In Response to “Murder in Iraq”
Posted by Grant Muioc on 04.11.2010
The US Military did not murder or execute anyone…
It's only fair that someone defends the military from the article posted by Jason Douglas titled "Murder in Iraq".
I'll use this video for cited times HERE so we can all be on the same page.
According to reports by the military (who I believe more than Huffington, Wikilinks or any of the other cynics), two AH-64D "Apache" gun-ships were called to conduct a Close Air Support mission in support of ground forces engaged by hostiles with RPG's. This engagement was part of series of engagements that had been taking place throughout the day.
RPG-7 (the most common variety in Iraq) is a man portable antitank or personnel weapon capable of engaging targets accurately up to 500m, with a range of about 900m. If using an anti-personnel warhead it can spread shrapnel over 25m, or if using a HEAT round it can disable a tank or destroy a HMMWV. They are a big deal because they are cheap and easy to fire, making them insurgent friendly for hasty ambushes. As far back as 2004 the ROE in Iraq was to engage anyone carrying one of these things because the only ones carrying them are insurgents or Iraqi Ministry of Interior Commandos and Army Units. Those are the rules regarding RPG's and in 2007 every single Iraqi knows that. RPG attacks by that time had fallen well off their 2005 high.
The AH-64D, or "Apache", does not simply patrol the skies of Baghdad like some fucking beat cops. They are set up in on a specific patrol route and wait for someone to call for their support. Once they come in they secure the area by conducting Close Air Support. They are supporting the troops moving on the ground to the target/objective. If they recognize a threat displaying hostile intent they can engage after reporting and receiving permission OR if they feel the threat is imminent they can just attack. These guys actually gave the "RPG guy" some time before engaging by asking for permission. But the simply truth is that they identified what they thought was hostile intent (the RPG being present) and engaged. The hostile intent was the presence of the RPG. The "RPG guy" did not have to point it at them, just simply holding it in public constituted hostile intent towards the approaching ground forces.
According to Foxnews.com: "Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks editor, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons." Assange said his suspicions about the weapons were so strong that a draft version of the video they produced made specific reference to the AK-47s and RPGs. Ultimately, Assange said, WikiLeaks became "unsure" about the weapons. He claimed the RPG could have been a camera tripod, so editors decided not to point it out. "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said. Nearly every Iraqi household has a rifle or an AK. Those guys could have just been protecting their area." The military has said Army units on the ground were experiencing RPG fire before calling in close air support. And although it could be argued AK-47 rifles are common household items, RPGs are not. Assange said video evidence of the cameras was much clearer than it was of the weapons and that military statements about the presence of weapons had already been widely distributed. But critics say those watching the video online or on television for the first time may not have had any knowledge of those statements. "It's ludicrous to allege that we have taken anything out of context in this video," Assange told Fox News.
(That's right, I used FOX as a source because they at least had the balls to post this to their front page and take on the account provided by Wikilinks- who can't even tell what their own edited video is showing…and yes, the video is edited because there are parts that have been magnified for "clarity". This is great for you armchair Generals, but this is not what the pilots saw on their viewers.)
An Apache is a two seat aircraft. The video shows the perspective of the weapons systems, but not the pilot or the gunner. The camera is taking about a 20 degree swipe of all possible visual information in the 360 degree area. You only see what the camera sees, but not everything that is taking place. The Apaches themselves are probably 500m away or even further. They could be closer. Whatever the circumstance, either the pilot or the gunner have eyes beyond what that camera alone sees. They also can't rewind the video to get a better look to see if the RPG pointing at them is actually a camera or not, they are already reacting to the object. This also explains why there are times that the Apaches state that they see fire but it's not shown on the camera, because the camera is looking 500-800 meters from the Apache's current location…which is witnessing fire because the ground elements are under contact in the area. The contact is just not on the camera.
Hostile Intent
At 3:45, there is an Iraqi with an RPG. He is accompanied by others who have AK's. They are identified by the Apache's.
At 4:20, the idiot reporter who is meeting with the insurgents (and not identified as media in anyways) points something from around the corner of the same building that the guy with the RPG just walked towards. We know what it is now after multiple viewings and debate, but the Apache has already identified the RPG and anything looking like one now just sends them reacting, especially a guy behind a wall pointing a tube at them.
To be honest the guy with the camera looks like he is the catalyst for the attack. The Apaches engage after he "aims" at them and after they already PID the previous RPG at 3:45. To be fair I am certain that is a camera and not an RPG, but in a fight how would the Apaches know that? They can't rewind their sensors for another look.
The Apaches are already moving to engage when the camera is pointed at them, this is when they mistake the camera for an RPG and say "He is going to fire". Right as the reporter points his camera at them. Was he holding a camera? Sure was. Was he standing next to a guy with an RPG? Sure was. Did hide and point his camera from behind cover as the Apache passed? Sure did.
If you were the Apache what would you have done? Honestly? They did their jobs.
Hostile Intent was established once an RPG was identified. Incorrect or false detections have little bearing on the events that follow. The point is that the Apaches thought that they had identified a threat and acted. If one guy has an RPG and another points a camera that looks like an RPG it's already "too bad" for everyone involved. RPG trumps reporter's camera in threat to task list these pilots are already conducting. These guys rehearse these routines for hundred and perhaps thousands of flight hours, it becomes automatic.
Fleeing Enemies
First off, hostiles fleeing the combat area are still considered hostile. Just because they drop their weapons and try to flee does not make them "non-hostile", it just makes them hostiles attempting to escape. Secondly, fleeing is not surrendering. The rules are don't shoot those surrendering. Thirdly, who judges if an identified hostile is fleeing or maneuvering? Basic infantry tactics are built on the idea of maneuver warfare. If someone engages the infantry team they put down fire and begin to maneuver to a better position. Any group of insurgents carrying RPG's and AK's is for purposes an infantry team. You take them all down and keep them from running. Letting them escape can lead to bigger problems such as hostage taking or reentry into combat on their terms.
The Van: unmarked individuals aiding combatants during combat operations are fair game according to the military. This may answer GaryML's questions:
If the guys in the van are attempting to aid downed hostiles during a fight they can be considered impeding the conduct of an operation. They become can be considered hostile by default because they can't be identified as anything else, other than they are helping other hostiles during combat. These people were "Good Samaritans" according to most the reports that I have read, but when the Apache is conducting close air support they have to do their job. They have to protect the ground units that called in the support. Nobody can say if that van is a threat or not during the operation. It could have been another insurgent team, a bomb or packed full of kids…but the guys with the best vantage during the operation made the call. This part of the video annoys me because it has been edited by magnifying the image to try and show the kids. The screen on the Apache would not have been magnified to such an extent. The kids little white blob faces are practically invisible without the editing. This is also the part that pisses people off and I don't blame them. It is hard to watch after the fact because most of us assume we know what happened. The question is what the ROE was for unidentified Civilians on the Battlefield rendering aid to downed enemy combatants. Most ROE, and the Rules or War, prohibits attacking marked medical teams or vehicles. I'll honestly say that I don't know what the ROE was for these guys in that circumstance, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought hostiles were attempting to recover hostiles. At the very least they are rendering aid to hostiles as ground forces approached a hot area and the pilots decided to make a decision before the decision was made for them. I know from various reports that an investigation by the military already exonerated the actions and that is good enough for me based on the sole evidence that this video shows.
At 8:41, ground forces, aka "Bushmaster", are requesting to "walk on to the location", twenty seconds later the van shows up. The Apaches report the van to Bushmaster. This is after ground forces have committed to their movement into the combat area.
At 9:23, "Bushmaster" requests that the Apaches stop the van from picking up the bodies. The Apaches get clearance to fire from the ground element shortly after.
This sounds clean to me. Nobody engaged without reporting the situation and the intent was to maintain control of the situation as ground forces entered the area, which is exactly what should have happened.
Running over the body:
I have driven in HMMWV's for years. In military HMMWV's the driver sits low and the front hood's shape obscures the view directly in front of everyone other than the gunner. The gunner gives some direction to the driver if possible, but he was probably checking his vectors and not worrying about the ground right below him. My initial bet would be that they did not see the body. Running over the body on purpose would be questionable. I would still give benefit to the driver that he did not see the body. Dust, smoke, rubble will all add to the chaos. The body looks like it fell on the reverse slop of some rubble, but it could have simply fallen on the best Infil Route to the scene and was unavoidable.
Cover Up:
This type of video is naturally classified and anyone with a clearance knows why. It has nothing to do with the actual event, which looks cut and dry to anyone who has ever been in the situation or at least understands why the Apaches engaged. It has to do with the Tactics, techniques and procedures being displayed by a variety of US forces during a combat operation. It also may show sensitive capabilities and limitations on our current and primary Close Air Support system used in theater.
I'll admit that it's certainly not the militaries finest hour, but it is hardly the work of murders and executioners hell bent on simply killing Iraqis. They could do that whenever they wanted, they have the fire power readily available. This at most was a case of mistaken identity brought on by reporters being in the wrong place at the wrong time (which Reuters all but admits by stating "they were not wearing press badges around insurgents"). At the very least this was a clean kill on a team of insurgents carrying a RPG and toting AK's and the reporters picked the wrong day to visit their friends.
Murderers and Executioners? Hardy, this is a three year old event, based on an illegally obtained video, edited by a bias organization and posted on dear Huffington's website as propaganda to tie this single combat situation into demonizing everything tied to the war. It's like saying that all fish tastes bad because you have had a bad tuna sandwhich for lunch...
The kids in the video did actually get taken to a US hospital and not diverted to an Iraqi hospital as stated in the video; you can reference the actual report in link below. I was surprised by this because it's not normal, but that's what the offical report says.
Reuters admits that their people were in the wrong place and not wearing the right markings. They even have this guy, Anthony Dworkin, the director of the Crimes of War Project, which studies humanitarian law in conflict, saying "it did not appear that the pilots had intentionally targeted civilians" on their own new story about the incident (Adam Entous, Reuters, Wednesday, April 7, 2010; 8:21 PM).
Wikilinks admits that ""it's likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons".
The Military is right now prosecuting a Navy SEAL for punching a terrorist in the nose yet they "covered up" this? Why not just cover up the SEAL punching the guy in the nose too? Does that make sense to anyone? The Military got their asses handed to them by the Abu Guraub scandal, they don't cover anything up. We have had dozens of our warfighters prosecuted, hundreds admonished and careers ruined, and thousands investigated (including me) for doing their jobs. The majority of these guys are not rapist or murders. Some made poor decisions; others made the best they could in the situation, and most did nothing wrong at all and are exonerated after months of scrutiny by their people that they have to trust the most. Not only does the military have to defend against actual terrorist but they have to defend themselves from nonsense like this.
All because people want to imagine war as being reflective of our society or use it make a political argument against Bush.
It's war. A war that has gone on for the better part of a decade and we are actually winning. But no thanks to statements like this by Wikilinks or others. Would we rather see us defeated and come home losers to an "illegal war" than see us achieve victory and give this country back to those people? I want to give Iraq back better than we took it because we already paid the price. Every single warfigher over there is trying like hell to do the best they can do with a shitty situation and sites like Wikilinks are pushing more shit on them and nobody is defending them from it. This claim by Wikilinks is simply not true. Do you think for a moment that it was MSNBC, CNN, or any other major outlet other than FOX would let it go?
It's easy to cherry pick the very worst cases and apply them to everyone involved. And cynics of the war do it so they can condemn a man who is not even a President anymore.
I feel sorry that our "murderers and executioners" have died and will die to protect our freedom of speech when clearly there are those not responsible enough to use it. Wikilinks has not helped one person by showing this video, its not accurate in it's portrayal of the engagement at hand, and it shows a bad situation in a bias negative light. It is impossible to not feel anger when watching it, but that's because the narrative and editing push the viewer without giving the entire context to the situation.
For all those who disagree with me, I offer you this: The Truth
A website that will allow you read the actual 15-6 investigation yourself. At the very least make an educated opinion on the situation before calling our warfighters "murderers and executioners". They deserve that much respect.
They fucked up, Grant. Big time. Their heads should roll. To argue otherwise is the act of a unthinking soldier fetishist.
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 08:26 AM
Your article does a good job of arguing why these guys shouldn't be hung by a yard arm, but does little to address the underlying issue.
In fact, I would argue that your article is representative of a mindset that shows why this "war on terror" isn't going away any time soon.
Many folks commenting on Jason Douglas' article, and you in this article, made an argument that boils down to "In war, shit happens." In this article you make reference to wanting to give Iraq back to the Iraqis in better shape than when we found it, which is a noble sentiment.
This mindset though presupposes that we have a right to be there, which is not an opinion held by many in Iraq, or even many in the United States. Certainly, people who might be radicalized by such incidents would not share it. And this is the crux of the matter. Incidents like this turn people against the United States, increasing the recruiting pool for terrorists and putting more American lives in danger. Incidents like this are harmful to national security.
"One pilot said in his testimony he saw insurgents engage the ground unit and thought he saw a flash from an RPG. That’s not apparent from a careful viewing of the video. Ground troops had reported taking small arms fire during the operations and report seeing RPGs among the bodies. The report includes photos from the scene but its difficult to make out an RPG."
This is from the article you link to under "truth". Seeing as how the presence of an RPG is central to your justification of this incident, that it is questionable as to whether or not an RPG was present puts your entire justification of this event into question. If it turns out there were no RPG's would you come back and say that the appearance of RPG presence justified the actions?
"our "murderers and executioners" have died and will die to protect our freedom of speech"
This is the biggest canard I have ever seen, and one that is often repeated. Freedom of speech was never threatened by Iraq, so how can our soldiers be defending it? It's a nice platitude, but is not even remotely true.
"And cynics of the war do it so they can condemn a man who is not even a President anymore."
Does the fact that he is no longer President mitigate his responsibility for getting us into this unnecessary war in the first place? And people who make points like this are simply taking pot shots at those who are opposed to the war. That one cuts both ways.
Q:?, The point about military fetishism is more salient than most realize and is often the motivating factor in any defense of the military, whether that defense is valid or not.
Most people's opinion about this incident will likely be based on their knee-jerk reaction. This article is just an example of justifying such a reaction.
Posted By: Guest#7325 (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 01:29 PM
Do you think its a good thing that unmarked vans are considered fair game, when they're picking up corpses? There were children inside, by the way.
I'll briefly talk about the silliness of "winning" or "losing" a war, like its a football game. Consider Vietnam, a war that was considered lost after we left. Today, we are trading partners with Vietnam and they aren't a threat at all. Imagine how many billions would have been spent and how many lives lost if we'd stayed and "won"
So, with over a trillion spent, 6000 dead soldiers, and a million dead Iraqis, at what point is a victory not a victory anymore?
Most of my friends are soldiers. I know they're not bloodthirsty. Honestly, they joined because they were too poor to go to college. It was at the point that a soldier told me he'd fired on a 12 year old for fear he had a grenade that I realized that the situation was fucked up much more than the soldiers. I think these situations should be shouted from the rooftop, because if we really cared about the troops we'd send them home.
Imagine for a moment, that best case scenario, 30 years from now Iraq becomes a democracy and no longer need troops. What does democracy look like in the Middle East? Hamas was democratically elected. Hezbollah is a democratically elected party in Lebanon. The Islamic Revolution in Iran (brought us Ahmadinejad) though a coup, was ultimately supported by popular opinion. I can't fathom any realistic situation where are troops in this position is worth it.
Posted By: Tom (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 02:18 PM
Before Team America came to Iraq it was a happy place with rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and played with gumdrop smiles.
Posted By: Sean Penn F.A.G. (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Yeah, I'm a liberal and have a lot of liberal views on the government and on this war. With that being said, I cringe when other 'liberals' point to things like this and scream about murderers and child-killers. This is a WAR, people, and when things like this come up as examples of 'war time atrocities' it cheapens the validity of other arguments.
Posted By: lib589 (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 03:42 PM
Very good article.
Posted By: Guest#6392 (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 05:53 PM
Wow.. this article is like.. long and stuff
Posted By: Guest#9769 (Guest) on April 11, 2010 at 06:59 PM
A very intelligent factually supported reply to an opinion used as fact liberal article. Thank You Sir for sticking up for our troops.
One thing to remember people, just because you do not support the war, doesnt mean you cant support the troops. They didnt ask for our government to start this war, and they are doing their best with the shitty hand that's been dealt to them. Thank you once again Grant.
Posted By: DouglasGotOwned (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 01:58 AM
Got to love how the pilots with all their futuristic technology couldn't tell if it was an RPG or not, nor the likes of Wikileaks representatives or Fox News apologists, but some asshole with a blog on a wrestling website could...
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 03:59 AM
So what is victory in Iraq?
Democracy like America has it - or is it a free nation to decide on their own how to run things....even if that goes against how we would like them to run things?
Killing innocent people is a cost of war, and will be a cost of war in the future, you can never take collateral damage out of war even as you may try.
Should these guys have fired? What kind of technology do we really have if we cant tell the difference between a camera and an RPG?
I am not trained soldier, I was and continue to be against our continuing involvement in this war, however I cannot in good conscience say I would not have done the EXACT same thing they did. If it is between me living and seeing my family again and me firing on a target that even has a 10% chance of taking me out, that target is finished - that's just how it is.
Can anyone truly say they would not have done the same thing for self preservation if you did not know what he had? Let's say you don't fire and your positive it is not an RPG - until of course it turns out to be one and you get shot down. Would you be willing to take that chance?
AS a person who is Ant-war in Iraq, I cannot sit here and act like I would not have done the same exact thing because I would of, and most of the people up in arms about it would have as well I venture to guess.
War is a dirty business and it sucks and we should have never been there in the 1st place, BUT we are there now and who are we to tell our soldiers not to fire on a target that they believe is hostile toward them. Lets say it was a camera, OK they screwed up. It's a bad situation for our fighting forces and even worse for the families of the people who died, but it is part of the cost of war.
Point is they didn't get up that day and say hey, lets go kill a cameraman today, they just wanted to get back safe.
Be mad that we are there, be mad that we are still there, but don't begrudge the troops for trying to stay alive - like i said where is our great tech when we cant even tell the difference between a camera and RPG?
Posted By: saywhat (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 09:53 AM
"They didn't ask for our government to start this war, and they are doing their best with the shitty hand that's been dealt to them."
They killed a bunch of people based on misidentifying a camera as a three foot long RPG. Then their superiors lied to the public, as can be seen here:
They didn't do their best when this is what happened. The lies about it made them look guilty as hell and only fool some Americans while the region this took place in knows otherwise. They made a tragic mistake. Then they compounded it with lies to avoid culpability, which they gloss over with an illogical claim that telling the truth will anger those who already know what really happened. This is not the only recent cover-up by our military:
Grant said he would address that story in his article, but didn't. Then again, he keeps insisting some of those killed in the Iraq story had RPG's despite no indication that any were recovered at the scene (if anyone can demonstrate otherwise without squinting at that video and using the phrase "looks like", please do and I'll gladly concede the point).
Maybe it's unfair for me to expect the troops to have eagle eyes and accurately identify objects from long range. Maybe putting them in urban warfare, knowing those who intend to kill them are mixed in with civilians, makes it inevitable that tragedies will occur. But ironically, the lies they tell only serve to keep them there in a war that cannot be won. Each inevitable mistake fans public outrage in Iraq and creates more insurgents as well as sympathizers who aid them. The American public are the only ones who can demand such wars end, but don't because they are kept in the dark about what really happens.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on April 12, 2010 at 10:08 AM
The Military's Response. I didn't see it linked anywhere.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Registered) on April 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM
When can I expect my comment to go up? By the way, it's Wikileaks, not Wikilinks like you mistakenly say several times. Also, the claim that this isn't common isn't supported by someone who actually knows the military members in the video: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/04/09
To claim the military is more trustworthy than anyone else is to put blind faith in something that doesn't deserve it. Just as Jessica Lynch or the family of Pat Tillman.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 11:37 AM
I did not call them Wikileaks- Fox did, several times...I quoted them.
Maybe Fox did it on purpose or maybe not...more coverup? you be the judge!
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM
I've bitched about both of those Gary...but those are not these. So to speak.
The military does have its problems and it has twice tried to make both the death of Pat Tillman and Lynch's capture touch the heart of the general public.
It missed on both. I will admit to that.
But Tillman gave up millions to serve his country. I think he is a hero. His death was tragic because God knows we need more people like him...
Lynch was captured. I'm not sure why the public was allowed to run with the stories that came out from it.
The biggest problem in Iraq has always been about communicating our goals and reasons for being there. Lynch's story is one of those that serves to set things back.
But again, neither Tillman or Lynch have a thing to do with this story.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 12:20 PM
Grant, when you say things like "It's easy to cherry pick the very worst cases and apply them to everyone involved," yet ignore other cases where the military has lied or covered up a story, you're making my point. Has the military lied about things in the past? Yes. Have they covered up things? Yes. But you're saying none of that matters in THIS case, because the military is always in the right. That's simply not logical. The military has proven time and time again it has a history of covering up stories (torture, secret prisons) or lying about them (drone attacks on weddings and funerals, Tillman, Lynch) to make themselves look better and the victims the guilty parties even if they weren't the enemy.
That's why this story is so important: not whether or not a guy had something that might have looked like an RPG or if the guys in the van should have been fired upon if they weren't armed and were only helping a man (although I still have trouble accepting our military will kill what are essentially medics - trained or not, you can't argue on one hand that ANYBODY can be the enemy but then not support the belief that ANYBODY can also be an innocent civilian trying to help a wounded man). No, the story here is that we invaded a country and the media, our government, and our military isn't telling us what's really happening over there. This IS commonplace, this does happen regularly, but we as a nation are numb to it. It's quickly become a forgotten war, except for the brave men and women fighting an enemy they can't really define and the citizens of a country who were never a threat to us.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Gary,
With all due respect the public will never know everything that happens in a warzone.
You can't broadcast the way we operate because it shows our capabilites and limitations.
I don't love the idea of being at war.
We are not at war with the Iraqi people...we never have been. We went to war with Saddam and won.
Now we are fighting insurgents and terrorists that refuse to give Iraq back to the Iraqis.
How hard is that to accept?
We have trained hundreds and thousands of Iraqi Police and Military.
We have given them democracy from tyranny.
We have built hospitals and schools. Power stations and sewage plants...
200,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded, but we did not kill ALL of them...we have lost over 4,000, but not all to combat.
Saddam killed over 2 million of his own people. He gassed them. He never conformed to the terms of his own surrender.
We needed to take Iraq because this war on terror is a politically correct way of saying "War on Islamic Fundamentalist" who cheered our destruction on 9/11.
We have forces on Iran and Syria's borders. We have access to their oil- we don't need Saudi oil if we control Iraqi oil...
We can operate out of Jordon, Kuwait, UAE, and other places without them feeling threatened by Saddam. Who threaten them in the past.
We control our destiny by controlling Iraq- it is the key to everything.
Look, I hate the idea of being at war, but I do understand it...I have studied war, engaged in war and lived in war of over a decade...
You may not like it but we are at war.
The problem, and I agree with you, is that nobody was honest why we are in Iraq...
But if following 9/11 and presented this arguement would you have agreed?
I'm glad that people can speak out against this type of violence, but sometimes I would like them to speak out aginst those who continue to use it against us.
Had those insurgents not had RPG's and engaged our ground forces this never would have happened- had our forces never been there it would not have had to happen...you could go on and on.
But we are there. This did happen and it was not illegal or a coverup.
This is part of war.
Take a look at the bigger picture. The whole picture.
Iraq will be a victory in every sense of the word, because even Obama knows we can't afford a defeat.
Iraq is the key to the entire middle east. That is why we are still there.
This is what I mean when I say you and Jason don't understand.
I apologize for being disrespectful, and I agree with you that it is "wrong" to be at war- period. But we are and for the "right" reasons.
Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 01:24 PM
Grant, please define "insurgent." How you define it, how the dictionary defines it, and how we should use the term in relation to Iraq and why we invaded. Because I don't think you realize how non-sensical your statement was regarding why we're still in Iraq if we declared war on Saddam and not the country.
This is why you didn't want to post our "debate." I repeatedly pointed out that your beliefs are based on lies or misunderstandings of the facts. You can argue all you want that this is the "right" war and it was somehow okay to lie about it since it'll somehow make everything good in the future, but it's simply not the case. All you're doing is proving that anyone can believe something if they try hard enough - despite the facts.
I must admit, your faith is strong. But faith isn't necessarily based on reality. Your reality is far different from mine, and from the people who believe in facts.
But go ahead - say you wouldn't post it because it "sucked" (I like how you edited that part out in this version of your column - wonder why that is). The reality is you don't like it when people like myself not only call you out on things you're wrong about. Which is fine - kids don't like to believe that Santa and the Easter Bunny aren't real either. But eventually they learn to understand the facts. I hope for your sake that happens someday. But since you prefer to double down on your conservative faith, I doubt it'll happen.
Especially if you think the "right reason" to invade a country that wasn't a threat and results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is because it *might* help us establish a presence in the Middle East. People think slavery and torture are the right things to do too - again, anyone can justify anything if they believe hard enough, but not all of us are going to be so ignorant as to believe them.
Take a look at the bigger picture yourself, Grant. The question isn't "are you safer?" it's "is the world safer?" Or does the bigger picture only revolve around yourself and people who think like you? Because what scares me is that your rant sounds a lot like Timothy McVeigh's jail tapes and how he justified his actions - all for the "bigger picture" and "you just don't understand what this is all about."
Ten years ago, I don't think anyone would have believed that the United States of America would invade a country that wasn't a threat, torture people, jail them without charges indefinitely, and consider it SOP to fire on unarmed men attempting to help another wounded man. Is this the America you believe in so much, Grant? And where do YOU draw the line when it comes to "protecting our freedoms" and whatever other slogan you can come up with?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 03:11 PM
"But ironically, the lies they tell only serve to keep them there in a war that cannot be won."
So a war can be won or lost not by manpower or firepower, but with words? If the soldiers began complementing the enemy will this war end tomorrow?
So soldiers should fight the good fight, but foremost on their mind should be "Gee I wonder if I pull the trigger I'll upset some keyboard warrior back home." You once stated that thats part of the job. Who wrote this job description, you? If they can't fight up to your expectations are you going to take their place? Maybe you can type a really mean article and put them in their place.
If you truly believe, for one second, that the soldiers are even remotely responsible for keeping us there - you are either a moron, or you don't believe that but like a fanatical liberal you will keep ranting and defending long after you've lost the argument. Please continue ranting and quoting opinions as fact for the entertainment of the intelligent as you are already doing a fine job.
Posted By: Mike Douglas (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 05:10 PM
I would like to say that I usually learn something from Grant's articles, but GaryML's posts, not so much.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 05:34 PM
“Because what scares me is that your rant sounds a lot like Timothy McVeigh's jail tapes and how he justified his actions - all for the "bigger picture" and "you just don't understand what this is all about."”
This is sort of like the new Godwin’s law for the left.
“Ten years ago, I don't think anyone would have believed that the United States of America would invade a country that wasn't a threat,”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk
Al Gore disagrees. Secondly, we only “invaded” Iraq because after the Gulf War, they promised to follow several treaties, many of which were ignored, including allowing UN weapon inspectors and flying in no fly zones. Under the terms of the cessation of hostilities the allies had the right to resume hostilities if at any time Saddam - as the losing party and belligerent - failed to live up to the terms of the ceasefire and UN resolutions.
Since he did fail, the UN passed resolutions of force repeatedly. Bill Clinton was forced to spank him several times for acts of war such as sponsoring terrorists (remember $25,000 per pop in Israel?), harboring them, and firing at coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones set up by the allies to protect the minority populations in those areas.
“torture people”
We never “tortured” people. We’ve water boarded only three known terrorist and they were high profile folks and had a doctor present in case anything went wrong.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 06:04 PM
"Secondly, we only “invaded” Iraq because after the Gulf War, they promised to follow several treaties, many of which were ignored, including allowing UN weapon inspectors and flying in no fly zones."
Really? Because according to Condoleeza Rice it was because we couldn't afford the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. And Colin Powell had this huge presentation for the UN about Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Or because if Iraq had nukes they'd give them to Al Qaeda. We were told that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US and it all turned out to be bullshit.
"We never “tortured” people. We’ve water boarded only three known terrorist and they were high profile folks and had a doctor present in case anything went wrong."
Water Boarding is torture. We prosecuted Japanese officers for doing it after WWII, and it is defined as such in the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. Argue the merits of torture all you want, but you cannot argue that we have not engaged in it.
"Saddam killed over 2 million of his own people. He gassed them. He never conformed to the terms of his own surrender."
Yeah and in less than half the time, we're halfway there. They must feel so much better off now.
Posted By: Guest#9405 (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 07:13 PM
Before I wondered if BKS and AdmChest were the same person. Now I know for sure.
I'm sure the Japanese would be happy to know that the Japanese soldiers we executed for waterboarding American soldiers during WW2 weren't really guilty of torture, just "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 07:37 PM
Near the end of the unedited 39 minute video, one of the ground troups calls for a bomb disposal team because he saw an RPG warhead under one of the bodies. Also, the man with the horizontal striped shirt had the long weapon.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 10:58 PM
I hate GaryML. HATE him. His liberal bullshit is so ridiculous.
And yet, he's 1000% right on this.
I'm having a hard time accepting this... but he's right. This is a small part of a much bigger issue.
We need to get out of there ASAP. We never should have been there. And we can't keep killing innocent people. Not saying I'd prosecute these guys, as they were in a bad situation, but the continued lies from the military during both administrations is too much.
Dammit GaryML, go back to defending things I disagree with you on.
Posted By: Jimbo (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Why should we listen to a coward that turned his back on his country? Really? How many military service members continue to serve regardless of who is in charge? They are loyal, but we should listen to a coward that left the military because a Obama won? You are a joke like your bass ackwards ideology.
Posted By: Guest#6747 (Guest) on April 14, 2010 at 02:44 AM
Grant Muioc makes Lt. Col. Terry Lakin look a respectful member of the military.
Posted By: Guest#4850 (Guest) on April 14, 2010 at 05:15 AM
"We never “tortured” people. We’ve water boarded only three known terrorist and they were high profile folks and had a doctor present in case anything went wrong."
Water Boarding is torture. We prosecuted Japanese officers for doing it after WWII, and it is defined as such in the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory. Argue the merits of torture all you want, but you cannot argue that we have not engaged in it.
Posted By: Guest#9405 (Guest) on April 12, 2010 at 07:13 PM
First the waterboarding the Japanese did in WWII is different than what the the Americans did. As the Japanese had the prisoners swallow the water which in turn would distend the stomach and in most times lead to death which is why they were tried for torture. Americans pour water on a towel that is covering your face and there is no chance of death or serious bodily harm from it so it is not torture.
Fact is waterboarding is not torture as it does not "inflict severe physical pain or suffering." Article 5 Universial Decleration of Human Rights
Also the European Court of Human rights
has tried cases in which it said the following techniques were not torture and i believe they are worse than waterboarding; standing against a wall spread eagle with your fingertips supporting you on the wall for 2 days straight, depriving detainees of food, water, sleep while continuing to play loud noises. Ireland v UK 2 EHRR25 (1978)
Posted By: Guest#8704 (Guest) on April 14, 2010 at 05:49 PM
STAY CURRENT