Posts by Keith Ng
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Keith, it is all of them.
That's a trite answer, and it contradicts what you said an hour ago:
Oh I just want to be clear where the guilt lies here. It doesn't lie with the US military system - as much as they have lost their moral compass. It doesn't lie with the so-called "rules of engagement". It sits squarely on the man who pulled the trigger. He is solely responsible for these killings.
And once again, we come back to my point. If you don't approach the facts with an open mind, if you don't take care to interpret the nuances and the details, to consider alternatives, then you're just pissing in the wind, wildly casting accusations about. What good does that do anyone?
-
You don't care about the orders that placed them there in the first place, looking for insurgents? You don't care about the rules that govern the soldiers, that allows them to sit in the cockpit of an attack helicopter?
-
So, that's it? You want to throw the book at two guys?
You don't care about the commanders who authorised engagement after asking "They're picking up the wounded?", and when it was confirmed, *then* said they could engage?
-
Tom, I care about those distinctions because what we do depends on them.
Should the soldiers who pulled the trigger carry the blame? Should it be the commanders who gave the green light? The generals who authorised the Rules of Engagement? The politicians who put them there in the first place?
-
yeah, my viewing of the vid suggests that it may well have initially been a mistake. but... the subsequent conduct of the pilots belies that as a factor, and they were instead actively seeking *any* target they could construe as "legitimate".
this was further belied by their response. the humane response to error is horror, not, "please pick up a gun" or "aw well i killed some kids".
I really don't think it's fair to judge them on their dialogue or their attitudes. People talk a lot of shit. Especially in testosterone-filled environments, especially when under stress, especially seconds after they've just fucked up.
They may be assholes, but that's not - in itself - a crime. We should only judge them on what they did. And they did plenty.
-
James, the sword cuts both ways. Whether Iraq has a future or not has no bearing on the fact that the crew shot at and killed unarmed civilians who were picking up the wounded.
Even if having AKs counts as PID (which does seem pretty dubious), that doesn't justify shooting the van that arrives to pick up the wounded.
-
are we certain it was even an RPG? looked like a big telescopic lens on a camera to me. not really pointy enough to be an RPG </still needs to watch vid again>
Yes, I think what was identified as an RPG was a camera lens. No, it wasn't pointy enough to be an RPG, but other kinds of rocket launchers don't look pointy.
They saw a guy observing something from behind cover with a large tubular object in his hand. This was my biggest reason for giving them the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake. However, my point is that they were given the green light to engage *before* they saw this and everyone freaked out about an "RPG".
-
James: They received the green light to engage before an RPG was identified. Does that change your view of things?
-
Ahem. I guess that's my cue, then?
My purpose in writing this post is that a whole new channel of raw news has just come out of beta. This new form of raw news is rich and complex, and allows us to be nuanced in a way that the MSM - a system where pundits are rewarded for being outrageous, extreme, alternatively populist or contrarian (often contrary to good sense and evidence), etc. - couldn't.
It provides details. Vast arrays of facts. Direct access to primary sources. But none of this new information is any use if all we just Foxnews it. If, when we are given access to information, we just cherry-pick things that support the world view built upon our values, then we end up in the same quagmire.
You say that people like me can't see the forest for the trees. I would argue that the problem has been that people only talk about the forests, only engage with political issues in ideological frames, and contort facts to fit that frame. Of course, people who don't see the world in ideological frames (or see them in different ideological frames) just see this really contorted series of facts that don't connect with reality - that's why they turn off.
The only way to persuade is to start from common ground. If you never acknowledge any of the other side's concerns, if you never acknowledge the facts that support their argument, then you're not arguing or persuading, you're just yelling.
This is why I only care about the trees.
-
Hmm, I watched the video again and just realised that they got the green-light to engage *before* they misidentified the "RPG". Which kills the heat-of-the-moment argument...