Video: American Soldiers Shooting Iraqi Civilians

Originally posted by SteveR
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?

If you don't then you are the one responsible for any "innocent" civilians the Russians may or may not kill as a result of your operations. In this case if civilians get killed in the middle of a firefight the occupying force should not/cannot be held responsible given the actions of the enemy in question...

See steve r you not making any since.. its no secret that these insurgents, who hide amongst the civilian populace are doing the right thing as far as keeping their buts alive longer. Still though you are NOT making any since, why then do you say that the video is showing murder of a civilian when you admit yourself that you cannot tell one from the other in Iraq? just answer me that?
Ive already given mine as to why i believe he was resistance, he drove his care up to and inside the firefight to give his fighters added defense and he jumped out and ran around so he could begin taking arms against them.
It is to vague to be able to tell if the man laying "dead" is the same guy that drove his car up there.

I'm still waiting for Malichai to reply to this:

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
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 contained in this video.

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

In answer to those questions, I think it's pretty easy to tell if somebody is shooting at you or running away, isn't it?

If they haven't fired a shot, are running away, and you speculate they MAY be an insurgent, why must you fire?

Because you're afraid they may attack you later? That isn't justification in my eyes at least.. and thus I beleive it is the occupying force's responsibility to discern targets rather than shoot everything, as you all seem to be suggesting.

That's why death of non-combatant civilians by U.S. fire is not the responsibility of uniformless insurgents.

This is just an attempt to shift the blame for the "mistakes" you are all coming to terms with now.

[edit on 25/3/07 by SteveR]

Originally posted by SteveR
In answer to those questions, I think it's pretty easy to tell if somebody is shooting at you or running away, isn't it?

If they haven't fired a shot, are running away, and you speculate they MAY be an insurgent, why must you fire?

Because you're afraid they may attack you later? That isn't justification in my eyes at least.. and thus I beleive it is the occupying force's responsibility to discern targets rather than shoot everything, as you all seem to be suggesting.

That's why death of non-combatant civilians by U.S. fire is not the responsibility of uniformless insurgents.

This is just an attempt to shift the blame for the "mistakes" you are all coming to terms with now.

Theres no logic in a warzone where an a person who runs away is considered a civilian. Insurgents do run away when they are about to get killed.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Theres no logic in a warzone where an a person who runs away is considered a civilian.

If that's your doctrine for occupying a city, then you are condoning massacre my friend.

From the camera perspective, it is nearly impossible to tell if the people in the car were insurgents or fleeing civilians. Either way, they were going to get shot up. Its somewhat understandable given the situation except that the people in the car werent actually engaged in any type of combat. Either way its a moot point since they were in the line of fire and judging by the way the marines were acting, hilarious target practice.

But hey! If it alleviates stress, laughing while killing is as good as a day on the beach.

PS. to the poster who said that they were just celebrating victory like they did on D-day. You cant be serious. I dare you to ask any vet how they celebrated the death of their enemies on D-day. Do you realize how rediculous that sounds. Victory celebrations are about defeating your enemy not about celebrating death...huge difference. Otherwise we would kill all our POWS.

Originally posted by SteveR

If that's your doctrine for occupying a city, then you are condoning massacre my friend.

Whatever. In your post, you mentioned that people who runs away is considered innocent, in reality even insurgents run away, does that make them innocent civilians too?

Should I post a video where an insurgent was carrying a camera and was running away from the Marines who were about to kill him? He had a camera only but he was definitely an insurgent.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Theres no logic in a warzone where an a person who runs away is considered a civilian. Insurgents do run away when they are about to get killed.

The war is over. There is no logic to an occupation where people are shot for running away.

HUMANS run away when their lives are in danger. The act of running does not prove someone to be an Insurgent.

If they are only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and running away while being shot at they are hardly criminals and in no way are they insurgents.

Originally posted by SteveR
This is just an attempt to shift the blame for the "mistakes" you are all coming to terms with now.

The only "mistake" we've made in Iraq is allowing our effeminate lawmakers back state-side to micro-manage this military operation. As has been oft-observed, the American Military Machine is a big, spiked club, not a scalpel. Their job is not to evaluate each and every Iraqi for the potential threat he poses. Their job is to kill until the killing is done.

Our defeatist political system needs to step aside and let our military do what it does best — crush the enemy, accept the collateral damage, and keep crushing until resistance ceases.

— Doc Velocity

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

Originally posted by Malichai

The war is over. There is no logic to an occupation where people are shot for running away.

It is? Didn't see that in the headlines.

HUMANS run away when their lives are in danger. The act of running does not prove someone to be an Insurgent.

If they are only guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and running away while being shot at they are hardly criminals and in no way are they insurgents.

As I said before, insurgents run away too, its so hard to distinguish from them. Get the point?

Originally posted by deltaboy
He had a camera only but he was definitely an insurgent.

Really? Then we have a fundamental disagreement here. You beleive anyone who possibly may want to resist the occupation must be hunted down and shot, no matter if he is not armed at the time.

Enjoy your thread, I have no desire to argue why your insane bloodlust is irresponsible and wrong.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Five, civilians entering or driving into an engagement/firefight are either extremely stupid or aiding the enemy.

I know somebody that was over there and he said that the ones that were there when they were hit by IED's were involved with the attack or knew it was there and was waiting for the show. After he went crazy with the machine gun on the Bradley when they were hit one time, there were no IED attacks for several months in his area.

He was hit five times by IED's and lost a lot of friends from them.

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by deltaboy
He had a camera only but he was definitely an insurgent.

Really? Then we have a fundamental disagreement here. You beleive anyone who possibly may want to resist the occupation must be hunted down and shot, no matter if he is not armed at the time.

Enjoy your thread, I have no desire to argue why your insane bloodlust is irresponsible and wrong.

How about requesting to see the video before judging?

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
crush the enemy, accept the collateral damage, and keep crushing until resistance ceases.

Do you see Iraqis as human beings? Are you aware what you describe is not a liberation, but an imperial invasion? Pretty much exemplified by the Nazi invasions and occupations in Europe?

[edit on 25/3/07 by SteveR]

Ok so what about the garbage "civilian" that was holding a cellphone in the video above. He used the phone to detonate his IED, hes not carrying a weapon, so using your logic he shoud be allowed to just walk away and not be shot in the head with a .50 cal, which is what he deserves...

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by deltaboy
He had a camera only but he was definitely an insurgent.

Really? Then we have a fundamental disagreement here. You beleive anyone who possibly may want to resist the occupation must be hunted down and shot, no matter if he is not armed at the time.

Enjoy your thread, I have no desire to argue why your insane bloodlust is irresponsible and wrong.

Malichai, you posted a thread here called Video: American Soldiers Shooting Iraqi Civilians... Yet, at the end of the video clip, the end title clearly reads: No unarmed people were hurt during the shooting.

Now, Malachai, I really would like for you to answer this question: Are you calling the videographer, a person who was there on the ground in Ramadi, a liar? The title of your thread states quite flatly that Americans are shooting Iraqi civilians, and you have repeatedly defended that contention. Shooting people usually hurts them, doesn't it? Yet the video says that no unarmed people were hurt.

So where are you getting your information that refutes the information provided by the video?

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Are you calling the videographer, a person who was there on the ground in Ramadi, a liar?

They don't want to look like cowards that they may be now do they? They want to look like tough guys, "defending freedom". He could be just saving his ass, but who knows.

I'm interested to know, what's to stop any civilians driving past, without realising that there is a firefight happening. How can anyone put the blame on them, if they are civilians?

[edit on 25-3-2007 by Xeros]

Doc, ultimately you are the one who is right. Here we all are getting away from the original question posed.

Everyone here is rationalizing and is escaping what needs to be discussed and what needs to be discussed is the video. In the video it states that no unarmed civilians were harmed. Which means that the people harmed in the video are combatants.

Now who is the original poster to state such biased crap that refutes that which is stated by someone who sat there in the middle of the firefight itself? Exactly.

Doc, thank you for staying on topic.

Really this entire thread was started based on opinion and opinion alone. And Xeros, what civilian in the world other than a deaf and blind, or maybe even mentally retarded one would not be aware of a fire fight up ahead? I for one would be able to see ricocheting, dust being blown up into the air from automatic fire, and also hear the commotion.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 25-3-2007 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by SteveR
Do you see Iraqis as human beings? Are you aware what you describe is not a liberation, but an imperial invasion? Pretty much exemplified by the Nazi invasions and occupations in Europe?

First, I see Americans as human beings*SNIP* Second, I see Iraq, particularly under the regime of Saddam Hussein, as a thorn in America's side for nearly two decades. Third, I do not care about "liberating" anyone in the Middle East, particularly when the Middle East is a hotbed of Islam-inspired violence that has touched America's shores more than once.

As for "Nazi invasion & occupation," that vicious and accusatory analogy is always propagated by the enemies of America. What you should understand is that, in spite of the socialist lies out there, America is making a preemptive strike against the true fascism and anti-Semitism in this world. In case you didn't notice, Saddam was slaughtering and torturing his own people and perpetually threatening Israel.

Frankly, I wanted to go into Iraq like a bulldozer from the first day we were in Afghanistan. I still want to flatten Syria. I eagerly anticipate crushing the life out of Iran. I want to make Israel the 51st American State and dare anyone to rock the boat in the Middle East.

Yes, there is fascism and religious fanaticism and slavery and mutilation and oppression and cruelty in the world, and you can find most of it right there in the Middle East. *SNIP* How's that?

— Doc Velocity

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

Mod Edit: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 26/3/2007 by Mirthful Me]