| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On April 07 2010 04:58 HunterX11 wrote: 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? So it's more relevant to let a possible threat live and fire upon you potentially lethally instead of stopping the threat beforehand? | ||
|
FusionCutter
Canada974 Posts
On April 07 2010 04:57 lightrise wrote: 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" So if a kid walks into a hotzone and gets blown up, it's justified? Get real. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On April 07 2010 05:05 Liquid_Turbo wrote: So if a kid walks into a hotzone and gets blown up, it's justified? Get real. Please don't give useless hypotheticals. It's not like they found some kids and blew them up for the lulz. They saw people whom they thought were a threat and reacted accordingly. They got approval from command to open fire, so it's not like it was just a reaction they did instantly again for the lulz. They did it in self defense. | ||
|
spitball
Australia81 Posts
On April 07 2010 05:03 Fruscainte wrote: So it's more relevant to let a possible threat live and fire upon you potentially lethally instead of stopping the threat beforehand? I don't necessarily agree with him but his point is that there was no 'possible threat'. Also, I think that the dismissive 'I don't see any any reason for outrage' comments are silly. The fact is that the US military lied about how the people involved were injured/killed and tried to cover it up. Not to mention the fact that the helicopter crew misrepresented the situation with the van to get clearance to shoot. They made it sound like they were running around grabbing bodies and guns when they were really just trying to rescue one injured guy. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
Yes, according to the screenshots being constantly reposted, they do look like weapons. It seems a bit odd the way the men are holding the weapons, but then who knows, maybe they were weapons and the armed men didn't know how to hold them properly. Yes, the soldiers got permission/clearance to fire. No, it is not okay for the soldiers to childishly be eager to kill another human being. No, it is not okay for the soldiers to laugh at the misfortune, injury, and death of others. No, it is not okay for the military to try to downplay the incident. On April 07 2010 05:05 Liquid_Turbo wrote: So if a kid walks into a hotzone and gets blown up, it's justified? Get real. Not a good argument because he/we aren't talking about kids walking into a hot zone. These were cameramen on an assignment to photograph a couple-hour-old hot zone that got blown up, and then nearby samaritans panicking and bringing in their van to help (with their children in it of course, cause who'd leave their children behind by themselves in Iraq?), thus justified. If they looked up they'd see a gunship helicopter circling the area aiming their weapons at them. Anyone would stop and not enter the area regardless of how close you are with the victims or how badly they were screaming in pain and yelling for help. I mean like, why didn't they spend 10 minutes to find paint and draw a big red cross with a white background on their van? Heck, why didn't they wave their arms in the air (or even a white flag!) to signal the American soldiers not to shoot? It's not like they'd get mistaken for waving weapons or anything. If they went out and called an Iraqi ambulance, it wouldn't get fired upon for sure. Soldiers would never think that 'insurgents' would use an emergency vehicle as cover to retrieve fellow insurgents and weapons. The soldiers were under stress, so anything could have happened and it wouldn't be their fault. For example, I'm under stress of essay deadlines and I'm surfing teamliquid. I didn't want to do this essay, it was assigned to me. It shouldn't be my fault if I don't make the deadline and I get zero. Likewise being under the stress of protecting the lives of your fellow comrades. You were assigned to follow orders and fight in this country. If your gun happens to kill civilians and two reporters, it shouldn't be your fault that you killed them, and were told to continue firing after they were disabled, and were trying to hold down your laughter while doing it. Not sure if this was posted already (too much flaming to skim through) but a note from Reuter's editor-in-chief: http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-editors/2010/04/06/video-of-our-colleagues-death-in-iraq/ -- I was trying not to post in this thread but I guess I can't help it. I'm not saying that the soldiers were mistaken for being cautious and doing a preemptive strike. Things happened, and they happened. All we can do is now try to prevent it from happening again. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On April 07 2010 05:05 Liquid_Turbo wrote: So if a kid walks into a hotzone and gets blown up, it's justified? Get real. If a kid runs out in traffic and you accidentally hit him and kill him, is it justifiable? The word justified just seems like the wrong word to use here. It's not like they were targetting children.. | ||
|
new_construct
Canada1041 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
Any of the apologists in this thread such as Hawk are people beneath contempt, calmly rationalizing away mass murder as if it's just part of the job. There's nothing about this that is justifiable, not the massacre, not the invasion, not current occupation, not the military, it's all morally corrupt. Maybe these incidents are be expected when you "go to war", but that doesn't mean you should spend your time on a forum attacking these who are outraged. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
On April 06 2010 23:38 Sean.G wrote: 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. But they don't fire upon vehicles or anything close to any US troop. They just tell the occupants to get out. And getting out is far better than getting shot. And they won't shoot if the soldier on the rear vehicle lifts his hand from the trigger of his gun and clearly motioned you to pass | ||
Liquid`Daaman
Sweden1225 Posts
Circumstances of being in a hot zone doesn't mean it's not a tragedy. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
I mean all the tough guys in this thread are talking like if the zone was a standard battleground and don't even question the use of an helicopter for this kind of operation. I mean yea they prefer to shot first at distance to avoid potential casualties because of suicide bombers or IEDs but with this kind of strategy it means that they don't really value the lifes of the Iraqi civilians compared to their own soldiers. Quite sad when one of the main official objective of the war was to free Iraqi people. edit: The tremendous influence of medias means that nowadays the modern armies can't afford casualties. When one soldier gets killed it is almost a national tragedy and its makes the public opinion unhappy hence those brutal procedures. However if the war was on an ethnically Caucasian theatre i don't really think that the public opinion would react in the same way. Killing civilians who look like you and have the same religion would probably be perceived as bad if not worse than losing soldiers. ( + one modern soldier is way more costly than his 19th century equivalent so it really hurts when they get killed but that's another issue ) | ||
|
uglymoose89
United States671 Posts
On April 07 2010 05:02 ShaperofDreams wrote: 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. But what many people are asking of soldiers is to err on the side of caution and put their own lives at risk. It is easy to say they did wrong and take the high road and claim we wouldn't have done the same. What very few people here seem to understand is that much of the time to stay alive it's shoot first ask later. The insurgents look just like regular citizens so it is very difficult to avoid shooting innocent citizens. I bet many of the soldiers have seen what it's like to have a comrade shot and killed and i doubt any of them want that to happen to them. I would have shot first rather than wait for an insurgent to turn around and shoot. Another thing that the soldiers don't really have the luxury of is the chance to clarify if there is an insurgent or not. Unlike police officers who can yell for the person to put the weapon down, often times the insurgent, 1. doesn't understand english, 2. will shoot rather than put down the weapon. This makes me more sympathetic to the soldiers. While shooting civilians is not the right thing to do. Avoiding doing so when the soldiers are in danger of being shot seems to be asking too much of them. Especially if they are at risk of being shot themselves. /i'll stop rambling now... | ||
|
ulszz
Jamaica1787 Posts
On April 07 2010 01:01 new_construct wrote: There is a threshold of allowable civilian deaths in a war, and if it is over the threshold, things need to be changed. We will see how it goes. really? so there are over 1 million. are we at that threshold yet? really a threshold... | ||
|
GunsofthePatriots
South Africa991 Posts
On April 07 2010 04:20 k20a wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/9710/akiscamera.jpg) right? For real did you even watch the video? So many Canadians whining in this thread. | ||
|
enthusiast
United States90 Posts
I think it is impossible to read this and say that the first attack was unjustified. The journalists WERE with men with AK's and an RPG's (does anyone but an insurgent carry an RPG?) and the journalist who peeked around the corner was aiming directly at a Humvee less than 100 meters away with what looked a hell of a lot like an RPG. In the report they print the picture he took at that moment. As others have pointed out, its impossible to come to a conclusion without context that is not provided in the video. This report provides a little: "Bravo Company 2-16 Infantry had been under sporadic small arms and rocket-propelled genade fire since OPERATION ILAAJ began at dawn on the morning of the 12th of July. The company had the mission of clearing their sector and looking for weapons caches. Two Apache helicopters from the 1st Cavalry Division's Aviation Brigade (call signs "Crazyhorse 18" and Crazyhorse 19") were in direct support to the ground maneuver force and were monitoring the Bravo Company radio frequency."(pg. 12 of pdf) He also says "there was no information leading anyone to believe or even suspect that noncombatants were in the area,"(12) although he doesn't expand on that. Additionally, one of the ground troops says their objective was to prevent local nationals from entering or exiting the area(30). Given this context, when the van comes in, if you think the man on the ground is anything other than an insurgent, you're an idiot. I don't know how often it is that noncombatants in Iraq will help insurgents in hot zones. If it happens a lot, then they shouldn't have fired on the van unless their assumption that there are no noncombatants in the area is very well founded. If never happens, then the decision to open fire is clearly justified. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
enthusiast
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: Unless I'm missing something I really don't see what the outrage is. The first part of the attack is debatable. While i for myself cannot see the camera mistaken as a weapon, i can imagine that under battle conditions it is very possible. However, the shooting on the van is violating us military roe and the geneva convention: -) Both people coming out of the van were unarmed -) Both of them did nothing to threaten the heli or other allied forces -) Near the van there were no signs of additional arms -) They did act to help a wounded person I figure that at least the 4th point is in direct contradiction to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention "The Geneva Conventions comprise rules that apply in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities, for example: wounded or sick fighters" Even if he were an insurgent, they would not be allowed to identify him as target since he didn't reach for anything looking like a weapon and was obviously in need of and receiving medical help. Your inability to see what is wrong with the action shown on the footage is one of the main reasons americans have a very bad reputation outside your home country. Yes even us euros know that war is ugly. But even we figure that if you are a developed nation and are taking part in an armed conflict, your solders have to abide to certain rules. Also the outrage is mostly about the video not being release earlier DESPITE Reuters having filed a claim under the freedom of information act in late 2007 and still have got no material from the pentagon. I am sorry that you cannot see that 2 things went very wrong here and i hope that you represent a minority in your country. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8118/proof1l.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/2346/proof2b.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/1871/proof3.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1182/proof4d.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/818/proof5i.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/782/proof6.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4431/proof7.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2704/proof8w.jpg) *around here the RPG guy walks off screen and isn't seen again ![[image loading]](http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5051/proof9.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7693/proof10.jpg) Conclusion: Those two guys with weapons are idiots. Camera Timeline: 06:21:10 shooting starts 06:22:15 shooting ends 06:22:45 smoke clears 06:25:25 van arrives On April 07 2010 07:13 GunsofthePatriots wrote: So many Canadians whining in this thread. Sorry if condemning murder is considered whining. edit: fixed thumbnails into pics edit2: regarding the guy with the RPG aiming at the humvees from around the corner... ![[image loading]](http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8771/proof11.jpg) edit3: I'm not saying that the helicopter crew would be able to spot something like this as we would. I understand that during the heat of battle the chances of them noticing a minor detail such as this would be slim-to-none. However, as I've said before, I do hope that a situation like this would never occur again. Better equipment, more experience in weapon recognition, and perhaps circle around once more before opening fire to be extra certain. And I'll say again, what happened happened. I'm only posting these pictures to help settle the dispute of "none of them were holding weapons" vs "a lot of them were holding weapons". I also wanted to point out the journalists for those who couldn't tell. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
