|
On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
|
On April 06 2010 07:07 tonight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 04:07 KissBlade wrote:On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote:
Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about. Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time. Yeah, because I was even saying anything about the election. I was making a general point and I made it. Don't be a jackass, friend.
I apologized for this post one or two pages after I made it.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 10:58 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
EDIT: What if I'm determined to infringe upon other people's rights?
|
On April 06 2010 10:58 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Yeah this correlation is simply flawless.
|
On April 06 2010 11:01 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:58 Rothbardian wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed. Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
You couldn't be more wrong. If I have to hear another 'Why don't you move' if you don't like X, I'll be more annoyed at that falsifiable statement moreso than I am. Besides, I am moving to New Hampshire to enact freedom and liberty, so why would I move to a centralized totalitarian State that's worse than the US?
Anyways back on-topic. At the very least these men should be held accountable for their actions. I would like to see justice for the victims families through remuneration, and court-martial for these individuals.
|
On April 06 2010 08:18 endGame wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 07:40 cz wrote:On April 06 2010 07:32 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:27 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote:
I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____< Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag. I'm just saying. Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so. Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information. What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat? This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual. There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year. I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways. As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
My point with respect to pay is that this is a capitalist world and you simply can't expect a certain high-level of competence in this kind of situation for 30-50k a year, because the people who possess those qualities are able to find higher paying, similar work.
As for respect, if you want to maintain any sanity you have to largely dehumanize the enemy. If you want someone who can both kill and make excellent decisions and regret taking life, you can't pay enlisted people 30-50k a year, as those people will work elsewhere for more.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 11:07 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:01 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:58 Rothbardian wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed. Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs. You couldn't be more wrong. If I have to hear another 'Why don't you move' if you don't like X, I'll be more annoyed at that falsifiable statement moreso than I am. That's part of the argument for a fully private school system, is it not? If the schools in your area aren't performing adequately, you are free to move to another city/state. Besides, I am moving to New Hampshire to enact freedom and liberty, so why would I move to a centralized totalitarian State that's worse than the US? The Haitian government doesn't do anything.
|
On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
|
On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
|
On April 06 2010 11:19 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
On April 06 2010 11:22 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:21 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 11:19 cz wrote:On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb wrote:
[quote]
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? Welcome to war, welcome to real life. Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in. Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the realities of war, not whether that war is justified or not.
I guess, I'll stop posting again lol
|
On April 06 2010 11:21 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:19 cz wrote:On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? Welcome to war, welcome to real life. Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the realities of war, not whether that war is justified or not.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 11:09 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:18 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:40 cz wrote:On April 06 2010 07:32 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:27 Wr3k wrote:On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote:
I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____< Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag. I'm just saying. Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so. Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information. What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat? This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual. There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year. I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways. As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint? My point with respect to pay is that this is a capitalist world and you simply can't expect a certain high-level of competence in this kind of situation for 30-50k a year, because the people who possess those qualities are able to find higher paying, similar work. As for respect, if you want to maintain any sanity you have to largely dehumanize the enemy. If you want someone who can both kill and make excellent decisions and regret taking life, you can't pay enlisted people 30-50k a year, as those people will work elsewhere for more. What? There's so many things wrong in this post, I'm not sure where to begin. You're equating pay grade with empathy, which couldn't have less of a correlation, and you think that the mercenaries with PhDs working for Xe make better decisions because of their degree? Experience is the deciding factor in these cases, and again, an experienced soldier isn't going to react much differently.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker.
What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
|
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote:
I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
|
On April 06 2010 11:31 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote:
I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic. Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs. It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
|
On April 06 2010 11:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb 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..... Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker. What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists..
I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post.
All right just one more.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
Would you think differently if they enjoyed killing Americans? I think you would haha
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 11:31 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote:
I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic. Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs. It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
It's both an individual problem and a systemic problem. It's disturbing, but the point I'd emphasize is that in some respects, it's unavoidable. The drugs can be done without (which is a huge deal), but when you're constantly sitting in a symphony of audio and visual stimulation, with a constant stream of adrenaline, you're going to act in ways that would be unforgivable in the civilian world. In order to continue to be a soldier, at some point in time, you need to dehumanize the enemy. That's why post-traumatic stress syndrome exists, when it catches up to you.
The only solution I can see for it is no war.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 11:36 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:29 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker. What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists? Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists.. I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post. You're still stuck on something that's totally irrelevant. This could be any conflict in the world. Say, NATO troops bombing Serbs during the raid on Kosovo.
On April 06 2010 11:36 NewStart wrote:
Would you think differently if they enjoyed killing Americans? I think you would haha
I've defended the rationale for things like suicide bombings plenty of times on this website.
|
On April 06 2010 11:36 NewStart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 11:29 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 11:18 NewStart wrote:On April 06 2010 10:59 Jibba wrote:On April 06 2010 10:28 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 10:16 BDF92 wrote:On April 06 2010 10:03 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 05:18 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 05:15 mdb wrote:On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation. so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on..... I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books. WOW. I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen. "so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....." Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT. And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that. Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly.. Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion. It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind.. On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion. Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are. Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it. Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served. So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right? In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker. What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists? Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists.. I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post. All right just one more. Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
Would you think differently if they enjoyed killing Americans? I think you would haha
I'm not in favor of killing human beings, but yeah I would understand why someone might feel glad they just killed an enemy.
Would I be glad? I don't know, I hope I'm never put in a situation like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
