The use of the word "massacre" implies something like My Lai or the Katyn Forest, a deliberate killing of large numbers of noncombatants, especially by infantry.
Attacks by aircraft, like those in this video (as indicated in the article) and the previous one, should be described as something else -- although it remains the case that Apaches, F/A-18s, and B-1s (the US counterpart to the Backfire) do not have the large role in COIN that the Pentagon has assigned them, and their employment in Iraq and Afghanistan reveals a poisonously cavalier attitude towards non-American lives.
The right way to fight COIN campaigns is known (see David Galula, _Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice_ (1967)); it is not the same as the Pentagon's -- although in fairness, the US military has been trending in the right direction since the happy day when Rumsfeld was given the boot.
like anything would be different if they killed more people.
That My Lai incident you brought up? Where 300-500 civilians were killed? Where the soldiers went out of their way to eliminate every civilian(no fog of war, no "we thought they were terrurists"). Where they killed women, children and infants....only 1 person went to jail for it.
2 days later he was released from jail by the order of a president no less...pending his appeal, and on appeal he was only given 4 months in jail and 3 years under house arrest.
This is a very minor point, but could someone edit the title? "Afghani" means the currency; "Afghan" means the people of Afghanistan (Afghan-i Stan, "Land of the Afghans [originally another name for the Pashtuns]", in Persian).
This is a pretty common mistake, for what it's worth; demonymns in the eastern Middle East are kind of unpredictable.
How should I feel about the possible reaction in Afghanistan given that we still have US citizens in the country? My father is due to make a two week tour of Afghanistan next week and this makes me worry for him.
I realize that exposing the realities of war is the best way to end a war but I can't help but worry for the people on the ground.
At first: I feel very sorry for you and hope that your father will return home without getting into trouble. I do understand your point of view.
I just want to say that this video could make US^H^H citizens worry more for _all_ the people on the ground of Afghanistan or any other war zone. That is a good thing.
Wikileaks were exceedingly disingenuous with their presentation of the material in the former video - in which 2 helicopters killed a group carrying loaded RPG and assault rifles that were an imminent threat to a passing ground patrol that was already taking fire.
I hope that they'll let the material stand for itself rather than lying like politicians trying to score points.
The way they handled the last one was like some sort of Microsoft marketing exercise.
>>> I hope that they'll let the material stand for
>>> itself rather than lying like politicians trying
>>> to score points.
WTF? This is a video that Reuters has been trying to get released for over 2 years. The only reason that the video can no "speak for itself" as you say, is because wikileaks leaked it.
And good thing that the video can now speak for itself because it shows that the Pentagon lied about what happened to those reporters. I'd rather have the video speak for itself rather than have the pentagon lying to score points.
Erm, there was no RPG and arguably only one assault rifle. Camera equipment was mistaken for an RPG and for one of the assault rifles.
The reason the propaganda was inserted was because the US military explicitly stated that they did not know what happened to the reporters involved and were obviously too embarrassed to admit that they mistook their camera equipment for weapons and proactively engaged them.
I think it's possible that the widespread use of non-lethal weapons could result in greater attrocities than the use of lethal weapons on the macro-level. It may not always be aparent, but in general, there is human restraint against killing other humans. A group of people would have to do, or at least be pegged with doing, something fairly high on the "bad scale" to justify use of lethal force. I suspect the threshold for beating them into submission with shotgun fired beanbags, high-pressured water, etc. would be much lower. At the level of an individual life, non-lethal would obviously be better. But at the level of one group of people trying to exert their will over another, I think non-lethal weapons would lead to more of that exertion, because it would be less difficult to justify.
I can't find a reference now, but I've read in the past that the 5.56mm round -- the ammunition used in M-16s, for example -- is designed with a goal of (among other things) seriously wounding the target rather than killing. This isn't for humane purposes, but because putting a soldier into the infirmary with medical staff necessary to support him poses a greater cost to the enemy than simply killing him.
[+] [-] dkimball|16 years ago|reply
Attacks by aircraft, like those in this video (as indicated in the article) and the previous one, should be described as something else -- although it remains the case that Apaches, F/A-18s, and B-1s (the US counterpart to the Backfire) do not have the large role in COIN that the Pentagon has assigned them, and their employment in Iraq and Afghanistan reveals a poisonously cavalier attitude towards non-American lives.
The right way to fight COIN campaigns is known (see David Galula, _Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice_ (1967)); it is not the same as the Pentagon's -- although in fairness, the US military has been trending in the right direction since the happy day when Rumsfeld was given the boot.
[+] [-] joubert|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vaksel|16 years ago|reply
That My Lai incident you brought up? Where 300-500 civilians were killed? Where the soldiers went out of their way to eliminate every civilian(no fog of war, no "we thought they were terrurists"). Where they killed women, children and infants....only 1 person went to jail for it.
2 days later he was released from jail by the order of a president no less...pending his appeal, and on appeal he was only given 4 months in jail and 3 years under house arrest.
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|16 years ago|reply
I expect that the most famous "massacre" in history, at least to Americans, was the Boston Massacre in 1770. In that incident, 5 people were killed.
[+] [-] dustingetz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkimball|16 years ago|reply
This is a pretty common mistake, for what it's worth; demonymns in the eastern Middle East are kind of unpredictable.
[+] [-] dpritchett|16 years ago|reply
I realize that exposing the realities of war is the best way to end a war but I can't help but worry for the people on the ground.
[+] [-] vaksel|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seven|16 years ago|reply
I just want to say that this video could make US^H^H citizens worry more for _all_ the people on the ground of Afghanistan or any other war zone. That is a good thing.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|16 years ago|reply
I hope that they'll let the material stand for itself rather than lying like politicians trying to score points.
The way they handled the last one was like some sort of Microsoft marketing exercise.
[+] [-] barnaby|16 years ago|reply
WTF? This is a video that Reuters has been trying to get released for over 2 years. The only reason that the video can no "speak for itself" as you say, is because wikileaks leaked it.
And good thing that the video can now speak for itself because it shows that the Pentagon lied about what happened to those reporters. I'd rather have the video speak for itself rather than have the pentagon lying to score points.
[+] [-] BudVVeezer|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|16 years ago|reply
The reason the propaganda was inserted was because the US military explicitly stated that they did not know what happened to the reporters involved and were obviously too embarrassed to admit that they mistook their camera equipment for weapons and proactively engaged them.
[+] [-] amichail|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koepked|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CWuestefeld|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epochwolf|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Subgun|16 years ago|reply
Report the news . Don't make it, fabricate it or skew it.
The days of yellow journalism are still alive and well.
[+] [-] barnaby|16 years ago|reply
Ahem, Fox?
[+] [-] dustingetz|16 years ago|reply