|
On April 06 2010 05:48 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote: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. Show nested quote +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
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 05:50 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:38 KwarK wrote: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.
I fully agree.
In short, what happened was a tragedy.
Extensive steps are already being taken to avoid tragedies.
Unfortunately you don't hear about the tragedies that didn't happen, only the ones that did, and with an operation of this scale the probability is that they will happen.
|
On April 06 2010 05:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
what the fuck?
|
God dammit, what has this thread come to. I find it even more disturbing that most of the ppl here are trying to justify what those soldiers did than those soldiers actually killing those Iraq journalists and wounding the children. We are civilians, and we should show sympathy to our fellow civilians killed in war.
|
On April 06 2010 05:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:48 KissBlade wrote: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:
[quote]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:
[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. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn 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. 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.
Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians.
You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
|
On April 06 2010 05:55 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:48 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote: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 As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions:
the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper?
also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat??
|
On April 06 2010 06:01 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:55 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:48 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote: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 As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there. Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions: the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper? also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat??
Did you miss my entire point about how they showed no awareness of the Apache or the fact that it doesn't even look like one? I meant, yeah it's great that you can bring up "They got AK-47's and RPG's and are looking to kill some Americans" but doesn't that argument sound awfully close to the "THEY GOT WMD'S!!!"
|
On April 06 2010 05:55 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:48 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:39 KissBlade wrote: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 As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
They aren't a threat to the Apache and its crew? The Apache is there backing up the troops on the ground and a guy with an AK/RPG is a threat to them. They don't sit there and refuse to engage people they believe to be insurgents because they are in an armored vehicle way up in the air where nobody can hurt them.
|
You know what? I'm done with this tagteam of you and Hawk in this thread about the video. I honestly couldn't give a shit about it till you two would double team anyone even naysaying with "OMG DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?"
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:00 GoodWill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:53 KwarK wrote: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. what the fuck?
The basic moral of the story is that when a bullet has just hit someone standing there it's not a good place to stand. Like a modern day parable.
|
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.
Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence.
That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
|
On April 06 2010 06:09 Sfydjklm 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. Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence. That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
Except war sets up a prisoner's dilemna. Sure you can follow X and Y rules. In fact, during the Civil War, Crimean War, WW1, the battles were fought relatively honorably in the beginning. Then as each war dragged on morals would go out the window, see General Sherman, U-boats, etc. Because at the end of the day, your side still needs to win and when your body count starts stacking up, it's every man for themselves.
|
On April 06 2010 06:01 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:54 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2010 05:48 KissBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]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:
[quote]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. Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians. You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
What are you going on about? I clearly mentioned the journalists in a half dozen posts so far. It's extremely obvious that the point I was making is that the journalists are there with guys that have weapons. The guys I posted are not journalists. They are not carrying cameras. The video identifies the journalists and the pictures I took are not of the journalists. Yet for some reason you seem to keep making up this nosense about how the pictures I posted are of "elongated cameras" or "shadows." That's so oblivious it makes me laugh.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 05:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually, what terrorist (pick your cell) snipers are trained to do is shoot to wound, not to kill. If they kill a soldier, they know the other soldiers will hide if they're well trained. If they wound the soldier, the rest are going to help if they're well trained.
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:09 Sfydjklm 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. Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence. That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
Yeah, that's not a good idea. When you're asking guys to risk their lives to fight for you you can't start executing them for fucking it up.
|
On April 06 2010 06:01 KissBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:54 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2010 05:48 KissBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]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:
[quote]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. Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians. You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
I just watched this again multiple times. It is clear they mis ID'ed the camera men that are standing with people that have guns. They are in a hot zone, aka they are in a zone that was just part of a battle only hours before and this Apache is out on a raid. I do see 2 guys behind the cameramen that seem to be clearly holding guns and a possible RPG.
|
United States44113 Posts
On April 06 2010 06:13 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 05:53 KwarK wrote: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. Actually, what terrorist (pick your cell) snipers are trained to do is shoot to wound, not to kill. If they kill a soldier, they know the other soldiers will hide if they're well trained. If they wound the soldier, the rest are going to help if they're well trained.
They won't if they're well trained. The first page in the British Army aid memoir says "win firefight".
|
Even though this thread has degenerated into people making stuff up, I do appreciate the OP. I've never heard of wikileaks before and it's pretty cool. Maybe one day I'll have the courage to make a contribution 
|
On April 06 2010 06:13 lightrise wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 06:01 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 05:54 BlackJack wrote:On April 06 2010 05:48 KissBlade wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter. On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
[quote]
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. Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians. You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own. I just watched this again multiple times. It is clear they mis ID'ed the camera men that are standing with people that have guns. They are in a hot zone, aka they are in a zone that was just part of a battle only hours before and this Apache is out on a raid. I do see 2 guys behind the cameramen that seem to be clearly holding guns and a possible RPG.
I think it's possible for a moment to think those two guys you're talking about seem to be holding guns. But then watch the part a few seconds before they opened fire (where the light is much clearer), it doesn't even look like they're carrying any armaments at the time.
|
On April 06 2010 06:08 KissBlade wrote:
You know what? I'm done with this tagteam of you and Hawk in this thread about the video. I honestly couldn't give a shit about it till you two would double team anyone even naysaying with "OMG DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?"
It's funny you say that because I never accused anyone of not watching the video until you accused me of not watching the video, which is pretty ridiculous since I'm the one that posted screengrabs from the video. But, sure, see things they way you want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
