Hacker News Reader

Comment by dailo10 | Hacker News Reader

The reality is that there were kids in the van and they were trying to help a wounded journalist.

The reality be damned. Hindsight is 20/20.

Imagine you're there, in the arena, adrenaline practically oozing out of your pores. You're 500 feet above the one of the most dangerous cities in the world [1], a warzone that's claimed the lives of thousands of young men, just like you, and you've just taken out the armed enemy. That was the enemy. And that guy laying there still is the enemy. And so is anyone helping him. And now a van has pulled up, unidentified. You don't know who or what is in that van and whether it is armed or not. You know the reality,the statistics, and they're not in your favor. So you do as anyone in that situation would do, with limited information and a hell of a lot of empirical data. You neutralize the threat. You destroy them and live to see another day.

[1] 2007 was the bloodiest year to date in Iraq - http://icasualties.org/

"So you do as anyone in that situation would do, with limited information and a hell of a lot of empirical data. You neutralize the threat. You destroy them and live to see another day."

What exactly was the "threat" here? The helicopter was a mile away and in no danger of not "live to see another day" ?

(err why the downvotes? That was a straightforward question. The parent seemed to imply that the shooters were doing it in order to "live to see another day". Was anyone threatening the helicopter in any credible fashion?)

The troops that were 100m down the road.

They weren't there though. According to the analysis on other sites, the helicopter was about a mile away. (Based on the time between when the rounds were fired and when they hit.)

The reality is that it is fucking stupid to put young Americans and young Iraqis alike into that situation to start with. It was stupid in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and it is still fucking stupid in 2010, because we've shoveled mountains of money into Iraq and mountains of dead people of various nationalities out of it, and nobody can tell me exactly what we've gained.

This is because even though nobody wants to admit it, we've gained nothing, and we will continue to do so, because this was a publicity stunt from Day One and now it's a political third rail thanks to the morons who direct what passes for a national discourse in this pathetic shadow of a democracy.

> nobody can tell me exactly what we've gained.

Oil contracts in us$?

If you are fighting insurgents inside cities where enemy is in close proximity of children and women you can not damn reality and shoot to death whoever you suspect to be an enemy. That will always get you more enemies and endless war regardless of the noble cause that you may be pursuing.

What the soldiers are doing is mostly shielding their butts while they maintain their presence. They are not helping the invaded civilians if they are also killing scores of them every now and then while being unable to stop the insurgents who are doing the same thing.

Not knowing who someone is is not an excuse to shoot them.

It is NOT true that 'anyone helping him' is also an enemy. That is just a recipe for war crimes.

Right. In fact it's exactly the opposite case.

It's really blowing my mind that there are people on this site, which is ostensibly full of informed and educated people, arguing that it's okay to kill someone just because you're not sure and they're helping someone you shot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com