yep, the life of the uniformed insurgent is all too lonely and all too brief.

— Doc Velocity

Tell that to the Army Special Forces that infiltrated Afghanistan and kicked Taliban's butt while still wearing uniforms of some kind.

Short lived insurgent... well it depends on how well I do when fighting a guerrilla warfare while wearing a uniform.

Originally posted by Bugman82
Arguments have been laid out supporting the idea that these are insurgents. What else can we do but supply that evidence? If people will not listen to evidence they are simply being self-serving.

The arguments are exculpatory rationalizations not based on anything seen in the video.

The victims took no hostile actions in the video.

What evidence exactly are you speaking of.

Which frame of the video shows the people driving the cars attacking the soldiers?

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by Bugman82
Arguments have been laid out supporting the idea that these are insurgents. What else can we do but supply that evidence? If people will not listen to evidence they are simply being self-serving.

The arguments are exculpatory rationalizations not based on anything seen in the video.

The victims took no hostile actions in the video.

What evidence exactly are you speaking of.

Which frame of the video shows the people driving the cars attacking the soldiers?

Well, I guess none of the circumstansial evidence we laid out matters at all. Do I have to post the evidence that we've looked at again? I'm not familiar with the rules of this board yet since today is my first day posting here so I'll cut and copy this again. Let me know if this is against board rules.

1. Listen to the background......AK-47 fire is completely obvious to anyone who knows what it sounds like at all. Look up on google a video with AK-47s being rattled off. It will sound the same as some of the background rounds you hear in this video.
2. Yes, Insurgents will rush cars into the field of battle and proceed to use them as cover so they can fire at their targets. This is typical.........like so typical it happens extremely often in urban combat.......once again straight from the manual.
3. Here that talk about the sniper bullet in the background near the end of the video? One of the soldiers was nearly hit by a sniper's round.

4. MOST IMPORTANTLY - This is how men who are trained to fight should act in conflict. When we won WWII, experienced D-day, and saw victories such as Iwo Jima do you think we just stood there somberly and moped around saddened about the loss of German/Japanese lives? Sorry, that's not the way things were playing out.
Celebration is a part of war.
video.google.com...
www.youtube.com...
When you win a battle you celebrate. When you win the war you celebrate. It is the understanding there are people out there who are trying to kill you, you've avoided death, and you have won a victory. Why should the man in the video not be proud of pumping an insurgent full of 30 bullets? This is what he was trained to do. That is what he is there to do. Is it wrong to enjoy your job, what you've trained for, and doing something your are supposed to do? What would happen if moral without celebration? What would happen in war if you were unable to take joy in killing the enemy?
I mean c'mon.......even the munchkins in The Wizard of Oz celebrate the death of the wicked witch........guess they are as guilty as these men.......

There is a little circumstancial evidence laced with logic for you........

There is plenty of "behind the scenes evidence". I guess the fact that the soldiers didn't allow the men in their vehicles enough time to gain cover and begin firing is troublesome for direct proof...

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Bugman82]

Originally posted by Malichai

The arguments are exculpatory rationalizations not based on anything seen in the video.

The victims took no hostile actions in the video.

What evidence exactly are you speaking of.

Which frame of the video shows the people driving the cars attacking the soldiers?

You have yet to make a comment about this video. This person shows no hostile intent against the Iraqi police, all he holding was a cellphone. Do you see any proof that he was responsible. I think that was the intent. If I killed him, it would seem that I just murdered an innocent civilian who was holding a cellphone.

Originally posted by Malichai
Without evidence of hostile action by the victims, without uniforms of military service the rational conclusion is that you see civilians being shot at by US soldiers.

The rational conclusion is that there is insufficient data to determine the true nature of this engagement and the identities of all the participants. That's all that can be rationally gleaned from this video.

Originally posted by Malichai
Make your own assumptions, but don't go claiming you have proven anything with your fairy tales, and leave the insults for lower class forums.

Are we ignoring the closing title on the video, as well, placed there by one of the Marine participants (known as "Doc")? No unarmed people were hurt during shooting. Now, I consider that a pretty compelling statement, and it's contained right there in the video. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the Marines were shooting presumably "unarmed" civilians? It flies in the face of the evidence.

Unless, of course, you are calling the videographer a liar, because you know for a fact that unarmed civilians are being shot. Do you know that for a fact? Because, if you don't, you've posted a thread based on false assumptions on ATS.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 3/25/2007 by Doc Velocity]

Malichai, you can't prove a single thing you just said.

In the video I could tell the difference between Kalashnikov gun fire and M-16 gunfire, meaning that the US Marines were receiving fire.

There are insurgents out there.

All the assumptions that have been made on our side were based on past actions taken by insurgents and are based on their tactics. Everything in the video complies with insurgent tactics seen in the past.

I have never seen any headlines about a trial being passed on a squad of marines responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in a make-believe firefight.

It is not our job to prove that they are insurgents because we did not post the video and raise the argument.

However none of us were there and I find it despicable that you would pass judgment like this. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or is it guilty until proven innocent to suit your agenda? This is an extremely biased thread title because nothing of the sort has been proven by the video.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 25-3-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

So, if anyone can be the bad guy, we just kill everyone?







[edit on 25-3-2007 by hoppy]

Originally posted by deltaboy
Even the members of the Army Special Forces wears uniforms, while dressing local garb of some kind when fighting a guerilla warfare. Does that make them wishing for death? Not really.

Deltaboy, in what way are U.S. special forces in Afghanistan facing certain death? Let's just focus on urban warfare, under the condition of a overwhelming occupation force.

I'll make it simple. Consider the following. The U.S. military has been crushed. All American cities and towns are under heavy Soviet occupation. You are residing in, say, Reno Nevada. The city is under curfew. There are 5000 russian troops monitoring the city, with plenty of guard towers.

Do you don your Army uniform and risk getting apprehended/killed as soon as the first Russian sees you? Is that the most effective way to conduct your task?

Originally posted by SteveR

Deltaboy, in what way are U.S. special forces in Afghanistan facing certain death? Let's just focus on urban warfare, under the condition of a overwhelming occupation force.

I'll make it simple. Consider the following. The U.S. military has been crushed. All American cities and towns are under heavy Soviet occupation. You are residing in, say, Reno Nevada. The city is under curfew. There are 5000 russian troops monitoring the city, with plenty of guard towers.

Do you don your Army uniform and risk getting apprehended/killed as soon as the first Russian sees you? Is that the most effective way to conduct your task?

Okay you decided to change the subject of guerilla warfare to just about urban combat. Simple, even in uniform you can snipe, shoot, or plant IEDs and move from building to building. Similar to the jungle.

You can still get caught or killed with or without uniform, thats just war.





[edit on 25-3-2007 by deltaboy]