It seems to me that some people in this thread don't have a problem with the soldiers straight out lying. They saw the same as we did in this video. Yet they were absolutely certain that there were multiple weapons. They didn't even bother to check better and it didn't even cross their mind that there are indeed people who carry around stuff other than weapons (I hope all Iraqis have been instructud not to buy purses or bags). When you state that something is true when you are not even remotely sure about this, then you basically lie.
Certainly not a weapon. I dare anyone to carry a 6,3 kg RPG this way for longer than 5 minutes. Your arm will surely fall off. Besides that it feels like he has an extremely long arm if the black line is anything he carries. For reference this is how you carry around a RPG
Also a very strange way to carry an AK. It's still possible to be a weapon (and not just a shadow/object on the ground), however to say that it certainly is a weapon is nothing more than a bold guess.
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...
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.
On April 08 2010 01:58 Jibba wrote: What actually did it was the typos. When I see typos and vitriol, I immediately think of baal and he would definitely write and believe something like that.
A couple of minutes ago I thought typos were annoying but now I think typos are great! They seem to give that extra flair of innocence. Thank you.
Not to derail the thread too much, I ask you guys something semi relative. Is the value of life objective or subjective? If Objective, how much? If Sujective how would you messure it?
I am mostly curious on you who claim life is priceless (all life is equal), and If you could think yourself in a situation were that would not be true.
1. Subjective 2. I don't know. Sometimes it's better to bury things instead of think about them.
On April 08 2010 03:13 ggrrg wrote: May I ask what you see there? I see a truck.
This is precisely the problem that this thread faces. We know what it's like from the journalists' postmortem perspective. That's easy. It's right in front of you. The soldiers killed innocent people, etc. That's who's perspective the photo gives us. Now go beyond that. Attempt to understand the perspective that's not immediately in front of you, even though that's an impossible task. What would the photographer of that picture look like while he's taking it, leaning around a corner and pointing a long black object (we're not talking about point-and-shoots here) at the tanks?
Even if you spotted the Canon logo on the zoom extension, what would you immediately think that they were doing? Would you immediately think they were just a journalist? Nearly all journalists stick to the green zone and when they go out, they are embedded within the military. Or is it more likely that they're there taking photos, or running surveilance for someone else? Or is the camera a decoy?
How many of you would be willing to do the job of those photographers? The rational response is anyone willing to go into a hot zone right after such an attack is either hostile or crazy.
Everything is subjective. But if you don't want to live in a chaotic society you have to make people think that some things are objective ( Hence morality etc ... )
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers would never do misstakes or make biased conclutions just to be extra safe. In fact that Europeans number one goal in war is to make sure that they don't commit any warcrimes. Europeans are just that morally superior than Americans. There are multiple examples through out history that reinforce this fact.
Every European mother also teaches her child that every human life is priceless. We know this is true based on naivety and morals alone. It's not like we see proof of the contrary... like everyday.
A fine example of how to include as many over generalizations as possible.
I hope this is a troll and people don't think in this nature and then try to inject their thoughts into a debate.
I just want to reiterate for anyone who still believes they had no weapons that it was confirmed in the video (unedited version, thanks anti-American media) that weapons and RPG rounds were found under the bodies of the first attack.
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers would never do misstakes or make biased conclutions just to be extra safe. In fact that Europeans number one goal in war is to make sure that they don't commit any warcrimes. Europeans are just that morally superior than Americans. There are multiple examples through out history that reinforce this fact.
Every European mother also teaches her child that every human life is priceless. We know this is true based on naivety and morals alone. It's not like we see proof of the contrary... like everyday.
WWII? Is that too long ago?
Tbh yeah it is. At least if you look at germany the country has obviously changed a shitload because its learned from the shit that happened in WW2.
That being said Tjubas' post is obviously a bit retarded.
Oh my! People actually don't break down and cry when someone dies like in the movies?! Soldiers don't shoot people with weapons if they fire at US forced on the ground?! Damn, and all this time I thought humans didn't have primal, tribal characteristics that made then separate themselves into groups and kill each other. I sure am getting a reality check.
On April 08 2010 01:58 Jibba wrote: What actually did it was the typos. When I see typos and vitriol, I immediately think of baal and he would definitely write and believe something like that.
A couple of minutes ago I thought typos were annoying but now I think typos are great! They seem to give that extra flair of innocence. Thank you.
Not to derail the thread too much, I ask you guys something semi relative. Is the value of life objective or subjective? If Objective, how much? If Sujective how would you messure it?
I am mostly curious on you who claim life is priceless (all life is equal), and If you could think yourself in a situation were that would not be true.
1. Subjective 2. I don't know. Sometimes it's better to bury things instead of think about them.
On April 08 2010 03:13 ggrrg wrote: May I ask what you see there? I see a truck.
This is precisely the problem that this thread faces. We know what it's like from the journalists' postmortem perspective. That's easy. It's right in front of you. The soldiers killed innocent people, etc. That's who's perspective the photo gives us. Now go beyond that. Attempt to understand the perspective that's not immediately in front of you, even though that's an impossible task. What would the photographer of that picture look like while he's taking it, leaning around a corner and pointing a long black object (we're not talking about point-and-shoots here) at the tanks?
Even if you spotted the Canon logo on the zoom extension, what would you immediately think that they were doing? Would you immediately think they were just a journalist? Nearly all journalists stick to the green zone and when they go out, they are embedded within the military. Or is it more likely that they're there taking photos, or running surveilance for someone else? Or is the camera a decoy?
How many of you would be willing to do the job of those photographers? The rational response is anyone willing to go into a hot zone right after such an attack is either hostile or crazy.
So when american soldiers killing Iraqi civilians while cracking jokes you are trying to justify their action because of their high emotional stress, and when a Iraqi journalist go into a hot zone right after an attack, you calling him crazy? That is not a biased argument at all, i'd say.
On April 08 2010 01:58 Jibba wrote: What actually did it was the typos. When I see typos and vitriol, I immediately think of baal and he would definitely write and believe something like that.
A couple of minutes ago I thought typos were annoying but now I think typos are great! They seem to give that extra flair of innocence. Thank you.
Not to derail the thread too much, I ask you guys something semi relative. Is the value of life objective or subjective? If Objective, how much? If Sujective how would you messure it?
I am mostly curious on you who claim life is priceless (all life is equal), and If you could think yourself in a situation were that would not be true.
1. Subjective 2. I don't know. Sometimes it's better to bury things instead of think about them.
On April 08 2010 03:13 ggrrg wrote: May I ask what you see there? I see a truck.
This is precisely the problem that this thread faces. We know what it's like from the journalists' postmortem perspective. That's easy. It's right in front of you. The soldiers killed innocent people, etc. That's who's perspective the photo gives us. Now go beyond that. Attempt to understand the perspective that's not immediately in front of you, even though that's an impossible task. What would the photographer of that picture look like while he's taking it, leaning around a corner and pointing a long black object (we're not talking about point-and-shoots here) at the tanks?
Even if you spotted the Canon logo on the zoom extension, what would you immediately think that they were doing? Would you immediately think they were just a journalist? Nearly all journalists stick to the green zone and when they go out, they are embedded within the military. Or is it more likely that they're there taking photos, or running surveilance for someone else? Or is the camera a decoy?
How many of you would be willing to do the job of those photographers? The rational response is anyone willing to go into a hot zone right after such an attack is either hostile or crazy.
So when american soldiers killing Iraqi civilians while cracking jokes you are trying to justify their action because of their high emotional stress, and when a Iraqi journalist go into a hot zone right after an attack, you calling him crazy?
I was pretty clear in an earlier post that being in war does make you crazy, as it's simply impossible to reconcile civilian and military realms. However, in this case, the soldiers' decisions were rational, the journalists' were not. Or they were, and they understood the high probability of their death.
If those soldiers' decisions were considered rational in the real world, then Hollywood probably should stop making war films where they portray American soldiers as civilian loving saints. Because it is really unfair for the real Iraqi civilians killed in war in such a fashion. But then again, no matter what those american soldiers did in Iraq or afghan, they will still be considered as heroes back home. And I wonder why those terrorists hate Americans so much.
For the most part, soldiers are very well trained and very empathetic. It's pretty clear to me that you know nothing about warfare or soldiers, and you really just want to go on an anti-American tangent. I'm done. There's no use in me trying to discuss it anymore.
On April 08 2010 07:00 new_construct wrote: If those soldiers' decisions were considered rational in the real world, then Hollywood probably should stop making war films where they portray American soldiers as civilian loving saints. Because it is really unfair for the real Iraqi civilians killed in war in such a fashion. But then again, no matter what those american soldiers did in Iraq or afghan, they will still be considered as heroes back home. And I wonder why those terrorists hate Americans so much.
It's unfair to Iraqis that American soldiers are portrayed as nice in films?
The terrorists hate America because we love our soldiers even if they aren't like the ones in movies?
On April 08 2010 07:00 new_construct wrote: If those soldiers' decisions were considered rational in the real world, then Hollywood probably should stop making war films where they portray American soldiers as civilian loving saints. Because it is really unfair for the real Iraqi civilians killed in war in such a fashion. But then again, no matter what those american soldiers did in Iraq or afghan, they will still be considered as heroes back home. And I wonder why those terrorists hate Americans so much.
Hollywood doesn't really portray that. It's not a secret that collateral damage exists. They're there to kill insurgents, not preserve civilian life. That doesn't mean they are going to blow up a 50 civilians to kill 1 terrorist amongst them, and it certainly doesn't mean they are going to hold their fire on 50 insurgents if there is 1 civilian amongst them. In a movie you might see a soldier carrying a wounded Iraqi child to get him some medical attention, but that's what happened in the video, isn't it?
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers would never do misstakes or make biased conclutions just to be extra safe. In fact that Europeans number one goal in war is to make sure that they don't commit any warcrimes. Europeans are just that morally superior than Americans. There are multiple examples through out history that reinforce this fact.
Every European mother also teaches her child that every human life is priceless. We know this is true based on naivety and morals alone. It's not like we see proof of the contrary... like everyday.
WWII? Is that too long ago?
Tbh yeah it is. At least if you look at germany the country has obviously changed a shitload because its learned from the shit that happened in WW2.
That being said Tjubas' post is obviously a bit retarded.
Only a bit?
While Nony said nothing about Germany specific, Germany have come a long way for sure. I visit Berlin about once a year as it is a amazing city with friendly people. No war crimes in sight. But Germany consist of 82 million individuals... You and I have probably not met them all, so can you honestly say that this scenario could never had happened if it was German military?
Considering that some people here have trouble identifying something so obvious fake in a safe environment and not spend the time reading the next 4-5 posts required for a clear answer that, yes, that post was indeed sarcasm. Maybe... just maybe they would have made the same mistake as the helicopter crew and identified that camera as a weapon as well?
On April 08 2010 01:58 Jibba wrote: What actually did it was the typos. When I see typos and vitriol, I immediately think of baal and he would definitely write and believe something like that.
A couple of minutes ago I thought typos were annoying but now I think typos are great! They seem to give that extra flair of innocence. Thank you.
Not to derail the thread too much, I ask you guys something semi relative. Is the value of life objective or subjective? If Objective, how much? If Sujective how would you messure it?
I am mostly curious on you who claim life is priceless (all life is equal), and If you could think yourself in a situation were that would not be true.
1. Subjective 2. I don't know. Sometimes it's better to bury things instead of think about them.
On April 08 2010 03:13 ggrrg wrote: May I ask what you see there? I see a truck.
This is precisely the problem that this thread faces. We know what it's like from the journalists' postmortem perspective. That's easy. It's right in front of you. The soldiers killed innocent people, etc. That's who's perspective the photo gives us. Now go beyond that. Attempt to understand the perspective that's not immediately in front of you, even though that's an impossible task. What would the photographer of that picture look like while he's taking it, leaning around a corner and pointing a long black object (we're not talking about point-and-shoots here) at the tanks?
Even if you spotted the Canon logo on the zoom extension, what would you immediately think that they were doing? Would you immediately think they were just a journalist? Nearly all journalists stick to the green zone and when they go out, they are embedded within the military. Or is it more likely that they're there taking photos, or running surveilance for someone else? Or is the camera a decoy?
How many of you would be willing to do the job of those photographers? The rational response is anyone willing to go into a hot zone right after such an attack is either hostile or crazy.
So when american soldiers killing Iraqi civilians while cracking jokes you are trying to justify their action because of their high emotional stress, and when a Iraqi journalist go into a hot zone right after an attack, you calling him crazy? That is not a biased argument at all, i'd say.
Have you ever fought in a war? Or been in the military? Have you been in a situation were other peoples lives depend on you?
I haven't.
Lets say you are the gunner of that helicopter and after having spotted at least 3 armed insurgents, got confirmation from command to open fire and the pilot urges you to shoot. Would you really have said something like “Hey dude, I am not too sure. Perhaps some of them are journalists” I would be very impressed. Maybe not so impressive if that rpg had taken out that Hummer and soldiers which you was tasked to protect.
Me? If I had been a trained soldier used to follow orders, I am pretty sure I would have shot. I would probably shot the van too. That is what scares me the most about this video. :/
The movie soldiers will try to minimize collateral damage as much as possible, if they accidentally killed a civilian, they will make those sad panda faces, they would save the little girl even if it means to sacrifice half of the squad. The movie soldiers are multi-dimensional, understanding, intelligent characters, where in real life, like ppl said, they are just killing machines.
On April 08 2010 08:13 new_construct wrote: The movie soldiers will try to minimize collateral damage as much as possible, if they accidentally killed a civilian, they will make those sad panda faces, they would save the little girl even if it means to sacrifice half of the squad. The movie soldiers are multi-dimensional, understanding, intelligent characters, where in real life, like ppl said, they are just killing machines.
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers would never do misstakes or make biased conclutions just to be extra safe. In fact that Europeans number one goal in war is to make sure that they don't commit any warcrimes. Europeans are just that morally superior than Americans. There are multiple examples through out history that reinforce this fact.
Every European mother also teaches her child that every human life is priceless. We know this is true based on naivety and morals alone. It's not like we see proof of the contrary... like everyday.
WWII? Is that too long ago?
Tbh yeah it is. At least if you look at germany the country has obviously changed a shitload because its learned from the shit that happened in WW2.
That being said Tjubas' post is obviously a bit retarded.
Only a bit?
While Nony said nothing about Germany specific, Germany have come a long way for sure. I visit Berlin about once a year as it is a amazing city with friendly people. No war crimes in sight. But Germany consist of 82 million individuals... You and I have probably not met them all, so can you honestly say that this scenario could never had happened if it was German military?
Considering that some people here have trouble identifying something so obvious fake in a safe environment and not spend the time reading the next 4-5 posts required for a clear answer that, yes, that post was indeed sarcasm. Maybe... just maybe they would have made the same mistake as the helicopter crew and identified that camera as a weapon as well?
On April 08 2010 01:58 Jibba wrote: What actually did it was the typos. When I see typos and vitriol, I immediately think of baal and he would definitely write and believe something like that.
A couple of minutes ago I thought typos were annoying but now I think typos are great! They seem to give that extra flair of innocence. Thank you.
Not to derail the thread too much, I ask you guys something semi relative. Is the value of life objective or subjective? If Objective, how much? If Sujective how would you messure it?
I am mostly curious on you who claim life is priceless (all life is equal), and If you could think yourself in a situation were that would not be true.
1. Subjective 2. I don't know. Sometimes it's better to bury things instead of think about them.
On April 08 2010 03:13 ggrrg wrote: May I ask what you see there? I see a truck.
This is precisely the problem that this thread faces. We know what it's like from the journalists' postmortem perspective. That's easy. It's right in front of you. The soldiers killed innocent people, etc. That's who's perspective the photo gives us. Now go beyond that. Attempt to understand the perspective that's not immediately in front of you, even though that's an impossible task. What would the photographer of that picture look like while he's taking it, leaning around a corner and pointing a long black object (we're not talking about point-and-shoots here) at the tanks?
Even if you spotted the Canon logo on the zoom extension, what would you immediately think that they were doing? Would you immediately think they were just a journalist? Nearly all journalists stick to the green zone and when they go out, they are embedded within the military. Or is it more likely that they're there taking photos, or running surveilance for someone else? Or is the camera a decoy?
How many of you would be willing to do the job of those photographers? The rational response is anyone willing to go into a hot zone right after such an attack is either hostile or crazy.
So when american soldiers killing Iraqi civilians while cracking jokes you are trying to justify their action because of their high emotional stress, and when a Iraqi journalist go into a hot zone right after an attack, you calling him crazy? That is not a biased argument at all, i'd say.
Have you ever fought in a war? Or been in the military? Have you been in a situation were other peoples lives depend on you?
I haven't.
Lets say you are the gunner of that helicopter and after having spotted at least 3 armed insurgents, got confirmation from command to open fire and the pilot urges you to shoot. Would you really have said something like “Hey dude, I am not too sure. Perhaps some of them are journalists” I would be very impressed. Maybe not so impressive if that rpg had taken out that Hummer and soldiers which you was tasked to protect.
Me? If I had been a trained soldier used to follow orders, I am pretty sure I would have shot. I would probably shot the van too. That is what scares me the most about this video. :/
Hopefully I made my point more clear this time.
What am I trying to say is it might piss people off knowing that most people(me included) learn about the military from movies and documentaries when the real thing is completely different from how the media portrays.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/200/capture2k.png)
![[image loading]](http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/23/capture1fs.png)
![[image loading]](http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afea0b6172abd701e69a42d890d2bd5.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5051/proof9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/7693/proof10.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8771/proof11.jpg)
