|
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.
Or they don't know they killed civilians until they hear there are "2 child casualties" and later don't want to admit they killed innocent people, at least not yet, while in action?
What movie soldiers are you talking about exactly anyways?
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 08 2010 08:19 new_construct wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 08:07 Tjuba wrote:On April 08 2010 05:33 7mk wrote:On April 08 2010 03:10 Liquid`NonY wrote: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 06:44 new_construct wrote:On April 08 2010 04:47 Jibba wrote:On April 08 2010 03:07 Tjuba wrote: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.
Just because you choose to watch Behind Enemy Lines instead of The Deer Hunter only means that you like shitty movies.
|
The real trouble in this video, is the shooting at the van, IMO. They where unarmed, helping a wounded guy. Just gunning them down like that, is a warcrime. Facts are facts.
|
You guys really do realize this was a few years ago and was only recently linked, you know, in the height of US vs Insurgent fighting in cities? So the ROE was not as strict as it is now, right? And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
Not to mention, I'm curious where these Reporters' vests were. If they were wearing their blue reporter vests like they should have, and were not carrying guns this wouldn't have happened...
|
On April 08 2010 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:
...... And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
No reason to speculate, I just saw them shoot and kill unarmed people, clearly occuppied in helping a wounded guy. Thats a warcrime.
|
On April 06 2010 02:11 reit wrote:
it began cause americans are idiots and cowards and their military forces is a representative sample of their idiotic population
this wont ever stop, nothing will be done, they drink the kool-aid from mainstream media and wont ever stand up until the knife's under their throat, sheeple are fucking dumb, theyre brainwashed into mass consumption and mass entertainment, not into thinking critically about the world around them. they could give 2 fucks about Iraq, what happens in Tiger Woods' bed is much more important.
cowards
cowards
cowards
Dude... WTF is wrong with you?
|
On April 08 2010 11:22 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2010 02:11 reit wrote:
it began cause americans are idiots and cowards and their military forces is a representative sample of their idiotic population
this wont ever stop, nothing will be done, they drink the kool-aid from mainstream media and wont ever stand up until the knife's under their throat, sheeple are fucking dumb, theyre brainwashed into mass consumption and mass entertainment, not into thinking critically about the world around them. they could give 2 fucks about Iraq, what happens in Tiger Woods' bed is much more important.
cowards
cowards
cowards Dude... WTF is wrong with you?
lmao..... seriously reit you needa take a chill pill and stop spitting all your hate on Americans on here. i'm assuming that you said most of those things, knowing that it's extremely false.
as for mass consumption and mass entertainment, if we CAN, we DO. if you were a billionaire, don't fucking tell me you wouldn't spend a good amount of money on pleasure and enjoyment, in whatever form that may be.
|
On April 08 2010 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys really do realize this was a few years ago and was only recently linked, you know, in the height of US vs Insurgent fighting in cities? So the ROE was not as strict as it is now, right? And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
Not to mention, I'm curious where these Reporters' vests were. If they were wearing their blue reporter vests like they should have, and were not carrying guns this wouldn't have happened...
LOL, you try to argue soldiers are under stress in war and then you spout this gem. ROFL. Anyone nearby would've been scared shitless and under the stress of such a situation, they would not just HAPPEN to notice a tiny black thing in the sky that would shoot on them, nor would they immediately realize they could still get shot down. When someone collapses in the middle of the street, you don't pause and think if that person is putting on an act so they could rob someone, you go up and help them.
I fucking love the double standards here.
|
On April 08 2010 11:54 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys really do realize this was a few years ago and was only recently linked, you know, in the height of US vs Insurgent fighting in cities? So the ROE was not as strict as it is now, right? And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
Not to mention, I'm curious where these Reporters' vests were. If they were wearing their blue reporter vests like they should have, and were not carrying guns this wouldn't have happened... LOL, you try to argue soldiers are under stress in war and then you spout this gem. ROFL. Anyone nearby would've been scared shitless and under the stress of such a situation, they would not just HAPPEN to notice a tiny black thing in the sky that would shoot on them, nor would they immediately realize they could still get shot down. When someone collapses in the middle of the street, you don't pause and think if that person is putting on an act so they could rob someone, you go up and help them. I fucking love the double standards here.
You do realize Apache Gunships don't shoot bullets at people where they just 'drop' They shoot kind of rounds that when they impact, they sort of explode. You know, blow up in a large blast. It's not like they're shooting pistol rounds, it's fucking exploding rounds. So they would see a helicopter above, a person getting blown up with explosive rounds. And then they drive up their car full of kids and try to pick them up? That doesn't work as an excuse. Not to mention, it's not a tiny black dot in the sky. It's a helicopter not even 500 feet into the air, and is perfectly visible.
EDIT: Oh, and stop looking like such a tool with your l337 speak. They clearly noticed the Apache considering they POINTED THEIR CAMERA AT IT.
EDIT 2: And to the other guy. It's not war machine. This was YEARS AGO in the invasion of Insurgent-Occupied towns. There was a BATTLE going on only a hundred meters or so away. These people get shot up for not wearing the designative clothing reporters wear, and for carrying guns for walking around in a HOT ZONE that was SHOOTING at US troops. Then the van sees their buddies shot up with a bunch of explosive rounds and it's impossible not to hear the shots or hear the helicopter or see the helicopter unless your deaf and blind (then I don't know how he's driving if that's true) so they were just acting idiotic.
|
On April 08 2010 12:01 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 11:54 buhhy wrote:On April 08 2010 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys really do realize this was a few years ago and was only recently linked, you know, in the height of US vs Insurgent fighting in cities? So the ROE was not as strict as it is now, right? And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
Not to mention, I'm curious where these Reporters' vests were. If they were wearing their blue reporter vests like they should have, and were not carrying guns this wouldn't have happened... LOL, you try to argue soldiers are under stress in war and then you spout this gem. ROFL. Anyone nearby would've been scared shitless and under the stress of such a situation, they would not just HAPPEN to notice a tiny black thing in the sky that would shoot on them, nor would they immediately realize they could still get shot down. When someone collapses in the middle of the street, you don't pause and think if that person is putting on an act so they could rob someone, you go up and help them. I fucking love the double standards here. You do realize Apache Gunships don't shoot bullets at people where they just 'drop' They shoot kind of rounds that when they impact, they sort of explode. You know, blow up in a large blast. It's not like they're shooting pistol rounds, it's fucking exploding rounds. So they would see a helicopter above, a person getting blown up with explosive rounds. And then they drive up their car full of kids and try to pick them up? That doesn't work as an excuse. EDIT: Oh, and stop looking like such a tool with your huge capped letters and l337 speak.
From what I see, the helicopter is quite far away. There's a good chance the driver did not see the helicopter given the limited field of view and the distance. When you see random explosions in the street, you don't immediately assume "oh shit, it's an Apache gunship hunting for insurgents!" Look at it from the point of view of the driver.
Suggest to me an easier way of expressing my laughter in text.
|
You're right. When -I- see explosions randomly on a street shooting up my friends, I just assume it's nothing serious at all and drive my van full of kids to go take the bodies that just got shot up with a bunch of 'random' explosions. And yes, they should have considering they were in a town that was currently fighting US soldiers and all the insurgents in the town were taking part in the battle. This was 3 or 4 years ago when shit like this was still happening in Iraq. So it's not like it was some green zone. It was a town full of Insurgents that was clearly being invaded by US forces (considering the battle was 100 meters away or so) and they see some buddies walking down the street with AK-47's you think they thought it was just a sign from Allah or something and they were supposed to take the bodies? No.
The driver of the van handled this wrong, and I'm sticking to that. He sees his buddies shot up, and I'm positive he knew the source or had an idea that it was the US considering Insurgents dont have that technology. So he brings his van full of kids there to go help them? That's horrible logic.
|
|
|
This driver just happened to see their fellow countrymen get attacked arbitrarily and decide to help the injured. The driver probably didn't see the helicopter either, and once the fire stopped, assumed it was safe enough to aid anyone still alive. It was a stupid decision obviously, given the complete circumstance. But looking from the perspective of the driver, I doubt most people would just watch people die in the streets after the explosions ceased.
But hey, these are just assumptions, we don't have the whole picture. If we did, this discussion wouldn't happen.
EDIT: The same mindset justification provided to rationalize the soldier's actions can be extended to the driver of the truck.
|
Oh my god, they just can't wait to shoot something, like if it was some kind of new toy or some shit.
Let me shoot! Let me shoot!
|
On April 08 2010 12:29 Cloud wrote:
Oh my god, they just can't wait to shoot something, like if it was some kind of new toy or some shit.
Let me shoot! Let me shoot!
Nice job reading the thread brah. >.>
|
On April 08 2010 12:29 Cloud wrote:
Oh my god, they just can't wait to shoot something, like if it was some kind of new toy or some shit.
Let me shoot! Let me shoot!
It's great how people read the OP and maybe the first few posts, then posts thoughts that have already been discussed to death.
And regarding the incident, collateral damage is a sad fact of the "war on terror", but really, it's going to happen regardless of preventative measures given the nature of the conflict. There is nothing special about this incident that warrants scrutiny.
|
On April 08 2010 11:54 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2010 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys really do realize this was a few years ago and was only recently linked, you know, in the height of US vs Insurgent fighting in cities? So the ROE was not as strict as it is now, right? And the van part, Jesus Christ. I can only imagine what was going through the drivers mind. 'OH LOOK, MY FRIENDS JUST GOT SHOT UP BY A HUGE US FUCKING APACHE. LET ME DRIVE MY VAN UP AND TRY TO TAKE THEIR BODIES WITH MY KIDS IN THE CAR. THIS'LL TURN OUT WELL" Seriously, how stupid was he?
Not to mention, I'm curious where these Reporters' vests were. If they were wearing their blue reporter vests like they should have, and were not carrying guns this wouldn't have happened... LOL, you try to argue soldiers are under stress in war and then you spout this gem. ROFL. Anyone nearby would've been scared shitless and under the stress of such a situation, they would not just HAPPEN to notice a tiny black thing in the sky that would shoot on them, nor would they immediately realize they could still get shot down. When someone collapses in the middle of the street, you don't pause and think if that person is putting on an act so they could rob someone, you go up and help them. I fucking love the double standards here.
You will know when an Apache Helicopter is shooting at you.
The bullets they use leave CRATERS. They don't shoot 22 caliber pellets that you won't notice hitting the ground next to you, they use gigantic armor piercing exploding rounds that leave no doubt in anyone's mind that they are being shot at by something with a shit ton of fire power.
|
Fruscainte´s posts are just speculations/justifications, it dosent change the fact that the chopper shot unarmed people helping a wounded guy. That is a fact.
I read XinRan´s article, nothing groundbreaking here. I could summerise it to:
"fighters cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy."
I dont think the soldiers are psychos(but ofc I dont know) but they still commited a warcrime.
XinRan´s article about the van-killings:
"After the helicopter guns down a group of men, the video shows a van stopping to pick up one of the wounded. The soldiers in the helicopter suspect it to be hostile and, after getting clearance from base, fire again. Two children in the van are wounded, and one of the soldiers remarks, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
Nothing in that text justifies, what I just saw with my own eyes. Let me repeat, they shot some unarmed people helping a wounded guy. Maybe it wouldn't have happend, if the van had been white, or if it hadn´t been spottet earlier, who knows, but doesn´t change the fact that I just saw a warcrime.
|
I've read almost every single post in this thread by now and I'd like to express my current view on this topic. At first, the video definitely did it's purpose on me in terms of convincing me the soldiers were in the wrong. I was also personally insulted by Hawk when he tried to accuse me of racial bias upon those views. There were also some background information that was later revealed about the matter such as the military's claims that there were heavy fighting just previous. Obviously, there is a grain of salt on that last part but it also means there's more to just the side in that video. In the end, I'd like to think it was a very ugly matter and I think it's doubtful anyone would disagree on that. Was the act just? In my opinion, no. Was the act justifiable, that's a far trickier question. I'd like to think in that situation, I would've acted a little better than that. But at the same time forum behavior alone both mine and just the feel of this thread and many others suggests deep down, we're still very spiteful hateful petty beings when the moment of truth comes. We all exhibit the same bitter prejudices time and time again to X person, X nation simply because we're not them. If I was in that Apache and I had the opportunity to shoot "people who aren't us" and had been at war with these exact "people who aren't 'us'", would I be quick to pull the trigger? Would I see weapons where there really wasn't because they're the "enemy"? I'd like to say no to all these things but I wouldn't know. I think it would settle the thread a lot if the defenders of the soldiers would simply admit what the soldier's did was wrong while the prosecutors would realize that in the moment, any of them might've pulled that trigger too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
