|
So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
|
On April 06 2010 05:33 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:29 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:19 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:05 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future? On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van. did any of you watch??? when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers..... You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing? I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war?? Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong. You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
Totally agree with you. Didn't think it ever looked like weapons. Saw the 2 micro second screen shots. Rewatched a second and third time. Still doesn't look like weapons. And if you're shooting at anyone with a strap on their shoulder.... geez fun time to be a civilian in Iraq.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote:
It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
It's not about keeping it chivalrous. Winning it long term requires strict adherence to RoE to avoid two men taking up arms to avenge every man you kill. It's not regulated out of any sense of honour or morality, it's regulated because it has to be. RoE are taken really seriously from the very top all the way down.
|
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote:
So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
|
I'm undecided, but leaning towards being okay with what this video shows. But I have some questions for people who know more about this than I do.
Someone said it is common for people to own and display AK-47's in Iraq. Is that true? I remember watching a documentary (I think it was "Heavy Metal in Baghdad") where the filmmakers hired security, but I don't remember if the security carried AK-47's openly. If it is common, though, then it does seem questionable for them to engage, although this could very, very easily be justified by context not provided by the video.
Also, I'm not really convinced that it was necessary to open up on the van. It seems like most people defending this believe that it would be impossible for a civilian to just happen upon the scene. Can you explain why that is the case?
Finally, as an aside, why is it that reit feels comfortable saying he wants to kill civilians? It seems like a lot of bad things could come of that.
|
On April 06 2010 05:39 enthusiast wrote:
Finally, as an aside, why is it that reit feels comfortable saying he wants to kill civilians? It seems like a lot of bad things could come of that.
Unfortunately reit is no longer with us. Lol
reit was just temp banned for 1 week by Hot_Bid.
That account was created on 2009-10-21 01:32:19 and had 141 posts.
Reason: Let's stop advocating extremist stuff.
The discussion should calm down a bit now 
|
On April 06 2010 05:33 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:29 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:19 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:05 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future? On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
[quote]
??? Did you watch the video?
[quote]
Quoting it again. Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van. did any of you watch??? when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers..... You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing? I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war?? Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong. You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
|
On April 06 2010 04:43 Saugardas wrote:
I have to say that the posting quality is rather low here that it made me skip from page 4 to page 10.
Well one thing I really want to know is wouldn't insurgents take cover at the sight of an American chopper? It seems silly to casually walk in the streets and not panic and run for cover at a sight of a superior weapon when it is obvious that you will be shot since you have insurgent weapons.
Another thing that bugged me a bit was that it was clear that it was hard to tell if the guys were carrying guns or cameras, but being that specific about the type of weapon was a bit odd.
No, they had a telescopic sight from like couple thousand feet in the air, didn't you see how long it took for the gunshots to respond after they fired? Like a couple seconds, which means the chopper was HELLA far up in the air, far enough that the insurgents couldn't see it in plain sight but could still hear the rotors whirring.
|
On April 06 2010 05:42 LuCky. wrote:
No, they had a telescopic sight from like couple thousand feet in the air, didn't you see how long it took for the gunshots to respond after they fired? Like a couple seconds, which means the chopper was HELLA far up in the air, far enough that the insurgents couldn't see it in plain sight but could still hear the rotors whirring.
What insurgents?
|
People are clearly getting overworked here. I mean if I were in Iraq, gathering with a bunch of people on a street who probably lived there all their life, and carry something that has a strap on it, say a laptop, a big handbag or whatever fucking else that has a strap on it I would expect a helicopter to shoot us dead from so far away I wouldn't even know what hit me. It's the fucking gatherers at fault here clearly, as the troops, you see, they followed protocols. Frankly I don't understand what's there to get outraged here. You have to understand that these soldiers are under tremendous stress and that's a good reason why you got shot.
Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that. That is UNLESS you have a van with a big red cross on it for anyone from a mile away to instantly recognize that your van has a big red cross on it, don't ever go near wounded civilians (you see, you are on the ground, you get to tell what the thing strapped onto their shoulders are) without a vehicle that has a big red cross on it or otherwise it's your fault if you get shot from things you can't see out of nowhere.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If some army spokesmen gave, ehh, "their version" of the story, they are really just making some honest mistakes. These things, like whether the bodies had cameras on them or RPGs on them after your ground troops have arrived on the scene, they are not easy to determine, Things can get lost in translation, reports and whatnot, so those criticisms are void as well.
Finally you aren't supposed to carry any weapons if you don't want to get shot. Everybody knows that Americans are the only god-chosen people allowed the god-given rights of carrying firearms.
In conclusion people need to calm down over trivial little things like these. The army spokesmen are professional and you should trust professionals, as well as current/former army prostar forum posters like Hawk and some other kid, they know best. As the man said, don't be a "menstruating woman".
|
Reit is finally temp banned...his trolling was a breath of fresh air compared to what the more serious people here have to say.
|
On April 06 2010 05:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:33 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:29 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:19 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:05 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future? On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference. Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded? Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles. Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van. did any of you watch??? when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers..... You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing? I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war?? Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong. You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ... In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
|
On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote:
So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents? Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
|
On April 06 2010 05:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote:
It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match. It's not about keeping it chivalrous. Winning it long term requires strict adherence to RoE to avoid two men taking up arms to avenge every man you kill. It's not regulated out of any sense of honour or morality, it's regulated because it has to be. RoE are taken really seriously from the very top all the way down.
Oh, no, I'm aware of the importance of RoE. But I've seen people be like, "omg they should be making sure they're guns." Really? How about we just walk on down and ask them politely? Good sirs, are you wielding guns? Who are you going to shoot? Oh, me? Cheerio chaps! What a bummer.
It's like playing a team deathmatch FPS with no HUDs whatsoever. And each person has to toss $50k into the pot every time they die. Unless you're like, Rekrul or something you're going to be goddamn twitch-fingered, and shit will happen (like friendly fire) because some people are going to be nervous. Is it unfortunate? Of course. Is it completely avoidable? Probably not. Hike up the cash penalty and you'll probably have more and more occurrences of accidents, and you can dial it up even more by forcing them to play for extended periods of time without rest.
Shit happens. It's unavoidable. It's laughable that people can sit here and say "well if so-and-so did this-and-that this could have been avoided." Sure but of ten thousand similar occurrences the likelihood is that at least one time things will go wrong. That's why there're friendly fire deaths even amongst troops, on both sides, and if you think this is limited to army-on-civilian encounters you're sorely mistaken. We just happen to have been fed a video of one incident where it DID go wrong. And the blame can be spread around.
Pat Tillman is an example of communications gone wrong causing friendly fire.
|
Eep. I'm sure I can't in any way fathom the shit that those soldiers go through every day.... but wow. Some of their dialogue was just disturbing. It does kind of make you think they were waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone... ugh t.t;
|
On April 06 2010 05:50 Southlight wrote:
Shit happens. It's unavoidable. It's laughable that people can sit here and say "well if so-and-so did this-and-that this could have been avoided." Sure but of ten thousand similar occurrences the likelihood is that at least one time things will go wrong. That's why there're friendly fire deaths even amongst troops, on both sides, and if you think this is limited to army-on-civilian encounters you're sorely mistaken. We just happen to have been fed a video of one incident where it DID go wrong. And the blame can be spread around.
Pat Tillman is an example of communications gone wrong causing friendly fire.
Murdering the people in the van was not a communication failure.
|
I really was outraged when I saw this video, about how they're laughing when the tank drives over the dead body and how the gunner is saying "c'mon pick up a weapon" when the wounded camera man is just trying to survive.
But what everone has to realize is the psychology of war. Killing for these men and women is nothing new. It's something they do on a daily basis and if you were in a war you'd act the same way. This is in no way a defense for the people in that helicopter, what they did was inexusable, but if you get a group of people together all fearing for their lives on a daily basis this is what happens. You create killers. Wars create killer. You get a group mentality of "shoot them before they shoot us" (which was valid in the beginning of the war) and that just doesn't change in a day. You can even hear them trying to justify their behavior by saying "who brings their kids to a battle".
The problem is how the military acts when something like this happens. They decide to cover up all the incidents instead of trying to take something from it. I understand them shooting the first time, because that really looked like a RPG behind that house wall. But what about the other time. A van pulls up. Two guys jumps out and try to save the wounded man. No guns were aimed towards the helicopter. They hardly even looked over there. They were trying to save a life. When something like this happens the soldiers in the helicopter needs to be reviewed. Not a pat on the back, not a slap on the wrist but a real investigation needs to take place on how to prevent this from happening again.
|
United States44240 Posts
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote:
Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
|
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote:+ Show Spoiler +People are clearly getting overworked here. I mean if I were in Iraq, gathering with a bunch of people on a street who probably lived there all their life, and carry something that has a strap on it, say a laptop, a big handbag or whatever fucking else that has a strap on it I would expect a helicopter to shoot us dead from so far away I wouldn't even know what hit me. It's the fucking gatherers at fault here clearly, as the troops, you see, they followed protocols. Frankly I don't understand what's there to get outraged here. You have to understand that these soldiers are under tremendous stress and that's a good reason why you got shot.
Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that. That is UNLESS you have a van with a big red cross on it for anyone from a mile away to instantly recognize that your van has a big red cross on it, don't ever go near wounded civilians (you see, you are on the ground, you get to tell what the thing strapped onto their shoulders are) without a vehicle that has a big red cross on it or otherwise it's your fault if you get shot from things you can't see out of nowhere.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If some army spokesmen gave, ehh, "their version" of the story, they are really just making some honest mistakes. These things, like whether the bodies had cameras on them or RPGs on them after your ground troops have arrived on the scene, they are not easy to determine, Things can get lost in translation, reports and whatnot, so those criticisms are void as well.
Finally you aren't supposed to carry any weapons if you don't want to get shot. Everybody knows that Americans are the only god-chosen people allowed the god-given rights of carrying firearms. In conclusion people need to calm down over trivial little things like these. The army spokesmen are professional and you should trust professionals, as well as current/former army prostar forum posters like Hawk and some other kid, they know best. As the man said, don't be a "menstruating woman".
That actually made me laugh out loud. Which one said the awful sexist line again?
edit- Oh it was Hawk:
Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
Nice 
|
On April 06 2010 05:48 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:41 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2010 05:33 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:29 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:19 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:05 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future? On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it. On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
[quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have. Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives. Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van. did any of you watch??? when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers..... You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing? I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war?? Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong. You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ... In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took. Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
