You could just try. I don’t want you to throw statistics at me because I already basically believe that the war is bull, but I’m saying that my approach is a more effective anti war strategy.
I didn’t say they were. I just said non combatants probably weren’t guilty.
I don’t think Marko cares about “effective anti war strategies.” I think he opposes murder, undeclared wars of aggression, and things of that nature. Either way, appeals to emotion are quite effective. Also, what do you mean by “basically believe that the war is bull?”
You’re trying really hard to straw man me and I know it’s intentional. Either that or you clearly didn’t read one of my posts that you quoted before in this thread.
My position is that these weren’t intentional killings of civilians. First of all, at least one of the guys in the group of young men was carrying a weapon. Even the video states “some of the men appear to have been armed.” If you watch the full 39-minute video, it appears that one of the dead guys was on top of a live RPG round. Anyone wanna tell me how that got there? Anyway, then the gunner engaged the “Bongo truck” and the men trying to help the injured guy into the truck, but only after he received permission to engage from a superior. I honestly doubt it’s against the rules of engagement to stop someone from aiding an insurgent in escaping from US forces.
So my point was that this isn’t the huge deal it’s made up to be. The left is trying to use this as some damning piece of evidence against our military occupation in Iraq. It isn’t. Let’s stick to the facts. We shouldn’t be trying to nation-build and we shouldn’t be occupying other countries for many reasons. We don’t need to be inventing stories about soldiers with such bloodlust that they purposefully lie in order to kill dozens of people. Attacking people doesn’t convince anyone. Being negative doesn’t convince anyone. Spreading a positive message does.
Just for all to see. I hate it when people straw man.
Esuric quoting my position in a post of his:
A clear-cut straw man:
(my emphasis added)
You wanna bet money on it? Here’s the transcript:
| 07:07 | Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that’s approaching and picking up the bodies. |
|---|---|
| 07:14 | Where’s that van at? |
| 07:15 | Right down there by the bodies. |
| 07:16 | Okay, yeah. |
| 07:18 | Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons. |
| 07:25 | Let me engage. |
| 07:28 | Can I shoot? |
| 07:31 | Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage. |
| 07:36 | Picking up the wounded? |
| 07:38 | Yeah, we’re trying to get permission to engage. |
| 07:41 | Come on, let us shoot! |
| 07:44 | Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. |
| 07:49 | They’re taking him. |
| 07:51 | Bushmaster; Crazyhorse One-Eight. |
| 07:56 | This is Bushmaster Seven, go ahead. |
| 07:59 | Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage. |
| 08:02 | Fuck. |
| 08:06 | This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage. |
| 08:12 | One-Eight, engage. |
| 08:12 | Clear. |
| 08:13 | Come on! |
| 08:17 | Clear. |
| 08:20 | Clear. |
| 08:21 | We’re engaging. |
Buddy, I’m from Michigan.
Huffington Post said there was one AK-47. The video stated in the very beginning that “some of the men appear to have been armed.” Later on in the uncut video (18:56) one of the soldiers on the ground says that one of the dead guys the chopper shot is laying on top of a live RPG round. At 32:33, Bushmaster Six (a superior) asks “has that RPG round extended already or is it still live, over,” to which the soldier responds “looks live to me” (32:38). Now I might be missing something major here, but I’m wondering how an innocent civilian ended up with a live RPG round under his body.
Are there skilled Iraqi snipers? Yes. Does that mean that all insurgents are tactically proficient? No. Insurgent snipers are a pretty bad example, BTW. They often miss completely and their only claim to fame are a few poorly manufactured propaganda films that are distributed in Bagdhad and elsewhere.
Having someone skilled at bomb-making build you an IED doesn’t make you a skilled soldier.
Say you’re in the armed forces and you’re into the whole brotherhood thing. Will you let someone who will heal and come back to kill US troops get away?
My god.
Tears came to my eyes. What a horror.
So lets say that it is legal, what does that matter? We are libertarians. Is it ethical/legitimate to shoot at “insurgents” (Pentagon newspeak for resistance fighters) to begin with?
If you don’t want to answer my question then don’t. But please stop bullshitting about your position, and don’t get hostile when I ask you a simple question. You’re apologizing for the state, and talking about meaningless rules of engagement, which are just empty decrees. I don’t give a damn about the rules of “engagement.” That was a massacre, plain and simple.
I’m a libertarian. I don’t accept state authority, and its arbitrary decrees.
The way you frame the question: It depends. Many of these “resistance fighters” invade the property rights of others, so I can definitely see times where it would be legitimate to kill them.
That said, I believe the war in Iraq is unjust and that the entire government of the United States is not only inefficient, but immoral too. But that doesn’t mean that I can go around making up whatever I want to in order to bring down the US government. Lying is counterproductive. That’s why I won’t be crying over “civilian” deaths when one of the “civilians” dies on top of a live RPG round.
Look who’s bullshitting now. You either already knew my position or you didn’t read what you quoted? Which is it?
To recap:
Esuric quoting my position in a post of his:
A clear-cut straw man:
(emphasis added)
As you can see from the above, I clearly stated my position. Since you quoted it, I expected you to know what my position was (and is).
What exactly are you trying to prove here? If I say you’re armed, when you’re clearly not, do I get to shoot you? The man went straight for the body. He never touched anything but the body, and he was clearly unarmed.
Yeah, let them shoot!
And what makes this a war zone? This isn’t a war zone. This is New Baghdad. A suburb that belongs to its inhabitants. The only thing that makes it a war zone is that there is American military driving around. Something they don’t have a right to in the first place. Wherever they appear it counts as a war zone. Wherever they are present they behave as if they were on a field of battle.
The “stupid” thing was not that they walked around “in a war zone”. The “stupid” thing was that they walked around in an area where American occupiers were near by. This is what is stupid because they are mad dogs and kill people.
Agreed. But its easy to ignore a tragedy here and there. Its more important to focus on the more regular aspects of the war. Because if they’re bad, then most of the war is bad and we win. Though you’re probably right that Marko doesn’t care about effective anti war strategies. Perhaps he should just say so. Was kind of confused about why he was attacking me…
I’ve learned enough about it to basically be intellectually unsurprised by anything bad that can be said about it (though I could still be emotionally shocked. Im a little sensative so im not watching the film from the OP).
Personally, when I conceptualize the war I see it in terms of a giant subsidy to the military industrial complex. Imo its a shock to present it this way because most people have no knowledge and therefore no defense against the MIC aspect of it. Though the medical embargo that killed 500,000 people is something too.
What defines a resistance fighter is resisting an occupation. Is in the act of fighting the Americans itself any invasion of property rights inherent? Or is it actually perfectly justifiable to be an “insurgent”? (But not justifiable to be an occupier.)
I’m showing Jonathan that he’s wrong about claiming that the gunner shot the unarmed survivor under the pretext that he was reaching for a weapon. The gunner clearly said that he was not going for a gun. They didn’t shoot until well after the “bongo truck” arrived because it was picking up the injured guy.
In any case, at that point they were only speculated. They then corrected their statement to this:
| 07:59 | Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage. |
|---|---|
| 08:02 | Fuck. |
| 08:06 | This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. This is Bushmaster Seven, roger. Engage. |
| 08:12 | One-Eight, engage. |
| 08:12 | Clear. |
| 08:13 | Come on! |
| 08:17 | Clear. |
| 08:20 | Clear. |
| 08:21 | We’re engaging. |
Also, note that there were weapons on the bodies nearby. Huffington reported one AK-47. The video stated that several of the men appeared armed. Watching the uncut video, you discover that one of the dead “civilians” was laying on top of a live RPG round. So, clearly, the gunner had to be right when waaaay earlier in the video he stated that he saw an RPG.
Honest question here for those of you who are giving Krazy Kaju a hard time. When you’re walking through a bad part of town and a guy asks you for his wallet, do you wait until he’s already reached into his pocket before you act? No, you react immediately, whether it be by coughing up, hitting the guy or running as fast as you can. Look, it’s all very easy to sit here from your armchair and call this murder, when you’ve got your life on the line it’s a little harder to think clearly, that’s just the way we’ve evolved. Look, you don’t get yourself out of these situations by being rational, you listen all these years of evolution and the instincts that have come with it.
Sorry buddy, worse shit happens everyday all of the world. I can tell you some pretty messed up stories that friends of mine have told me from where they’ve visited. If this really made you cry you should maybe go introduce yourself to the real world.
It’s not justifiable to be an occupier. I never disagreed with that statement.
The insurgents are mad dogs and kill people. These are radical Islamists and Baathists who won’t think twice about violating property rights more egregiously than the worst American soldier.
The fact that it’s a zone where a lot of fighting and killing is going on makes it a war zone. Being a war zone doesn’t make New Baghdad unowned by its inhabitants.
The people in the video were armed. One of the “civilians” died on top of a live RPG round.
I agree that the US doesn’t have the right to be in Iraq. That doesn’t make this video a useful propaganda tool.
Well I’m eating and then going to bed for the night. Because I’m not a fan of being a broken record, this will be my last post in this thread, unless someone comes up with a new, useful, observation.
But here’s the gist of what I’ve been saying:
The act of resisting an occupation is an act of heroism. No political views preclude one from being a resistance fighter. Also thinking about violating property rights is not a crime.
Cause and effect. What causes this to become a warzone? It is an act of aggression on the part of the Americans. So they can not hide behind the excuse that it is a war zone. I can not intrude on someone’s property and then claim self-defence.