Wikileaks video of combat in Iraq

[BCMan]

Your right i am, and perhaps your not reading enough into my comments....

ArmyGuy, that was a lengthy reply, again based on emotional response. I think what you meant to say was 'Why should we give them any rights when they won’t give us any'... Well, if we don’t then what’s the difference between them and us?? They have a mission to destroy us and we have the mission to destroy them. Besides, these accidents directly affect the lives of the locals which create more problems for the Army. Winning the hearts of the locals is the key to success in these wars, not pissing them off like that.

I still don’t agree that the killing in the video was anything like an accident. If it’s still an accident then it shows how loose US ROE is. I want to see a response supporting this mission from the US Army; so far, most senior officers have condemned the soldiers.

Canada may have been dragged into a combat war but our mission is not to stay there and play hide and seek with insurgents for another 5 years; that is why there is a pullout date. There is a lot of politics and history involved in handling the war in Afghanistan and its better if we stick to humanitarian missions and rebuild the country.

I am happy that you are proud of your service and as long as Canadian soldiers stick to their duties, I support them.

CBC regularly covers Canada’s rebuilding mission. They often interview officers during their missions. They also reported on schools & hospitals built and aid provided by the Canadian soldiers.

Edited April 10, 2010 by BCMan

[waldo]

you shouldn't be so defensive over a little premature "Mission Accomplished" jab

I'm not....the mission was accomplished...and President Bush was re-elected! LOL! :)

was it... way back when fighter-jock Bush "landed"... is it... now? What are you still doing there?

I note you're a little shy with your pat one-quip pony trick responses to this earlier linked article... what ROE covers this one? After denials, US admits Feb. killing of Afghan women

The same one that permitted Canadian forces to fire on Afghan civilians that violate security perimeters and checkpoints. But that isn't as sexy as American guncam videos...BOOOOOOOOOOYAH !! I guess we'll just have to settle on cell phone videos of Robert Dziekanski getting tazed to death in Vancouver!

really? That's all ya got? Really?

[bloodyminded]

Not at all.....you stumbled in on the ass-end as usual and cocked it up. Go light a candle for the "innocent civilains".

Your use of quotes indicates that you disagree with the military that innocent civilians were indeed killed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Your use of quotes indicates that you disagree with the military that innocent civilians were indeed killed.

No, my use of quotes indicate the verbatim reference to an earlier post. Your imagination leads to your own personal indications for reasons only you understand.

[bloodyminded]

No, my use of quotes indicate the verbatim reference to an earlier post. Your imagination leads to your own personal indications for reasons only you understand.

Wrong. Since civilian casualties are an incontestable fact, rather than an opinion to be debated, your use of quotes is only an attempt to call reality itelf into question--since you must "support the troops," even at the risk of suggesting their own assessments are anti-war lies.

Such devotion to the fanatical fringes of political discussion, B-C.

But then, nationalists are a bunch of pussies, so I guess such cowardice makes sense within the proscribed lunatic worldview.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wrong. Since civilian casualties are an incontestable fact, rather than an opinion to be debated, your use of quotes is only an attempt to call reality itelf into question--since you must "support the troops," even at the risk of suggesting their own assessments are anti-war lies.

WTF? And your posts indicate a state of mental retardation and lack of national identity. So what?

Such devotion to the fanatical fringes of political discussion, B-C.

That's my choice, not yours....sheesh!

But then, nationalists are a bunch of pussies, so I guess such cowardice makes sense within the proscribed lunatic worldview.

Sure...and that's why you are so worried about "us". LOL!

[bloodyminded]

WTF? And your posts indicate a state of mental retardation and lack of national identity. So what?

whine away, o wounded little patriot.

That's my choice, not yours....sheesh!

Correct. I would never choose to be a shrill, fanatical shrieker.

Sure...and that's why you are so worried about "us". LOL!

Not worried. Amused.

[bush_cheney2004]

whine away, o wounded little patriot.

What's it to you...I don't care if you want to be parasite without national identity. Somebody has to be the slime on the fringes.

Correct. I would never choose to be a shrill, fanatical shrieker.

Great...others do...it is their right. Except in Canada.

Not worried. Amused.

Then why chase me so like a lost puppy? Do you think I will be "rehabilitated" by your rantings. I am not remotely interested in changing your position on anything.

[bloodyminded]

What's it to you...I don't care if you want to be parasite without national identity. Somebody has to be the slime on the fringes.

Insufficient nationalism makes one a "parasite." Ok, hoss.

Great...others do...it is their right.

I never said you had no right to be servile to power. Of course you do.

Then why chase me so like a lost puppy?

No, that's you, the Canada-obssessive troll. You got nothing else. Try to follow along.

Do you think I will be "rehabilitated" by your rantings.

I'm not interested.

I am not remotely interested in changing your position on anything.

You're interested in nothing but your Power fetish. And like all pantywaists, you're proud of your weaknesses.

[bush_cheney2004]

Insufficient nationalism makes one a "parasite." Ok, hoss.

Your contention...so let's go with it universal man.

I never said you had no right to be servile to power. Of course you do.

It didn't really matter what you said...natch.

No, that's you, the Canada-obssessive troll. You got nothing else. Try to follow along.

You don't likey....perfect! Payback is a bitch.

You're interested in nothing but your Power fetish. And like all pantywaists, you're proud of your weaknesses.

That's right....reality will always trump your fantasy.

[bloodyminded]

Your contention...

No. Yours. You're really having difficulty following along, aren't you, sport?

so let's go with it universal man.

Go with what? English, man, learn it.

It didn't really matter what you said...natch.

You wounded hyperpatriots protest too much.

You don't likey....perfect! Payback is a bitch.

There's no payback. Just emasculated wailing from the quaint American Right.

That's right....reality will always trump your fantasy.

Reality. You think the inspectors were "kicked out," because you accept being lied to by effete aristocrats. You think people who believe the Earth to be six thousand years old are wise.

And you worship power.

That's why you insist upon trying to be my bitch. And to add insult to your injury, I don't even want you. Now that's funny.

[bush_cheney2004]

Reality. You think the inspectors were "kicked out," because you accept being lied to by effete aristocrats. You think people who believe the Earth to be six thousand years old are wise.

And you worship power.

That's why you insist upon trying to be my bitch. And to add insult to your injury, I don't even want you. Now that's funny.

I'm sure the moderators grow weary of our love dance. So as the adult, I will end it for now.

[Michael Hardner]

An aside - I do like the fact that this item has given Wikileaks the international exposure it deserves. I have been following this site for awhile now and it's quite a challenge to the status quo.

A few things from Canada have leaked there but nothing too shocking.

[Army Guy]

ArmyGuy, that was a lengthy reply, again based on emotional response. I think what you meant to say was 'Why should we give them any rights when they won’t give us any'...

It's an emotional subject,sometimes to emotional....Thats not what i was trying to say at all, we do afford the enemy some rights, some compassion, What my piont is there is very few rights given by any side in any War...

Well, if we don’t then what’s the difference between them and us??

Tell me something what do you think separates "US" and "THEM", I'm refering to the Talibans average soldier and NATO's average soldier...

Winning the hearts of the locals is the key to success in these wars, not pissing them off like that.

It's not key to winning....The key is defeating thier army on the battlefield, so badly that they don't have the will to fight....once that is done then you can win hearts and minds....

Canada may have been dragged into a combat war but our mission is not to stay there and play hide and seek with insurgents for another 5 years; that is why there is a pullout date. There is a lot of politics and history involved in handling the war in Afghanistan and its better if we stick to humanitarian missions and rebuild the country.

No body dragged us any where , Canada as a nation steped up and stuck it's hand in the air....not wanting to have anything to do with Iraq....it was the only game in town...the Liberals did not want to make Canada look weak....And in doing that we agreed to the mission, at the time it did not have an end date....NATO has not put an end date on it....That being said the US government has agreed to start it's draw down shortly after ours...We should wait and finish up with everyone else...

ON 2011, Canada will pretty much abandoned the Afghan mission, very few depts or organizations will be left....

I am happy that you are proud of your service and as long as Canadian soldiers stick to their duties, I support them.

OH don't get me wrong, most Canadians support the troops...or atleast say they do in public....but here is the BUT...they don't support the mission ....this is the problem, any extra funding or support the government needs for the mission does not get passed....because every government is driven by the polls, they do what is popular or tolerable ....and while most canadians do not support the mission....they will not go the extra step and demand our troops return, which really brings into question the I SUPPORT THE TROOPS slogan they spew.....gives it kind of a hollow ring...

Because one does reflect on the other....Our soldiers are not out there doing a half ass job because the war is unpopular with the folks back home....we are out there closing with and destroying the enemy as ordered...there is no second place in combat....which makes everyone think Ya we don't like the war....but i don't give a rats ass because it really does not effect me one way or another....

Myself and eyeball don't see eye to eye on many topics , but atleast i can respect him for his stand...he makes it very clear....there is no i love you, but hate what your doing song...it's black and white...

[bloodyminded]

It's an emotional subject,sometimes to emotional....Thats not what i was trying to say at all, we do afford the enemy some rights, some compassion, What my piont is there is very few rights given by any side in any War...

Tell me something what do you think separates "US" and "THEM", I'm refering to the Talibans average soldier and NATO's average soldier...

It's not key to winning....The key is defeating thier army on the battlefield, so badly that they don't have the will to fight....once that is done then you can win hearts and minds....

No body dragged us any where , Canada as a nation steped up and stuck it's hand in the air....not wanting to have anything to do with Iraq....it was the only game in town...the Liberals did not want to make Canada look weak....And in doing that we agreed to the mission, at the time it did not have an end date....NATO has not put an end date on it....That being said the US government has agreed to start it's draw down shortly after ours...We should wait and finish up with everyone else...

ON 2011, Canada will pretty much abandoned the Afghan mission, very few depts or organizations will be left....

OH don't get me wrong, most Canadians support the troops...or atleast say they do in public....but here is the BUT...they don't support the mission ....this is the problem, any extra funding or support the government needs for the mission does not get passed....because every government is driven by the polls, they do what is popular or tolerable ....and while most canadians do not support the mission....they will not go the extra step and demand our troops return, which really brings into question the I SUPPORT THE TROOPS slogan they spew.....gives it kind of a hollow ring...

Because one does reflect on the other....

But you have to understand the untenable position thus involved for anyone with a principled opposition to this or that war. The opposition is to political foreign policy. We can't say "support the troops," by shutting our mouths and supporting a foreign policy we do not agree with.

That is unprincipled.

And anyone who says "why don't you support the troops?", to a person with a principled opposition to policy...well, that person is insisting that there should be no debate, that opposing your country's policies is just plain wrong.

And I have no patience for that "argument," as it is dishonest. And it's a coward's argument , automatically.

[M.Dancer]

Lie. They did not. Every time you make such an assertion in the face of video that we have all seen, you look like a liar.

Boy do you look like a fool.

[M.Dancer]

You keep missing the point. They were not insurgents.

So as well as assuming there were helicopters "overhead" now you assume folks walking about with Ak 47s and RPGs weren't insurgents...

Is there no bottom to your naivete?

Edited April 12, 2010 by M.Dancer

[GostHacked]

So as well as assuming there were helicopters "overhead" now you assume folks walking about with Ak 47s and RPGs were insurgents...

Is there no bottom to your naivete?

Indeed. If you had not seen any weapons in the video, like the two guys holding AKs and the one holding the RPG, then the likelyness of the chopper firing on the group would have been next to nil. It is unfortunate that the two cameramen were killed, but it's like western journalists who embed themselves with coalition troops, they know that they are a target when traveling among them. It is the same when news reporters are embedded with insurgents.

The smart thing for those reporters would be to inform the coalition commanders that they would be in a certain area at a certain time. That info can be relayed to the chopper in the field which would then take the extra caution needed to not kill the cameramen.

Documenting the war is just as risky as fighting it.

[M.Dancer]

The smart thing for those reporters would be to inform the coalition commanders that they would be in a certain area at a certain time. That info can be relayed to the chopper in the field which would then take the extra caution needed to not kill the cameramen.

Travelling embedded with insurgents, informing the Coalition of where and when would get yourself killed even quicker....as a coalition spy.

[waldo]

Travelling embedded with insurgents, informing the Coalition of where and when would get yourself killed even quicker....as a coalition spy.

embedded with insurgents? Interesting, none of the accounts I've read, including those directly from Reuters, speaks to the Reuters photographers being "embedded with insurgents". Do you have a cite that speaks to that assertion.

[M.Dancer]

embedded with insurgents? Interesting, none of the accounts I've read, including those directly from Reuters, speaks to the Reuters photographers being "embedded with insurgents". Do you have a cite that speaks to that assertion.

Gosh you're funny. You crack me up. Do I have a cite? Yes I do...

http://wikileaks.org/

You're choice, call them journalists embedded with insurgents, or call the insurgents freelancing for Reuters....

[xul]

we do afford the enemy some rights, some compassion, What my piont is there is very few rights given by any side in any War...

You are right, but you still should identify who are your enemy and who are civilians first. When you occupy an "enemy's" city, your mission will shift into some kind of police business and you should realize that the city is no longer "enemy's" but your. That means the civilians of the "enemy" country who are now under your rule should be treated as the same as your countrymen who live in Canada. Have you ever heard German air-bombed "insurgents" regardless the casualty of civilian in Paris after they occupied the city in WW2 just becasue some German soldiers were attacked by French resistants in the area?

[Guest TrueMetis]

You are right, but you still should identify who are your enemy and who are civilians first. When you occupy an "enemy's" city, your mission will shift into some kind of police business and you should realize that the city is no longer "enemy's" but your. That means the civilians of the "enemy" country who are now under your rule should be treated as the same as your countrymen who live in Canada. Have you ever heard German air-bombed "insurgents" regardless the casualty of civilian in Paris after they occupied the city in WW2 just becasue some German soldiers were attacked by French resistants in the area?

Did the Germans have the ability to do anything other than carpet bomb?

[bush_cheney2004]

Did the Germans have the ability to do anything other than carpet bomb?

Yes...they did..meet the Junkers Ju-87 "Stuka":

Edited April 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

You are right, but you still should identify who are your enemy and who are civilians first. When you occupy an "enemy's" city, your mission will shift into some kind of police business and you should realize that the city is no longer "enemy's" but your. That means the civilians of the "enemy" country who are now under your rule should be treated as the same as your countrymen who live in Canada.

That depends on what your goal is. Is your goal to occupy the area, civilize it, make it prosperous, and add it to your state/empire/hegemony? If so, then you are of course correct. But what if your goal is simply to annihilate a specific threat?

Edited April 13, 2010 by Bonam