|
but somehow the media (and the average guy) will say "OMG OUR POOR SOLDIERS DYING IN WAR" instead of "OMG POOR MASS MURDERED IRAQIS!"
All of my opinions on the Iraq war aside, it seems absolutely natural and an absolute necessity to protect your own people before everything else. It is every superior's job to ensure his soldiers get out of there alive.
|
On April 06 2010 01:48 Mystlord wrote:
Ugh. Even with all of our modern technology we can't differentiate a mic and a video camera from an AK-47 and a RPG? That's messed up.
Either that or those soldiers can't differentiate between the two. At the very least I can't. Video's too blurry.
Right around the time in the video where he said they were carrying AKs and RPGs (note: these were not the journalists they pointed out in the video).
I agree with the American solider, those look like weapons to me.
|
On April 06 2010 23:53 VegeTerran wrote:
What we have to keep in mind when watching this video is that the rest of the world hates ameica because of their freedom.
And btw wikileaks can't be trusted it has no coverage of the Tiger Woods story.
that's because no one in their right mind would give a shit about Tiger Woods and his affairs, we have more pressing issues on hand like the downfall of the entire fucking civilization of humanity as we know it.
|
On April 07 2010 01:43 chasfrank wrote:Show nested quote +but somehow the media (and the average guy) will say "OMG OUR POOR SOLDIERS DYING IN WAR" instead of "OMG POOR MASS MURDERED IRAQIS!" All of my opinions on the Iraq war aside, it seems absolutely natural and an absolute necessity to protect your own people before everything else. It is every superior's job to ensure his soldiers get out of there alive.
It seems incredible how this issue crystallizes the internal inconsistencies in the philosophic roots of modern liberal government.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp  An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: if a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. This post and your previous post sum up my thoughts exactly. By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, because there is a slight chance that there are armed explosives waiting to be detonated..... seriously, you can't have RoE like that, because what happened in this case will happen all the time. That's why it would make some more sense that you fire IF there is a sign of a threat. Hell, there was not even a small sign of any threat there. And one thing you seem to fail to realize was that this was not a battle as you say it was. This was not some planned attack by any force at all. Also, there was no resistance when the US troops attacked. If someone first attacked the US troops and then a van all of a sudden rushed in it would be different. This was a slaughter by the US troops where they decided to attack a group of people simply walking around the middle of the streets. If it was some planned attack where it was likely this van was used to carry explosives, then I am sure the situation would be different, and the people they shot on would not just "wander around" the middle of the street like that for example. They were completely unaware of what was about to happen. Sorry for feeling sympathy when a completely innocent person gets killed, and then when someone else tries to help him also gets killed. Seriously though, this attitude is what we would be better off without in the case of those helicopter gunners... You have no idea what happened before the footage, nor are we aware of any of the warnings or broadcasts that were out at the time.
If you're not familiar with military conduct at all, which you appear not to be, it really makes no sense for you to be making judgment calls on the matter. You don't know what happens all the time, and the probabilities you're throwing out are absolutely meaningless. I mean that exactly. They have literally no value.
|
So, since virtually everything the military does is classified, civilians without access to said information shouldn't speculate on anything, rendering the military completely immune to outside criticism?
|
On April 07 2010 02:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. This post and your previous post sum up my thoughts exactly. By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, because there is a slight chance that there are armed explosives waiting to be detonated..... seriously, you can't have RoE like that, because what happened in this case will happen all the time. That's why it would make some more sense that you fire IF there is a sign of a threat. Hell, there was not even a small sign of any threat there. And one thing you seem to fail to realize was that this was not a battle as you say it was. This was not some planned attack by any force at all. Also, there was no resistance when the US troops attacked. If someone first attacked the US troops and then a van all of a sudden rushed in it would be different. This was a slaughter by the US troops where they decided to attack a group of people simply walking around the middle of the streets. If it was some planned attack where it was likely this van was used to carry explosives, then I am sure the situation would be different, and the people they shot on would not just "wander around" the middle of the street like that for example. They were completely unaware of what was about to happen. sympathetic sucker like yourself Sorry for feeling sympathy when a completely innocent person gets killed, and then when someone else tries to help him also gets killed. Seriously though, this attitude is what we would be better off without in the case of those helicopter gunners... You have no idea what happened before the footage, nor are we aware of any of the warnings or broadcasts that were out at the time. If you're not familiar with military conduct at all, which you appear not to be, it really makes no sense for you to be making judgment calls on the matter. You don't know what happens all the time, and the probabilities you're throwing out are absolutely meaningless. I mean that exactly. They have literally no value.
I don't see how you need to be a rocket scientist to realize that there was very little chance that van would do any harm in any way, and your arguments against this have been ridiculous, which is what I have been pointing out. The "odds" that I have given have obviously been random numbers just to represent how unlikely what you say would be a possibility was according to what we see in the video. Obviously I never intended those numbers to be accurate, but the situations you describe are by no means likely according to how the situation played out.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 07 2010 02:41 EmeraldSparks wrote:
So, since virtually everything the military does is classified, civilians without access to said information shouldn't speculate on anything, rendering the military completely immune to outside criticism?
Not everything the military does is classified. If you're not at all familiar with war, or politics, or international relations, you shouldn't be speculating on it. TL General would be a much better forum if that rule applied across the board. We could rename it the Jibba, KwarK, Xeris, gchan and Moltke playground or something.
|
On April 07 2010 01:30 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 01:17 beetlelisk wrote:On April 07 2010 00:58 ZeaL. wrote:On April 07 2010 00:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. This post and your previous post sum up my thoughts exactly. By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, because there is a slight chance that there are armed explosives waiting to be detonated..... seriously, you can't have RoE like that, because what happened in this case will happen all the time. That's why it would make some more sense that you fire IF there is a sign of a threat. Hell, there was not even a small sign of any threat there. And one thing you seem to fail to realize was that this was not a battle as you say it was. This was not some planned attack by any force at all. Also, there was no resistance when the US troops attacked. If someone first attacked the US troops and then a van all of a sudden rushed in it would be different. This was a slaughter by the US troops where they decided to attack a group of people simply walking around the middle of the streets. If it was some planned attack where it was likely this van was used to carry explosives, then I am sure the situation would be different, and the people they shot on would not just "wander around" the middle of the street like that for example. They were completely unaware of what was about to happen. sympathetic sucker like yourself Sorry for feeling sympathy when a completely innocent person gets killed, and then when someone else tries to help him also gets killed. Seriously though, this attitude is what we would be better off without in the case of those helicopter gunners... "By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, " No, holy fucking shit. There is a big difference between some guy sitting in a truck on a peaceful street and a guy driving a truck into the middle of a fucking firefight. When there aren't guns being discharged, a person sitting on the side of the road in a vehicle isn't considered a threat that you would shoot at. Guess what? THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.The military had engaged a target and was coming to mop up with ground troops. This guy drove in during the middle of a firefight as the troops are coming to secure the area. Having a random truck with an unknown content/occupants drive right up as you're doing this prevents the troops from securing the area and is a threat to threat to every ground troop there because you DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS IN IT. It's common knowledge amongst Iraqis that you don't roll into a firefight like that. A truck coming in sure seems like more insurgents coming to support On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. If there's a van with people in it during or immediately after a firefight, yes... And shooting it isn't obviously going to stop it if it's by proxy. I was explaining why the van is a threat, even if the occupent doesn't appear to be in it. But if it is loaded, but not as a proxy, but with a remote on the guy that just got out, if you shoot him, it takes away one of the possibilities. Not too hard to understand! Ways a van can be a threat to the incoming ground forces. 1) Has armed people inside. 2) Is rigged to explode. In our case 1 is almost surely untrue, at least given the knowledge seen on the monitors. 2 is a possibility but if they waited 30 seconds it would have been pretty clear what the motivation of the occupants were and it definitely took at least a few minutes before the ground forces arrived. At no point in the conversation was IED even mentioned, it was more "damn he didn't pick up a gun earlier so I can't shoot him but now I have an excuse to kill even more people because they're taking him away". You're more or less trying to find and squeeze out whatever defense you can think of to make it seem like what happened is defensible. Why do you even consider what could be inside? They believed they were killing armed insurgents not civillians and reuters journalists and then some van comes in. What could it be, brave civillians or more insurgents helping another insurgent escape? If you wouldn't come and help yourself in this situation then don't be so surprised this van was attacked. I bet there aren't many people who would just come in and disregard any possible threats, especially with their kids inside. Because you don't automatically assume everything is a threat. Assuming everything is a threat is what got this whole situation started to begin with. To open fire on someone requires that that the target be designated as hostile. You can't just start shooting anyone near an area where fighting is occurring. Whether or not it makes sense that the occupants of the van came to help the injured is irrelevant, they are a novel target and have to be declared as hostile before you can use lethal force.
I even wrote that some pages ago and yes there definitely is a problem if they can't distinguish camera from AK47... except some people there definitely had weapons (~3:40-3:50).
The biggest issue here for me is how to warn someone that doesn't have to be hostile to stay away, shoot at something near them? This van didn't have to be attacked and most probably came to help because they couldn't see helicopters :/
|
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
Unless I'm missing something I really don't see what the outrage is. Am I supposed to be pissed that troops got authorization to open fire on what they thought were targets? You can't tell those are cameras that they are carrying from a couple hundred feet away
The initial engagement, though tragic, is understandable. However, firing on those helping wounded is morally reprehensible and illegal to boot. The subsequent military cover up doesn't help their case.
|
On April 07 2010 02:50 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 01:30 ZeaL. wrote:On April 07 2010 01:17 beetlelisk wrote:On April 07 2010 00:58 ZeaL. wrote:On April 07 2010 00:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. This post and your previous post sum up my thoughts exactly. By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, because there is a slight chance that there are armed explosives waiting to be detonated..... seriously, you can't have RoE like that, because what happened in this case will happen all the time. That's why it would make some more sense that you fire IF there is a sign of a threat. Hell, there was not even a small sign of any threat there. And one thing you seem to fail to realize was that this was not a battle as you say it was. This was not some planned attack by any force at all. Also, there was no resistance when the US troops attacked. If someone first attacked the US troops and then a van all of a sudden rushed in it would be different. This was a slaughter by the US troops where they decided to attack a group of people simply walking around the middle of the streets. If it was some planned attack where it was likely this van was used to carry explosives, then I am sure the situation would be different, and the people they shot on would not just "wander around" the middle of the street like that for example. They were completely unaware of what was about to happen. sympathetic sucker like yourself Sorry for feeling sympathy when a completely innocent person gets killed, and then when someone else tries to help him also gets killed. Seriously though, this attitude is what we would be better off without in the case of those helicopter gunners... "By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, " No, holy fucking shit. There is a big difference between some guy sitting in a truck on a peaceful street and a guy driving a truck into the middle of a fucking firefight. When there aren't guns being discharged, a person sitting on the side of the road in a vehicle isn't considered a threat that you would shoot at. Guess what? THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.The military had engaged a target and was coming to mop up with ground troops. This guy drove in during the middle of a firefight as the troops are coming to secure the area. Having a random truck with an unknown content/occupants drive right up as you're doing this prevents the troops from securing the area and is a threat to threat to every ground troop there because you DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS IN IT. It's common knowledge amongst Iraqis that you don't roll into a firefight like that. A truck coming in sure seems like more insurgents coming to support On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. If there's a van with people in it during or immediately after a firefight, yes... And shooting it isn't obviously going to stop it if it's by proxy. I was explaining why the van is a threat, even if the occupent doesn't appear to be in it. But if it is loaded, but not as a proxy, but with a remote on the guy that just got out, if you shoot him, it takes away one of the possibilities. Not too hard to understand! Ways a van can be a threat to the incoming ground forces. 1) Has armed people inside. 2) Is rigged to explode. In our case 1 is almost surely untrue, at least given the knowledge seen on the monitors. 2 is a possibility but if they waited 30 seconds it would have been pretty clear what the motivation of the occupants were and it definitely took at least a few minutes before the ground forces arrived. At no point in the conversation was IED even mentioned, it was more "damn he didn't pick up a gun earlier so I can't shoot him but now I have an excuse to kill even more people because they're taking him away". You're more or less trying to find and squeeze out whatever defense you can think of to make it seem like what happened is defensible. Why do you even consider what could be inside? They believed they were killing armed insurgents not civillians and reuters journalists and then some van comes in. What could it be, brave civillians or more insurgents helping another insurgent escape? If you wouldn't come and help yourself in this situation then don't be so surprised this van was attacked. I bet there aren't many people who would just come in and disregard any possible threats, especially with their kids inside. Because you don't automatically assume everything is a threat. Assuming everything is a threat is what got this whole situation started to begin with. To open fire on someone requires that that the target be designated as hostile. You can't just start shooting anyone near an area where fighting is occurring. Whether or not it makes sense that the occupants of the van came to help the injured is irrelevant, they are a novel target and have to be declared as hostile before you can use lethal force. I even wrote that some pages ago and yes there definitely is a problem if they can't distinguish camera from AK47... except some people there definitely had weapons (~3:40-3:50). The biggest issue here for me is how to warn someone that doesn't have to be hostile to stay away, shoot at something near them? This van didn't have to be attacked and most probably came to help because they couldn't see helicopters :/
Ah there's just some confusion. I understand that they thought that the people walking around were armed. Whether or not they should have fired on them is debatable , I was saying that they had no reason to fire on the van since they were unarmed and not an immediate threat to anybody.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 07 2010 02:50 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 01:30 ZeaL. wrote:On April 07 2010 01:17 beetlelisk wrote:On April 07 2010 00:58 ZeaL. wrote:On April 07 2010 00:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote:On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. This post and your previous post sum up my thoughts exactly. By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, because there is a slight chance that there are armed explosives waiting to be detonated..... seriously, you can't have RoE like that, because what happened in this case will happen all the time. That's why it would make some more sense that you fire IF there is a sign of a threat. Hell, there was not even a small sign of any threat there. And one thing you seem to fail to realize was that this was not a battle as you say it was. This was not some planned attack by any force at all. Also, there was no resistance when the US troops attacked. If someone first attacked the US troops and then a van all of a sudden rushed in it would be different. This was a slaughter by the US troops where they decided to attack a group of people simply walking around the middle of the streets. If it was some planned attack where it was likely this van was used to carry explosives, then I am sure the situation would be different, and the people they shot on would not just "wander around" the middle of the street like that for example. They were completely unaware of what was about to happen. sympathetic sucker like yourself Sorry for feeling sympathy when a completely innocent person gets killed, and then when someone else tries to help him also gets killed. Seriously though, this attitude is what we would be better off without in the case of those helicopter gunners... "By your logic Hawk and Jibba, any vehicle or anything close to any US troop should be fired upon, " No, holy fucking shit. There is a big difference between some guy sitting in a truck on a peaceful street and a guy driving a truck into the middle of a fucking firefight. When there aren't guns being discharged, a person sitting on the side of the road in a vehicle isn't considered a threat that you would shoot at. Guess what? THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.The military had engaged a target and was coming to mop up with ground troops. This guy drove in during the middle of a firefight as the troops are coming to secure the area. Having a random truck with an unknown content/occupants drive right up as you're doing this prevents the troops from securing the area and is a threat to threat to every ground troop there because you DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT IS IN IT. It's common knowledge amongst Iraqis that you don't roll into a firefight like that. A truck coming in sure seems like more insurgents coming to support On April 06 2010 23:27 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 23:11 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 23:07 ZeaL. wrote:On April 06 2010 22:48 Hawk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 06 2010 22:43 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote:On April 06 2010 22:01 Jibba wrote:
Van stops, picks up guy, then drives forward and detonates when the driver returns. Alternatively, you don't know if someone else is hiding in the van. Hell, the guy could've been planting a bomb on the corpse. Any creative way you can think of setting off an IED is probably standard practice already.
Is that really so difficult to understand? You don't drive an unmarked van into engaged military personnel. This is common knowledge among Iraqis. It's mindboggling how this isn't getting through to you. It's apparently a hard concept to grasp An unmarked van ( not an ambulance) rolling on to the scene of a fresh battle will be engaged by troops of any military every single time, and that's about 100x moreso when it's in a war filled with non-uniformed militia. Honestly, talk to ANYONE with military experience in situations like that—what jibba's saying is true. There's about a million ways that could be booby trapped. With ground forces coming in, the heli isn't taking a chance and that's the right call. So a helicopter guns down some possible enemies. There may be US troops around. A van comes and tries to give the injured people aid. The rational solution is to shoot the people in the van? Can't they just.. I dunno watch them? And then tell the ground forces to stay the fuck away or be careful if its booby trapped or something? Or that somehow the van is going to fly into the air and blow up the heli? How does a van driving up to some wounded people indicate that omg in srs danger gotta kill em. Because after a firefight, you secure the area, and an unidentified vehicle kind of prohibits you from securing that area?? Telling people to 'watch out, it may be booby trapped!' ain't gonna save their ass when this happens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRLvrXKmMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElDnwOoUamc&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhes7PzoJQ&feature=relatedif a van like that is fully loaded, it can easily approach the size of that third video without a problem. Okay walk with me through this thought process. My name is Ahmed and I want to kill some US troops cause I hate America. I've spent about 3 months making/procuring the amount of explosives to seriously kill some of those guys, now all I need is a plan to kill some troops. One day, I hear that my friends have been injured by an unseen force that could be miles away, could be American or could be another Iraqi faction or anyone really because they don't know what the fuck is going on, so I drive my fully loaded van that has been sitting there waiting to be used, to the scene of the action where there are an unknown number of enemy forces that have as of yet not been identified. I immediately get out of the van and start helping my friend into the van because he's injured. After that I will use my van to blow everyone up. While its stationary. And no one as far as I know is nearby. I am an imminent threat to any american troops that are nearby and must be killed immediately as I am sitting stationary helping my wounded allies. Really? Read my response to sean g, or any kind of stories about IED and suicide bomber usage in the Middle East... things can be detonated by proxy very easily Your argument seems to be that VBIED = dangerous, van could be VBIED so shoot van because van is in hot zone. If this is SOP, then doesn't any van in any situation with armed hostiles become a target, no matter what its doing? I can understand shooting a vehicle not stopping at a roadblock, but is shooting an idling van really justified? In any case, if the van was to be detonated by proxy, how would shooting it help? It doesn't remove any explosives inside or attached to the van. I really doubt that that was the basis for the gunners decision to light it up. If there's a van with people in it during or immediately after a firefight, yes... And shooting it isn't obviously going to stop it if it's by proxy. I was explaining why the van is a threat, even if the occupent doesn't appear to be in it. But if it is loaded, but not as a proxy, but with a remote on the guy that just got out, if you shoot him, it takes away one of the possibilities. Not too hard to understand! Ways a van can be a threat to the incoming ground forces. 1) Has armed people inside. 2) Is rigged to explode. In our case 1 is almost surely untrue, at least given the knowledge seen on the monitors. 2 is a possibility but if they waited 30 seconds it would have been pretty clear what the motivation of the occupants were and it definitely took at least a few minutes before the ground forces arrived. At no point in the conversation was IED even mentioned, it was more "damn he didn't pick up a gun earlier so I can't shoot him but now I have an excuse to kill even more people because they're taking him away". You're more or less trying to find and squeeze out whatever defense you can think of to make it seem like what happened is defensible. Why do you even consider what could be inside? They believed they were killing armed insurgents not civillians and reuters journalists and then some van comes in. What could it be, brave civillians or more insurgents helping another insurgent escape? If you wouldn't come and help yourself in this situation then don't be so surprised this van was attacked. I bet there aren't many people who would just come in and disregard any possible threats, especially with their kids inside. Because you don't automatically assume everything is a threat. Assuming everything is a threat is what got this whole situation started to begin with. To open fire on someone requires that that the target be designated as hostile. You can't just start shooting anyone near an area where fighting is occurring. Whether or not it makes sense that the occupants of the van came to help the injured is irrelevant, they are a novel target and have to be declared as hostile before you can use lethal force. I even wrote that some pages ago and yes there definitely is a problem if they can't distinguish camera from AK47... except some people there definitely had weapons (~3:40-3:50). The biggest issue here for me is how to warn someone that doesn't have to be hostile to stay away, shoot at something near them? This van didn't have to be attacked and most probably came to help because they couldn't see helicopters :/ The general Iraqi population is well aware that they should stay away in that situation.
Also, the camera/AK argument doesn't have much traction because there's still the possibility of an IED, which is the top risk. Any electronics or small objects, really. That's why you avoid hot zones. My guess is they were aware, but chose to take the risk anyways. That makes them great humanitarians, but it still doesn't make the soldiers' decisions any less rational. It's just not that possible to describe what that situation would entail over the forums. The number of variables are uncountable, and seriously, the most realistic understanding you can get without actually being there is by watching movies and reading books.
The worst issue from all of this is the coverup. That's what deserves the most attention.
|
On April 07 2010 03:11 Jibba wrote:
The general Iraqi population is well aware that they should stay away in that situation.
Also, the camera/AK argument doesn't have much traction because there's still the possibility of an IED, which is the top risk. Any electronics or small objects, really. That's why you avoid hot zones. My guess is they were aware, but chose to take the risk anyways. That makes them great humanitarians, but it still doesn't make the soldiers' decisions any less rational. It's just not that possible to describe what that situation would entail over the forums. The number of variables are uncountable, and seriously, the most realistic understanding you can get without actually being there is by watching movies and reading books.
The worst issue from all of this is the coverup. That's what deserves the most attention.
The coverup may be the worst issue, but it's also a big issue how trigger happy those soldiers were. Of course they will be rough, it's war after all. However, their attitude was completely inhumane.
And in addition, if you cannot see clearly what the guys down there carry, then you should consider twice if you shoot or not. Closing in to see better, would have been another option. They were a mile away from their targets after all. Cut the distance in half and you are still safe, but you are less likely to make a mistake.
My problem with this is that the soldiers presumed something that apparently wasn't right without even giving it a second thought. In warfare you cannot check every action for possible mistakes, since you might endanger youself, but the you also cannot go by your guts, because this way you can make far too many mistakes that as seen cost human lives.
|
|
|
This is not a war, WW2 was a war. This, this is fuckin Rhuanda, Cambodia and all the other carnage crap that happened when military took over -.- A war is not when one side beats the shit out of the other with minimum next to none resistance. Can't judge the soldiers tho -.- I'm sitting here in my cousy home and they are doing all the nasty work for their dumbass, imperialistic leaders, walking on glass every day, stressed out, god... That kinda explains the trigger-happyness.
|
I don't see the issue against the pilots. They saw what they thought to be a threat, men with RPG's in a hostile territory. Whether it was or not, is irrelevant right now. They thought they saw a threat. Then they GET CLEARANCE from superiors to fire. They didn't see them and just go 'OH SHIT RPG'S" and fire at them out of reflex. They got CLEARANCE to fire from superiors, and they did.
I doubt anyone here in that situation would not have fired. A possible threat that could kill you and you friend, and you are ordered to open fire without knowledge of who it is. Yes, it retrospect it's HORRIBLE. But it's not their fault.
|
On April 06 2010 07:24 endGame wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Bleh, fail and late reply, but I feel the need to respond.
Neither of us has ever been in violent battlefields like the ones our soldiers are in, but I can safely assume that this kind of stress transcends their reason. If you thought someone was capable of immediately killing or hurting you, I would bet a substantial amount of money that you wouldn't want to sit around and watch whether him/her would raise that questionable object, direct it at you, and proceed to pull the trigger.
Seeing someone who could so easily hurt you in this way would, in fact, make you quite "trigger-happy". You can deny this all you want, but when you are facing threats every waking moment, you will not want to sit around and let those potential threats reveal themselves for what they really are. I'm not saying that you should indiscriminately kill innocent civilians; what the soldiers did was out of their own perceived self-defense. Whether or not they spoke as they did about what they were doing is completely irrelevant. In fact, I'm sure most of our soldiers have similar attitudes after being at war so long and harboring a blatant scorn for whatever they're fighting.
Again, war changes people a lot. Maybe the average soldier is a "moronic trigger happy scumbag", maybe not. Humans are far from perfect. Our soldiers risk their lives by being sent into a war many of them are disillusioned in, and you expect them to constantly repeat to themselves, "I have the power to take a human life away. I must carefully consider everything I do in preparation for battle, and I must always remember to ponder every last option, always utilize perfect logic whenever I encounter a situation in which it's either me or them."? Sure, that would be the "perfect" soldier--one whose actions are always logical and never deviate from what is socially accepted--but we are far from perfect. When put into this extremely, extremely high stress environment, people will become like that. Whether or not you consider them qualified to make fatal decisions is your issue; the soldiers themselves are trying their best to protect their own lives, and I presume they will do anything within their power to accomplish this, regardless of whether or not they talk trash.
|
I dont want to repost again, for the third time. I DID BACKGROUND READING. I wanted to find out what was really going on. THIS WAS A FUCKING HOT ZONE. This was the site of a battle hours before. How many times must this be repeated. They were not in some random area on some random day. American forces were engaged in that very location only hours before. The van drove into a hot zone after US troops engaged insurgents. Please go read some background yourself before people keep guessing at what is going on. Its really annoying.
This means it was a fight not just "us troops blowing up insurgents with a helicopter"
|
On April 07 2010 04:51 Z3kk wrote:
Neither of us has ever been in violent battlefields like the ones our soldiers are in, but I can safely assume that this kind of stress transcends their reason. If you thought someone was capable of immediately killing or hurting you, I would bet a substantial amount of money that you wouldn't want to sit around and watch whether him/her would raise that questionable object, direct it at you, and proceed to pull the trigger.
If you think an RPG or AK-47 can immediately kill you in an Apache helicopter a kilometer away, perhaps you should not be allowed to deploy at all?
|
I think its obvious that these guys jumped to conclusions and killed people without thinking twice about it.
Still nothing good will come out of this thread. Although i guess more people know about it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/200/capture2k.png)
![[image loading]](http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/23/capture1fs.png)
![[image loading]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9710/akiscamera.jpg)
41428
964
570
EPT
