Public warning to all - This thread is NOT about Nationalism or blind hatred towards any nationality, American or otherwise. It is also not about the war itself and the justifications (or lack thereof) for the reasons behind it.
It is about a very specific incident that occurred; and if you can't keep yourself on that topic, please do not post in this thread.
Video of the US killing Reuters journalists and Iraqi civilians released by WikiLeaks:
5th april 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.
Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.
After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".
Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.
WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.
WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
Really, this whole thing is fucking absurd
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
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
dunno why 139 journalists that know the risk of "doing their work" and still chose to do so matter more then thousands and thousands of civilians that had no option that were MURDERED by the US army int he last 20 years.
really as bad as it is when innocent journalists/whatever die, it disgusts me evrytime when people go "OMG 2 US/EU CITIZENS DIED! MADNESS! .... oh ya and also 2000 arabs died in the last month but whatever lol ^_^v"
It is a tragedy but one that will probably be handled as inescapable (collateral as the title says). The balance between necessitating the safety of the soldiers and the stability of the country vs. the potential risks of who you engage. If people are carrying weapons, they are weapons that have potential to be fired.
On April 06 2010 01:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: dunno why 139 journalists that know the risk of "doing their work" and still chose to do so matter more then thousands and thousands of civilians that had no option that were MURDERED by the US army int he last 20 years.
Who's saying they matter more? They still matter, and they deserve attention. Of course, other things also deserve attention. Maybe even more attention. That doesn't make this negligible.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
dunno why 139 journalists that know the risk of "doing their work" and still chose to do so matter more then thousands and thousands of civilians that had no option that were MURDERED by the US army int he last 20 years.
really as bad as it is when innocent journalists/whatever die, it disgusts me evrytime when people go "OMG 2 US/EU CITIZENS DIED! MADNESS! .... oh ya and also 2000 arabs died in the last month but whatever lol ^_^v"
Yeah, this post is essentially correct. The only reason this is even getting the coverage it has, is because some first-world journalists died and they have a video. Never mind the fact this happens on a daily basis to an uncountable number of faceless civilians who die poor and completely in vain, for something they were not part of and wanted no part of.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs.
From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
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.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. Unless I'm missing something I really don't see what the outrage is.
Because normally, when people arrive at a scene of carnage, and try to use their transport to take the wounded to hospital, it's considered outrageous to gun them down and all the occupants of their vehicle. If that has passed you by, you really ARE missing something.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: Really, this whole thing is fucking absurd
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
Yet the helicopter crew specifically identified those things as 'AK47s and RPGs'. Clearly they were lying about the positive identification to get clearance to kill those people. They were obviously itching to kill those guys, as evidenced by them pleading for the injured cameraman to pick up a weapon so they could kill him.
You didn't get any sense of how trigger-happy that crew was from the video at all?
I mean I don't know what you could possibly say in a situation like that, but the ability to kill while being completely disconnected from the actual action (helicopters, drones, etc) really makes the killing a lot easier.
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.
Certainly they should be able to see that much more clearly than us, they have the equipment to fucking rise up in the air and hover around like some god damn holy motherfuckers and decide on the live of a person in seconds and yet trying to distinquish two very different objects from eachother seems like a thing they just cant get done.
Yes, the media is biased. Yes, there should be more coverage of more atrocities than there currently is. But the answer isn't to complain about coverage when it shows up. The answer is to complain about things that aren't being covered and try to raise awareness about them.
Sometimes, there's too much coverage of things that really don't matter. Tiger Woods's sex life is a good example of this.
But this does matter. This isn't something that's getting too much coverage. Again, other things matter, maybe even matter more. But that doesn't mean we should say, "Well, nothing else is getting attention, so we shouldn't pay attention to this!" That's going in the wrong direction.
On April 06 2010 01:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: dunno why 139 journalists that know the risk of "doing their work" and still chose to do so matter more then thousands and thousands of civilians that had no option that were MURDERED by the US army int he last 20 years.
Who's saying they matter more? They still matter, and they deserve attention. Of course, other things also deserve attention. Maybe even more attention. That doesn't make this negligible.
well apparently they dont matter nearly as much.
or do you see a hourly breaking news flash "3 innocent arabs killed by US/EU army!"
or for example for me war is when 2 sides go at eachother with heavy losses. but when 15000 people die on one side, 150 on the otherside and then its a slaughterfest and not a war. but somehow the media (and the average guy) will say "OMG OUR POOR SOLDIERS DYING IN WAR" instead of "OMG POOR MASS MURDERED IRAQIS!"
so it seems like a us/citizen is like 100 times as much worth as a arab.
or think about it differently, when innocent people get murdered and their family is lucky they get 200$. thats the price of a iraqi life it seems. but when a american is too retarded to know that hot coffee is hot they get a million$. so a american getting a bit hurt by own stupidity is worth thousand times more then a iraqi family father that got killed out of nowhere by "collateral dmg lol^^".
this is hypocrisy at its best and most disgusting level.
it just seems pisses me off to fucking hell when its a drama when a western guy gets killed but when 1000 arabs get killed it doesnt matter at all.
WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
dunno why 139 journalists that know the risk of "doing their work" and still chose to do so matter more then thousands and thousands of civilians that had no option that were MURDERED by the US army int he last 20 years.
really as bad as it is when innocent journalists/whatever die, it disgusts me evrytime when people go "OMG 2 US/EU CITIZENS DIED! MADNESS! .... oh ya and also 2000 arabs died in the last month but whatever lol ^_^v"
you really think anybody gives a fuck? What about that video of an american cop beating up an american woman into a bloody mess on an american soil for no reason whatsoever that surfaced recently? US government is hardly concerned about its own citizens; its unwarranted to expect they give a fuck what happens on the other side of the world.
What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
On April 06 2010 01:52 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: it just seems pisses me off to fucking hell when its a drama when a western guy gets killed but when 1000 arabs get killed it doesnt matter at all.
Do you know many westerners named Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen
On April 06 2010 01:52 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: well apparently they dont matter nearly as much.
...
so it seems like a us/citizen is like 100 times as much worth as a arab.
...
this is hypocrisy at its best and most disgusting level.
...
it just seems pisses me off to fucking hell when its a drama when a western guy gets killed but when 1000 arabs get killed it doesnt matter at all.
*When someone is killed by a murderer*
Well, apparently they don't matter as much.
It seems like your own family is like 100 times as much worth as someone else's.
This is hypocrisy at its best and most disgusting level.
It just pisses me off to fucking hell when it's a drama when your own family gets killed by when like 1000 other people get killed it doesn't matter (to you) at all.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Ya maybe because its not really news.
Since the dawn of time idiots have been idiots and have shot at innocent people without really having enough information to even go through with it, yet they've done it. Since the dawn of time those idiots have been hiding the facts while making sure every single bad thing the opposing force does is in the first page of the newspapers all over the world.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs.
From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
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.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire.
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. However, your point about the RPG does stand. However, I wouldn't say the Apache was in imminent danger, simply because it seemed like it was really, really far away from the "targets", and RPGs aren't exactly the most reliable weapons at long range...
Another problem occurs when you realize that this is merely a video of one incident of many. If other incidents like these are caused by soldiers with the same mentality, then we have a pretty big problem.
My question is why the firing even started in the first place. It seemed like there was nothing going on, just routine patrol, and seeing a gathering in a courtyard. Are all gatherings where anyone is carrying anything fired upon in Iraq? The people involved weren't even provoking anything. I understand that once the firing begins, firing on a van that comes to pick the wounded up may be necessary, but why it even began in the first place is beyond me.
On April 06 2010 02:07 wishbones wrote: its at times like these i wish i cud find those americans soldiers families and murder them with a blade (PERIOD) i wud do it, just pay for me airfare, give me addresses, and a few handy guns. Ill shoot the whole team involveds parents, his kids, and his wife. wait no kids or wife, those were not dead victims.
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.
On April 06 2010 02:04 EtherealDeath wrote: I understand that once the firing begins, firing on a van that comes to pick the wounded up may be necessary
wat?
so when innocents get shot and other innocents try to help them its ok to kill em?
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs.
From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
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.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire.
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. However, your point about the RPG does stand. However, I wouldn't say the Apache was in imminent danger, simply because it seemed like it was really, really far away from the "targets", and RPGs aren't exactly the most reliable weapons at long range...
Another problem occurs when you realize that this is merely a video of one incident of many. If other incidents like these are caused by soldiers with the same mentality, then we have a pretty big problem.
How is trigger happiness an issue if they're following protocol?? Most normal civies couldn't be put in that situation, and I think finding a solider who isn't trigger happy is simply impossible, given the circumstances. These dudes face IEDs, ambushes and the like on a daily basis. Someone who isn't attentive and ready to shoot an enemy at a moment's notice is a liability to an entire unit, platoon or whatever.
I agree, the apache was not necessarily in immediate, shoot without question danger. Still, it was certainly within range that a lucky random shot could kill them. Plus, there was American groundtroops in the area. I don't know the exact protocol, but I'm sure the military doesn't want enemies it believes to be armed just floating around openly with weapons.
at any rate, thank you for being one of the few people who watched the vid and responded rationally. It's really apparent most people didn't watch, because you can't tell what they're carrying, or that people are just letting their emotions and strong opinions about the war make their judgement...
US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
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
While some Americans are like that not all of us are.
On April 06 2010 02:07 wishbones wrote: its at times like these i wish i cud find those americans soldiers families and murder them with a blade (PERIOD) i wud do it, just pay for me airfare, give me addresses, and a few handy guns. Ill shoot the whole team involveds parents, his kids, and his wife. wait no kids or wife, those were not dead victims.
Really, really hope you're just trolling.
Nah, this kind of shit just makes people really angry.. that's all.
When asking for clearance to fire at the van he said that the people in the van were collecting bodies and weapons. They were not. They were trying to help a wounded civilian into the van.
On April 06 2010 02:04 EtherealDeath wrote: I understand that once the firing begins, firing on a van that comes to pick the wounded up may be necessary
wat?
so when innocents get shot and other innocents try to help them its ok to kill em?
wow...
And how do you know that they are innocent. Usually innocent people don't run into a battle, however one sided that one was.
Edit: and as the above poster mentioned, the helicopter trooped lied about the van peoples' actions, such that it portrayed an image which suggested insurgent reinforcements to the people back at command who then gave them clearance to engage.
From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
How is trigger happiness an issue if they're following protocol?? Most normal civies couldn't be put in that situation, and I think finding a solider who isn't trigger happy is simply impossible, given the circumstances. These dudes face IEDs, ambushes and the like on a daily basis. Someone who isn't attentive and ready to shoot an enemy at a moment's notice is a liability to an entire unit, platoon or whatever.
its one thing following protocol and trying to save your/your buddies lifes BUT its a totally different thing when the guy enjoys what he is doing.
remember those blackwater(?) vids of guys sniping people from far away and giggling going " lol thats like duck shooting rofl :D" . people like that should be shot in both knees with their own gun and then put into prison forever. and not be responsible for "safety" in a country they hate.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. Unless I'm missing something I really don't see what the outrage is.
Because normally, when people arrive at a scene of carnage, and try to use their transport to take the wounded to hospital, it's considered outrageous to gun them down and all the occupants of their vehicle. If that has passed you by, you really ARE missing something.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: Really, this whole thing is fucking absurd
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
Yet the helicopter crew specifically identified those things as 'AK47s and RPGs'. Clearly they were lying about the positive identification to get clearance to kill those people. They were obviously itching to kill those guys, as evidenced by them pleading for the injured cameraman to pick up a weapon so they could kill him.
You didn't get any sense of how trigger-happy that crew was from the video at all?
Groundtroops were coming in when the van arrived, and that's a potential threat... so yeah. That van wasn't marked with a giant cross or as ambulance. It could have been anything in there.
and the weapons. @3:24 is the best view of both the journalists. They both have their cameras straps on their shouldres, camera at side. This is pretty damn similar to having an AK with a shoulderstrap on your side. Him throwing it up on his shoulder to shoot looks an awful lot like an RPG. And as a couple have said, you can't see SHIT for what it is, and any soldier in any army in the world is going to err on the side of caution and call that a weapon and will get clearance from an CO.
As I said before, trigger happy doesn't mean shit. They followed protocol. Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
Uh look I hate to break it to you but high stress environments (LIKE SAY A WAR) tend to do some amazing things to your perception.
Until you experience it for yourself you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. If it came down to it in a war scenario, or a scenario where my life is in danger. 'it might be a gun' is justification to fire. It's justification in war, and it's even justified according to the Constitution.
Now I personally don't know the mental state of those soldiers but for a lot of people acting like that is a coping mechanism. They deal and see a lot of shit that most people couldn't stomach and they have to find some way to deal with it. Seeing dead people all day, shooting people, seeing abused children...people in these types of jobs have to find a way to cope or go insane.
Police officers and Fireman are also guilty of this. Do you know how often you catch news camera's pan to the police officer laughing at the scene of a triple murder with his buddies and it causes a public outrage that the police, "don't care!" They care, or they wouldn't be doing their job.
In the end do not ever underestimate what high stress does to a person and their perception. Hell I've thought the shell coming from my pistol was a COKE CAN because it simply looked that freaking big to me. I could read the serial number on the bottom of it, something that would normally be absolutely impossible. Stress will fuck with you beyond anything you would believe.
On April 06 2010 02:13 KinosJourney2 wrote: US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
They knew very well that there weren't any nuclear weapons, that's just to scare the population with words it understands (Nuclear = Badddd). They forged documents and used intel that was known to be false by every other intelligence agency in the world. The governing class wanted Iraq, they just needed to convince their slaves that it was a good thing to send out their youth to some shitty middle eastern desert country to murder everything in sight. They made sure their lies would loop on mainstream news for a couple of weeks and VOILA you have a large % of the population (whose education you've controlled, in order to make them oblivious to reason, knowledge, critical thinking and compassion for non-Americans) ready to send their kids to war. Most of these soldiers have never stepped out of the country before, they're young idiots w/ warped views coming from their controlled education. To them, this is like shooting animals, it's like a fucking video game, they could coldly murder a defenseless child and have a laugh about it minutes after.
Wouldnt personally go murder their families like that other poster, but would find it awfully good if the US would suffer some sort of event that'd kill as many Americans as they killed Iraqi civilians (karma is a bitch). Not taking the decisions doesn't take all responsability away from you, even though that's what the army would like it's cannonfodder to think. Even the idle American couch potato is responsible for letting this happen. If you guys are so free and such an amazing beacon of democracy, why can't you vote for anyone else than the 2 establishment-controlled candidates?
On April 06 2010 02:07 wishbones wrote: edited, seriously kill those guys involved imo, americans are real stupid.
LOL, please keep the discussion on the topic at hand. I dont understand why Canadians of all people bash americans. My brother and 3 of my best friends are in the army. After watching the video it is very clear that nothing was done wrong here. It does suck that there was collateral damage. From the video i'm watching it looks like there are weapons down there. I am not sure about the RPG but def looks like AK's. They asked for the order to open fire and thats what they did. They were on a mission, they engaged the targets with permission and they took them out. You don't back off either after you open fire just FYI, on why would they fire again. You confirm your target is dead. When the van pulls up very quickly to the scene they are just asking for trouble. That is exactly something insurgents would do in order to rescue anyone from their regime that might be important. They got the clearance and they took out the van plain and simple. It was an fucking unmarked van with your team moving in to take pictures of the aftermath. There is no way in hell they are moving in there with a van in the vicinity.
All you cock suckers that say you want to kill American soldiers and their families, please please come pay me a visit you fucking pile of shit. Ill throw you right off a bridge. They didn't make the decision to move in there, US government did. They are just doing their job, and it so happens to be during a war.
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: "Look at all those dead bastards." "YEAH." "Oh please let me shoot." "Haha I think they just drove over a body."
What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
Because sane men don't join up as grunts? Until you improve the pay and conditions of servicemen you will be scraping the bottom of the barrel and the results will be predictable. It's true of all actively functioning armies.
On April 06 2010 02:13 KinosJourney2 wrote: US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
They knew very well that there weren't any nuclear weapons, that's just to scare the population with words it understands (Nuclear = Badddd). They forged documents and used intel that was known to be false by every other intelligence agency in the world. The governing class wanted Iraq, they just needed to convince their slaves that it was a good thing to send out their youth to some shitty middle eastern desert country to murder everything in sight. They made sure their lies would loop on mainstream news for a couple of weeks and VOILA you have a large % of the population (whose education you've controlled, in order to make them oblivious to reason, knowledge, critical thinking and compassion for non-Americans) ready to send their kids to war. Most of these soldiers have never stepped out of the country before, they're young idiots w/ warped views coming from their controlled education. To them, this is like shooting animals, it's like a fucking video game, they could coldly murder a defenseless child and have a laugh about it minutes after.
Wouldnt personally go murder their families like that other poster, but would find it awfully good if the US would suffer some sort of event that'd kill as many Americans as they killed Iraqi civilians (karma is a bitch). Not taking the decisions doesn't take all responsability away from you, even though that's what the army would like it's cannonfodder to think. Even the idle American couch potato is responsible for letting this happen. If you guys are so free and such an amazing beacon of democracy, why can't you vote for anyone else than the 2 establishment-controlled candidates?
America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs.
From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
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.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire.
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. However, your point about the RPG does stand. However, I wouldn't say the Apache was in imminent danger, simply because it seemed like it was really, really far away from the "targets", and RPGs aren't exactly the most reliable weapons at long range...
Another problem occurs when you realize that this is merely a video of one incident of many. If other incidents like these are caused by soldiers with the same mentality, then we have a pretty big problem.
How is trigger happiness an issue if they're following protocol?? Most normal civies couldn't be put in that situation, and I think finding a solider who isn't trigger happy is simply impossible, given the circumstances. These dudes face IEDs, ambushes and the like on a daily basis. Someone who isn't attentive and ready to shoot an enemy at a moment's notice is a liability to an entire unit, platoon or whatever.
I agree, the apache was not necessarily in immediate, shoot without question danger. Still, it was certainly within range that a lucky random shot could kill them. Plus, there was American groundtroops in the area. I don't know the exact protocol, but I'm sure the military doesn't want enemies it believes to be armed just floating around openly with weapons.
at any rate, thank you for being one of the few people who watched the vid and responded rationally. It's really apparent most people didn't watch, because you can't tell what they're carrying, or that people are just letting their emotions and strong opinions about the war make their judgement...
Following protocol is fine. I don't think the protocol encourages them to enjoy killing. War is not supposed to be happy go lucky times. It should only be a necessity and not a sport. Perhaps I've been arguing using the wrong term... I just realized that you might take trigger happy to mean easy to fire, whereas I'm taking it to mean as in the soldiers just love to shoot and kill. Vastly different definitions there.
Well what I'm talking about is the soldier's broken mental state. If you're shooting because you're in immediate danger, that's fine. If you're shooting because you love killing people, that's a problem. It might just be that flying around in an Apache lends itself to that behavior, but that type of decorum is still inexcusable in the military.
On April 06 2010 02:42 ZeeTemplar wrote: America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
Im done this isnt news worthy.
Indeed, innocent people dying isn't news worthy. Whats wrong with a few innocent Iraqis dying? No big deal, seriously.. it happens everyday. Good job America, this is definitely what freedom and democracy is all about!
On April 06 2010 02:13 KinosJourney2 wrote: US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
They knew very well that there weren't any nuclear weapons, that's just to scare the population with words it understands (Nuclear = Badddd). They forged documents and used intel that was known to be false by every other intelligence agency in the world. The governing class wanted Iraq, they just needed to convince their slaves that it was a good thing to send out their youth to some shitty middle eastern desert country to murder everything in sight. They made sure their lies would loop on mainstream news for a couple of weeks and VOILA you have a large % of the population (whose education you've controlled, in order to make them oblivious to reason, knowledge, critical thinking and compassion for non-Americans) ready to send their kids to war. Most of these soldiers have never stepped out of the country before, they're young idiots w/ warped views coming from their controlled education. To them, this is like shooting animals, it's like a fucking video game, they could coldly murder a defenseless child and have a laugh about it minutes after.
Wouldnt personally go murder their families like that other poster, but would find it awfully good if the US would suffer some sort of event that'd kill as many Americans as they killed Iraqi civilians (karma is a bitch). Not taking the decisions doesn't take all responsability away from you, even though that's what the army would like it's cannonfodder to think. Even the idle American couch potato is responsible for letting this happen. If you guys are so free and such an amazing beacon of democracy, why can't you vote for anyone else than the 2 establishment-controlled candidates?
This is the problem with sending soldiers to keep the peace. They're trained to kill. They're trained not to have a moral crisis every time they shoot but to eliminate targets efficiently. They're not trained to take care of a country and its people. It's like hiring an assassin to babysit.
As for the video, it sucks that innocents died like this but sadly it's not surprising. We already knew about the huge number of civilians getting killed, and I already pictured it happening like this.
On April 06 2010 02:13 KinosJourney2 wrote: US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
They knew very well that there weren't any nuclear weapons, that's just to scare the population with words it understands (Nuclear = Badddd). They forged documents and used intel that was known to be false by every other intelligence agency in the world. The governing class wanted Iraq, they just needed to convince their slaves that it was a good thing to send out their youth to some shitty middle eastern desert country to murder everything in sight. They made sure their lies would loop on mainstream news for a couple of weeks and VOILA you have a large % of the population (whose education you've controlled, in order to make them oblivious to reason, knowledge, critical thinking and compassion for non-Americans) ready to send their kids to war. Most of these soldiers have never stepped out of the country before, they're young idiots w/ warped views coming from their controlled education. To them, this is like shooting animals, it's like a fucking video game, they could coldly murder a defenseless child and have a laugh about it minutes after.
Wouldnt personally go murder their families like that other poster, but would find it awfully good if the US would suffer some sort of event that'd kill as many Americans as they killed Iraqi civilians (karma is a bitch). Not taking the decisions doesn't take all responsability away from you, even though that's what the army would like it's cannonfodder to think. Even the idle American couch potato is responsible for letting this happen. If you guys are so free and such an amazing beacon of democracy, why can't you vote for anyone else than the 2 establishment-controlled candidates?
lol r u srs?
lol r u delusional?
Actually Kwark is right. Your "testimonial" was so far off the mark I don't even know what to say.
There's clearly at least 4 people carrying something. The first 2 guys they show are the reporters with the cameras. The next 2 guys they show it looks like one of them is carrying an AK and another is carrying an RPG. Am I really the only person that sees these weapons or is everyone else neglecting to mention it?
On April 06 2010 02:42 ZeeTemplar wrote: America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
Im done this isnt news worthy.
Damn, sorry, the real victim is obviously the american soldier WHO'S INVADING IRAQI TERRITORY, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
On April 06 2010 02:13 KinosJourney2 wrote: US is a fucked up country in my opinion, thinking they are some world police and are worth more then other people.
Really, what makes them think they can invade another country just cause they 'assume' they have nuclear weapons. Maybe im not the right one to say such a thing but US keeps doing stupid stuff.
They knew very well that there weren't any nuclear weapons, that's just to scare the population with words it understands (Nuclear = Badddd). They forged documents and used intel that was known to be false by every other intelligence agency in the world. The governing class wanted Iraq, they just needed to convince their slaves that it was a good thing to send out their youth to some shitty middle eastern desert country to murder everything in sight. They made sure their lies would loop on mainstream news for a couple of weeks and VOILA you have a large % of the population (whose education you've controlled, in order to make them oblivious to reason, knowledge, critical thinking and compassion for non-Americans) ready to send their kids to war. Most of these soldiers have never stepped out of the country before, they're young idiots w/ warped views coming from their controlled education. To them, this is like shooting animals, it's like a fucking video game, they could coldly murder a defenseless child and have a laugh about it minutes after.
Wouldnt personally go murder their families like that other poster, but would find it awfully good if the US would suffer some sort of event that'd kill as many Americans as they killed Iraqi civilians (karma is a bitch). Not taking the decisions doesn't take all responsability away from you, even though that's what the army would like it's cannonfodder to think. Even the idle American couch potato is responsible for letting this happen. If you guys are so free and such an amazing beacon of democracy, why can't you vote for anyone else than the 2 establishment-controlled candidates?
lol r u srs?
lol r u delusional?
Actually Kwark is right. Your "testimonial" was so far off the mark I don't even know what to say.
Testimonial? Do you even know what that word means? How was that a testimonial? Stick to the broodwar section, war and politics are way over your level of comprehension.
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
On April 06 2010 02:42 ZeeTemplar wrote: America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
Im done this isnt news worthy.
Damn, sorry, the real victim is obviously the american soldier WHO'S INVADING IRAQI TERRITORY, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The whole country should be charged for genocide.
As much as I respect freedom of speech there ought to be limits imposed simply for the purpose of engaging in a rational debate. I mean where do I even start on trying to explain how silly this post is!? I'll happily argue with someone who believes the opposite as me but you're not even living in the real world. Any attempt to argue with you would be poisoned by the sheer volume of nonsense you're producing. The only rational approach is to ignore you which means you're just wasting page space. If you're not trolling, and I've seen less stupid opinions voiced as intentional trolls before, then please attempt to moderate yourself.
What's the point in trying to prove that 2 kids could be seen there if you have to zoom in to prove it?
Those guys believed they killed terrorists not random civilians, being able to even see one after all suicide bombings and remote bombs had to be huge for them, they wanted to believe they could get some at last. People who got touched here got manipulated too easily by arrow pointing who was who before and after they died. Those soldiers did not know that.
Not caring that you accidentally drove over a body of a terrorist isn't anything strange to me (edit: keep in mind tanks couldn't get there because they did not want to drive over bodies) but I have to say that system of target clarification shown here is for sure. Wouldn't "insurgents" avoid being seen by an apache?
On April 06 2010 02:42 ZeeTemplar wrote: America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
Im done this isnt news worthy.
Damn, sorry, the real victim is obviously the american soldier WHO'S INVADING IRAQI TERRITORY, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The whole country should be charged for genocide.
As much as I respect freedom of speech there ought to be limits imposed simply for the purpose of engaging in a rational debate. I mean where do I even start on trying to explain how silly this post is!? I'll happily argue with someone who believes the opposite as me but you're not even living in the real world. Any attempt to argue with you would be poisoned by the sheer volume of nonsense you're producing. The only rational approach is to ignore you which means you're just wasting page space. If you're not trolling, and I've seen less stupid opinions voiced as intentional trolls before, then please attempt to moderate yourself.
So basically you have nothing to say?
KwarK's thought process: 1) Skim through posts 2) Find a poster you disagree with 3) Proceed to say he doesn't know what he's talking about, without actually touching on any of the points or facts raised 4) ??????? 5) PROFIT!
On April 06 2010 02:50 BlackJack wrote: There's clearly at least 4 people carrying something. The first 2 guys they show are the reporters with the cameras. The next 2 guys they show it looks like one of them is carrying an AK and another is carrying an RPG. Am I really the only person that sees these weapons or is everyone else neglecting to mention it?
No i totally agree with you. Look at my post above. There is definitely at least 2 people with what look to be ak's and maybe even the RPG. People ask why they would fire? Because they are supposed to be keeping the peace and organized insurgents with ak 47's in a zone they are patrolling and RPG's possibly that can shoot down the Apache are a huge threat.
Can we all just ignore Reit's comments. None of them are sensical and he is just trolling to the max. Kwark just ignore him. His comments are irrational.
Also Kwark the army in alot of the sense is not scraping the bottom of the barrel for that reason. Some people join to serve, but mostly it is a poverty draft.
On April 06 2010 02:42 ZeeTemplar wrote: America will always be portrayed as the big bully until people cry for help. These guys deal with IED's and a variety of gorilla tactics everyday. It's a high stress job that I doubt many can deal with. eh..hard to tell the bad guys when they don't wear uniforms.
Im done this isnt news worthy.
Damn, sorry, the real victim is obviously the american soldier WHO'S INVADING IRAQI TERRITORY, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The whole country should be charged for genocide.
As much as I respect freedom of speech there ought to be limits imposed simply for the purpose of engaging in a rational debate. I mean where do I even start on trying to explain how silly this post is!? I'll happily argue with someone who believes the opposite as me but you're not even living in the real world. Any attempt to argue with you would be poisoned by the sheer volume of nonsense you're producing. The only rational approach is to ignore you which means you're just wasting page space. If you're not trolling, and I've seen less stupid opinions voiced as intentional trolls before, then please attempt to moderate yourself.
So basically you have nothing to say?
KwarK's thought process: 1) Skim through posts 2) Find a poster you disagree with 3) Proceed to say he doesn't know what he's talking about, without actually touching on any of the points or facts raised 4) ??????? 5) PROFIT!
Your posts are so devoid of contact with the real world that I wouldn't know where to begin. Taking an annoying internet meme hasn't raised the level any either.
On April 06 2010 02:57 KissBlade wrote: The US is trying to wage a war on a belief. As many colonial powers know those wars never end in favor of the aggressor.
Yes i have said this for soooo long. You can't wage war on a belief. It is lunacy to expect to eradicate it. At least we have started the exodus from one country, and hopefully we will soon be leaving the other.
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting for the next page since people don't seem to watch the video.
Humans in power during wars are more disgusting that anything that can be described or created by the imagination of man. This was just like watching Armageddon Now.
This video was disturbing. But this is not the first time things like this happen, everytime a genocide occurs, these tragedies and crimes always occur.
Listening to their dialogue and how little they cared about human life was simply disturbing.
The media is horrible in general and needs to be much better, and actually cover things like this all over the world with no agenda.
On April 06 2010 03:07 samachking wrote: Listening to their dialogue and how little they cared about human life was simply disturbing.
On April 06 2010 02:19 Hawk wrote: Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
I don't understand how people can be applying morals and ethics to soldiers in a war zone filled with suicide bombings and shit.
Edit: Sorry I was quoting Hawk as a response to samachking.
They really don't look like AK's to me. They look so indistinct I'm not sure how you could identify them as anything. Also the size of the item in proportion to the people makes it unlikely to be an AK-47. In fact, at 3:43, it DEFINITELY doesn't look big enough to be an AK. But I suppose if you're in a hostile environment where the natives are anything but friendly to you for your "war of liberation and democracy", it's better to err on the side of caution. Kwark also has a point. The system doesn't draft normal people for grunts.
On April 06 2010 02:19 Hawk wrote: Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
I don't understand how people can be applying morals and ethics to soldiers in a war zone filled with suicide bombings and shit.
Edit: Sorry I was quoting Hawk as a response to samachking.
On April 06 2010 02:19 Hawk wrote: Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
I don't understand how people can be applying morals and ethics to soldiers in a war zone filled with suicide bombings and shit.
Edit: Sorry I was quoting Hawk as a response to samachking.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
I don't know whether you saw the video or not, because I see alot of reason for outrage.
I'm surprised anyone defends this. I'm not american and I know the States comes under alot of fire for it's actions overseas. However, if Australian armed forces massacred a group of civilians in another country I'd be pretty horrified.
To those saying that it was hard to tell from that distance what the journalists were holding, I'd say this: all you see from the video is that they have straps over their shoulders. If that's enough to open fire on a bunch of people calmly and slowly walking around in broad daylight then how are you safe carrying a bag or anything with a shoulder strap? Also, if you can't tell if your firing at a bunch of insurgents carrying weapons or civilians walking around - then that might be a good time not to engage.
If you're going to pretend that you try to minimise civilian casualties like Major Brent Cummings does in his press statement then this video is a shocking indictment. It clearly shows the soldiers were lacking in judgement and negligent in their duty. If 8 western civilians were gunned down in this matter it'd be a major controversy.
Lastly when they open fire on the van - it's a van. And they falsely report that the people exiting the van are picking up "wounded and guns" when moments before they are busily searching for weapons themselves and haven't identified anyone yet reaching or holding a weapon. Terrible.
Couldn't those guys be an escort to the journalists? I mean, these guys have security needs too. Is every armed Iraqi a terrorist? How many people do you honestly think could actually be involved with terrorism in Iraq? What the fuck is the idea of shooting anyone holding a gun? They never shot at the chopper or seemed to be a threat...
Guess they're preparing the cannonfodder for when it's time to march on their own country.
Shoot first, cover-up the mess after.
And lol at KwarK ... I'm sorry that you can't accept to face reality. The invasion was based on forgery, lies and propaganda. If you don't agree with that, it's not a question of opinion, it's simply denial of facts.
I pointed out that: - The governing class in America (as in the majority of Western countries) controls education. - The media looped stories about Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, which we now know to be a lie, based on fake documents (google Nigerian Yellow Cake). - The media also managed to link Iraq with terrorism and 9/11, another total lie, which the public bought (that kool-aid tasted great!) - There is a critical mass of "idiots" in the army, grunts that don't think about what they do, they just do it. - Most of these grunts have never experienced the world, or even stepped out of the US before, their views of the world are based on sub-par elementary and high school education (and let's be honest, most of the American youth has much more knowledge and interest for the latest MTV reality show than to learn about the world we live in) - Not being the president doesn't mean you don't hold responsability, America claims to be the spearhead of freedom and democracy, well then if the government is run by the people, for the people, the people are RESPONSIBLE for the death of each and every Iraqi civilian. - They could coldly murder kids and women and have a giggle about it (if you haven't seen the vids, you've dug your head in the sand, Iraq is a fucking genocide at this point).
Where is the "cut off from reality part?". If you can't argue but don't want to agree, just ignore my posts like you ignore the truth.
Of course, genocide is called nation building when America does it.
I'd love to see the outrage if China was bombing a US "terrorist camp" and accidentally killed a half dozen civilians. You'd have people tearing their shirts on the public place screaming at the injustice of this. I'd like to say you'd have people blowing themselves up on chinese troops but I don't think the average American has any balls, I mean they won't even rise against tyranny taking over their country...
But it's ok in Iraq, it's lowly sandniggers, right?
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
Maybe you should read his post instead of making up his post in your head on what you thought you read.
no, it was a pretty good paraphrase, and even if it wasn't it's still a valid point.
Actually it wasn't. Reread Samachking's post. If anything, it's more or less saying the same thing Hawk was except he expressed more sympathy on the matter.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
I never said anything about americans. You are putting words in my mouth. I only said this is completely disturbing. Most people in war do this, especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide), and many genocides that were done before were much worse, and many worse are going on in Africa right now which no media company actually puts up.
Why are you attacking me I don't know. If you don't think this is disturbing something is probably wrong with you. I never put race into it. I only said humanity in power when in war.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
Maybe you should read his post instead of making up his post in your head on what you thought you read.
no, it was a pretty good paraphrase, and even if it wasn't it's still a valid point.
Actually it wasn't. Reread Samachking's post. If anything, it's more or less saying the same thing Hawk was except he expressed more sympathy on the matter.
No, he said it was a crime and genocide. Forget the rest of the war and how the US got into it (idiots are still bringing it up when it's irrelevant...) there isn't any crime or genocide in the video. For christ's sake, he compares it to 'especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide)' Holy shit.
That's all that's needed for them to get clearance to shoot. An unmarked van picking up people with troops in route is fair game too...
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
I don't know whether you saw the video or not, because I see alot of reason for outrage.
I'm surprised anyone defends this. I'm not american and I know the States comes under alot of fire for it's actions overseas. However, if Australian armed forces massacred a group of civilians in another country I'd be pretty horrified.
To those saying that it was hard to tell from that distance what the journalists were holding, I'd say this: all you see from the video is that they have straps over their shoulders. If that's enough to open fire on a bunch of people calmly and slowly walking around in broad daylight then how are you safe carrying a bag or anything with a shoulder strap? Also, if you can't tell if your firing at a bunch of insurgents carrying weapons or civilians walking around - then that might be a good time not to engage.
If you're going to pretend that you try to minimise civilian casualties like Major Brent Cummings does in his press statement then this video is a shocking indictment. It clearly shows the soldiers were lacking in judgement and negligent in their duty. If 8 western civilians were gunned down in this matter it'd be a major controversy.
Lastly when they open fire on the van - it's a van. And they falsely report that the people exiting the van are picking up "wounded and guns" when moments before they are busily searching for weapons themselves and haven't identified anyone yet reaching or holding a weapon. Terrible.
people are very good at seeing what they want to see. This goes for the soldiers maybe but also you. Read my previous post. People don't respond to people in this forum, just post and go away lol.
They are on a scouting mission. They have certain rules of engagement and if they encounter a large group of people, which seem to be carrying weapons and possible means to blow up their helicopter, they request to engage. They get the ok and engage. Everyone makes the assumption they are flying around in a fucking attack helicopter for no reason. They see some people and decide hey they have some weapons and we love to kill lets just blow them up.
This is not what happened. They saw weapons, and when i watch the video it looks like there are 4 people with possible ak's and 2 people def have them. They engage. End of story.
They didn't false report anything. They said they might be looking for wounded and guns. Never did he say they are looking for guns. Changing one word like that changes what happens completely. I watched this again to make sure.
On April 06 2010 03:22 reit wrote: Couldn't those guys be an escort to the journalists? I mean, these guys have security needs too. Is every armed Iraqi a terrorist? How many people do you honestly think could actually be involved with terrorism in Iraq? What the fuck is the idea of shooting anyone holding a gun? They never shot at the chopper or seemed to be a threat...
Guess they're preparing the cannonfodder for when it's time to march on their own country.
Shoot first, cover-up the mess after.
And lol at KwarK ... I'm sorry that you can't accept to face reality. The invasion was based on forgery, lies and propaganda. If you don't agree with that, it's not a question of opinion, it's simply denial of facts.
I pointed out that: - The governing class in America (as in the majority of Western countries) controls education. - The media looped stories about Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, which we now know to be a lie, based on fake documents (google Nigerian Yellow Cake). - The media also managed to link Iraq with terrorism and 9/11, another total lie, which the public bought (that kool-aid tasted great!) - There is a critical mass of "idiots" in the army, grunts that don't think about what they do, they just do it. - Most of these grunts have never experienced the world, or even stepped out of the US before, their views of the world are based on sub-par elementary and high school education (and let's be honest, most of the American youth has much more knowledge and interest for the latest MTV reality show than to learn about the world we live in) - Not being the president doesn't mean you don't hold responsability, America claims to be the spearhead of freedom and democracy, well then if the government is run by the people, for the people, the people are RESPONSIBLE for the death of each and every Iraqi civilian. - They could coldly murder kids and women and have a giggle about it (if you haven't seen the vids, you've dug your head in the sand, Iraq is a fucking genocide at this point).
Where is the "cut off from reality part?". If you can't argue but don't want to agree, just ignore my posts like you ignore the truth.
Of course, genocide is called nation building when America does it.
I'd love to see the outrage if China was bombing a US "terrorist camp" and accidentally killed a half dozen civilians. You'd have people tearing their shirts on the public place screaming at the injustice of this. I'd like to say you'd have people blowing themselves up on chinese troops but I don't think the average American has any balls, I mean they won't even rise against tyranny taking over their country...
But it's ok in Iraq, it's lowly sandniggers, right?
Er dude, can we stick to the actual video rather than try and make it a debate about whether there were WMD's in Iraq? Trying to engage Kwark or anyone in a broad debate like that just makes it seem like your venting. Not really helpful to debate. Just saying, let's keep it on topic.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
Maybe you should read his post instead of making up his post in your head on what you thought you read.
no, it was a pretty good paraphrase, and even if it wasn't it's still a valid point.
Actually it wasn't. Reread Samachking's post. If anything, it's more or less saying the same thing Hawk was except he expressed more sympathy on the matter.
No, he said it was a crime and genocide. Forget the rest of the war and how the US got into it (idiots are still bringing it up when it's irrelevant...) there isn't any crime or genocide in the video. For christ's sake, he compares it to 'especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide)' Holy shit.
Once again, you are either trying to be purposefully illiterate or you're just not able to read. This is why you don't quote shit out of context. He even states, there are FAR WORSE situations such as the ones he listed. Holy shit indeed.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: They really don't look like AK's to me. They look so indistinct I'm not sure how you could identify them as anything. Also the size of the item in proportion to the people makes it unlikely to be an AK-47. In fact, at 3:43, it DEFINITELY doesn't look big enough to be an AK. But I suppose if you're in a hostile environment where the natives are anything but friendly to you for your "war of liberation and democracy", it's better to err on the side of caution. Kwark also has a point. The system doesn't draft normal people for grunts.
On April 06 2010 03:07 samachking wrote: Listening to their dialogue and how little they cared about human life was simply disturbing.
On April 06 2010 02:19 Hawk wrote: Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
I don't understand how people can be applying morals and ethics to soldiers in a war zone filled with suicide bombings and shit.
Edit: Sorry I was quoting Hawk as a response to samachking.
The two posts do not counter each other.
Really? It looks a whole lot like an AK to me. Doesn't look too small to me, especially considering that from the handle of an AK to the end of the barrel is probably like 2 feet.
Here's a pic from the wiki of it and it doesn't extend too far from the guy's body
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
I don't know whether you saw the video or not, because I see alot of reason for outrage.
I'm surprised anyone defends this. I'm not american and I know the States comes under alot of fire for it's actions overseas. However, if Australian armed forces massacred a group of civilians in another country I'd be pretty horrified.
To those saying that it was hard to tell from that distance what the journalists were holding, I'd say this: all you see from the video is that they have straps over their shoulders. If that's enough to open fire on a bunch of people calmly and slowly walking around in broad daylight then how are you safe carrying a bag or anything with a shoulder strap? Also, if you can't tell if your firing at a bunch of insurgents carrying weapons or civilians walking around - then that might be a good time not to engage.
If you're going to pretend that you try to minimise civilian casualties like Major Brent Cummings does in his press statement then this video is a shocking indictment. It clearly shows the soldiers were lacking in judgement and negligent in their duty. If 8 western civilians were gunned down in this matter it'd be a major controversy.
Lastly when they open fire on the van - it's a van. And they falsely report that the people exiting the van are picking up "wounded and guns" when moments before they are busily searching for weapons themselves and haven't identified anyone yet reaching or holding a weapon. Terrible.
people are very good at seeing what they want to see. This goes for the soldiers maybe but also you. Read my previous post. People don't respond to people in this forum, just post and go away lol.
They are on a scouting mission. They have certain rules of engagement and if they encounter a large group of people, which seem to be carrying weapons and possible means to blow up their helicopter, they request to engage. They get the ok and engage. Everyone makes the assumption they are flying around in a fucking attack helicopter for no reason. They see some people and decide hey they have some weapons and we love to kill lets just blow them up.
This is not what happened. They saw weapons, and when i watch the video it looks like there are 4 people with possible ak's and 2 people def have them. They engage. End of story.
They didn't false report anything. They said they might be looking for wounded and guns. Never did he say they are looking for guns. Changing one word like that changes what happens completely. I watched this again to make sure.
Yeah I did actually read your comment. I didn't see a need to reply to it because I wasn't replying to it. I was stating me opinion, not trying to refute yours. Anyway, you saw what you saw and I saw something different. I don't think we're going to agree on this so you feel it's justified and I don't. Let's just leave it there.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
Maybe you should read his post instead of making up his post in your head on what you thought you read.
no, it was a pretty good paraphrase, and even if it wasn't it's still a valid point.
Actually it wasn't. Reread Samachking's post. If anything, it's more or less saying the same thing Hawk was except he expressed more sympathy on the matter.
No, he said it was a crime and genocide. Forget the rest of the war and how the US got into it (idiots are still bringing it up when it's irrelevant...) there isn't any crime or genocide in the video. For christ's sake, he compares it to 'especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide)' Holy shit.
Once again, you are either trying to be purposefully illiterate or you're just not able to read. This is why you don't quote shit out of context. He even states, there are FAR WORSE situations such as the ones he listed. Holy shit indeed.
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
I only said this is completely disturbing. Most people in war do this, especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide), and many genocides that were done before were much worse, and many worse are going on in Africa right now which no media company actually puts up.
His full quote suggests this American attack is indeed a genocide, just on a lesser scale than the ones he mentioned. Maybe you should a little less condescending!
On April 06 2010 03:14 KissBlade wrote: The two posts do not counter each other.
If you want a paraphrase:
Samachking: omg these soldiers are killing people and not showing any remorse, fuck Americans! Hawk: they're soldiers, what are you expecting.
Maybe you should read his post instead of making up his post in your head on what you thought you read.
no, it was a pretty good paraphrase, and even if it wasn't it's still a valid point.
Actually it wasn't. Reread Samachking's post. If anything, it's more or less saying the same thing Hawk was except he expressed more sympathy on the matter.
No, he said it was a crime and genocide. Forget the rest of the war and how the US got into it (idiots are still bringing it up when it's irrelevant...) there isn't any crime or genocide in the video. For christ's sake, he compares it to 'especially in positions of power(see My Lai,Nanking massacare,The Holocaust,Rwandian Genocide)' Holy shit.
That's all that's needed for them to get clearance to shoot. An unmarked van picking up people with troops in root is fair game too...
Thanks hawk. Maybe we should chat lol. People seem to distract themselves form the point of the video. We are not discussing why we are in this situation or american politics, but whether this is genocide. This is not genocide. They did their jobs. They open fired and eliminated the target. In the aftermath there was some collateral damage but why would you be in a war zone area escorted with ak' 47s. These people are not dumb and know americans are scouting and patroling the area. They know they are in great danger to be around large groups of people with ak 47's.
On April 06 2010 03:36 monolith94 wrote: We seriously just need to get out of there.
Why? We need more 18-30 year old unemployed citizens with a chip on their shoulder to join our unemployment force? Get real. Moral reasons aside, we need this war.
Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
On April 06 2010 03:22 reit wrote: Couldn't those guys be an escort to the journalists? I mean, these guys have security needs too. Is every armed Iraqi a terrorist? How many people do you honestly think could actually be involved with terrorism in Iraq? What the fuck is the idea of shooting anyone holding a gun? They never shot at the chopper or seemed to be a threat...
Guess they're preparing the cannonfodder for when it's time to march on their own country.
Shoot first, cover-up the mess after.
And lol at KwarK ... I'm sorry that you can't accept to face reality. The invasion was based on forgery, lies and propaganda. If you don't agree with that, it's not a question of opinion, it's simply denial of facts.
I pointed out that: - The governing class in America (as in the majority of Western countries) controls education. - The media looped stories about Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons, which we now know to be a lie, based on fake documents (google Nigerian Yellow Cake). - The media also managed to link Iraq with terrorism and 9/11, another total lie, which the public bought (that kool-aid tasted great!) - There is a critical mass of "idiots" in the army, grunts that don't think about what they do, they just do it. - Most of these grunts have never experienced the world, or even stepped out of the US before, their views of the world are based on sub-par elementary and high school education (and let's be honest, most of the American youth has much more knowledge and interest for the latest MTV reality show than to learn about the world we live in) - Not being the president doesn't mean you don't hold responsability, America claims to be the spearhead of freedom and democracy, well then if the government is run by the people, for the people, the people are RESPONSIBLE for the death of each and every Iraqi civilian. - They could coldly murder kids and women and have a giggle about it (if you haven't seen the vids, you've dug your head in the sand, Iraq is a fucking genocide at this point).
Where is the "cut off from reality part?". If you can't argue but don't want to agree, just ignore my posts like you ignore the truth.
Of course, genocide is called nation building when America does it.
I'd love to see the outrage if China was bombing a US "terrorist camp" and accidentally killed a half dozen civilians. You'd have people tearing their shirts on the public place screaming at the injustice of this. I'd like to say you'd have people blowing themselves up on chinese troops but I don't think the average American has any balls, I mean they won't even rise against tyranny taking over their country...
But it's ok in Iraq, it's lowly sandniggers, right?
Governing class? What governing class? Top level politicians in Britain and I suspect most western countries are drawn from all classes. There is a very strong working class element in the Government of Britain. Control education? Not directly and with no clear agenda. While education is a responsibility of a socialist nation that does not make education the tool of the Government. You can't simply go "state education exists therefore children are brainwashed by the Government". I'm not going to defend the media but nor is it one big monolithic blob. Choose your media, choose your viewpoint. If you don't like any of the big American ones watch BBC Worldwide. If you find that too Western then watch Al Jazeera. The point being that the media just sells a product to a consumer, blame the people buying the 'truth' they had to sell. I never thought Iraq and 9/11 were linked and nor did anyone intelligent I ever spoke to. Stupid people think stupid things. Either teach them the truth or stop whining about it. The army is hierarchical. That's kind of how it works. It's purposefully designed so that the guys at the bottom don't question what they're told, even when it's really stupid. That's not making a point, that's just stating that the organisation which encourages people to wear uniforms that other people shoot at doesn't have many high IQ volunteers.
It's not genocide because genocide is the deliberate destruction of a cultural, racial or ethnic group. The United States is not doing that. If I destroyed a few miles of rainforest that wiped out a unique Amazonian tribe that'd be genocide. If I killed 10,000,000 Iraqis in a brutal civil war that hit people across the political, ethnic and ideological spectrum that wouldn't be. You shouldn't use words you don't understand.
And it's not because they're sandniggers to use your particularly vile phrase. It's because they're far away and who cares about what happens in a place they couldn't find on a map.
I was wrong to relate it directly to genocide and citing massacres as examples. However, I was merely defending the same point of the soldiers being human and this happening all over the world. People are messed up and afraid in these situations, and I would probably never understand, do I think it's immoral? Yes I do.
I suppose you can justify their actions. But something disturbs me when I see people from heavily armed vehicles killing barely armed foot soldiers or civillians. I know they are defending themselves and I probably have done the same thing in the same situation(kill them before they kill me), and I am probably being biased, but it does disturb me.
On April 06 2010 03:36 monolith94 wrote: We seriously just need to get out of there.
Why? We need more 18-30 year old unemployed citizens with a chip on their shoulder to join our unemployment force? Get real. Moral reasons aside, we need this war.
You're fucking mad. You are the perfect example of what's insanely sick and discusting about this world.
GET REAL, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT KILLING INNOCENTS AND THEIR WHOLE FAMILIES, WE NEED OUR JOBS
If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
This is war, this is why its impossiable to purpretrate an urban war.You cant just a little bit of war in the right places as nony says this is not outrageous at all this is war.
Although sad and unfair as it is you cant have individual soliders accountable when follow standing orders in war or your forces will be paralised while they check every action against there own moral sense.
If you go to war in the modern world im sorry but you have to know that horriable things will happen the answer is to give the u.n some teeth and support and use sanctions or the natural end to modern war is rwander and no one wants that.
On April 06 2010 03:36 monolith94 wrote: We seriously just need to get out of there.
Why? We need more 18-30 year old unemployed citizens with a chip on their shoulder to join our unemployment force? Get real. Moral reasons aside, we need this war.
You're fucking mad. You are the perfect example of what's insanely sick and discusting about this world.
GET REAL, WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT KILLING INNOCENTS AND THEIR WHOLE FAMILIES, WE NEED OUR JOBS
If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
Calm down there tiger. As much as you wish the world was one big happy idealistic place, it's NOT. Do I think it's a good thing? No, of course not. But I was simply responding to the idea that people in the US somehow think this war isn't benefiting them.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
On April 06 2010 03:43 maxor wrote: This is war, this is why its impossiable to purpretrate an urban war.You cant just a little bit of war in the right places as nony says this is not outrageous at all this is war.
Although sad and unfair as it is you cant have individual soliders accountable when follow standing orders in war or your forces will be paralised while they check every action against there own moral sense.
If you go to war in the modern world im sorry but you have to know that horriable things will happen the answer is to give the u.n some teeth and support and use sanctions or the natural end to modern war is rwander and no one wants that.
By that logic, SS soldiers and officers are not responsible for the deaths of 6+ million jews?
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
On April 06 2010 03:43 maxor wrote: This is war, this is why its impossiable to purpretrate an urban war.You cant just a little bit of war in the right places as nony says this is not outrageous at all this is war.
Although sad and unfair as it is you cant have individual soliders accountable when follow standing orders in war or your forces will be paralised while they check every action against there own moral sense.
If you go to war in the modern world im sorry but you have to know that horriable things will happen the answer is to give the u.n some teeth and support and use sanctions or the natural end to modern war is rwander and no one wants that.
By that logic, SS soldiers and officers are not responsible for the deaths of 6+ million jews?
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
Yes i also agree with their decision to engage. Also agree with hearing those words come out of their mouths is very disturbing but not surprising. My brother got bombed every single day when he was on tour. When you have this happen to you, you change your whole mentality about another race.
Did you guys see AKs and RPGs hanging out of the windows? Did you guys see anyone inside the van with weaponary? Was the van so downright dangerous that ground troops could not have handled it?
And some of you agree with the comments that "oh, well!" children were shot? Its OKAY in some way because its collateral damage?
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Of course you shoot civillians carrying AK-47's. In case you aren't aware, this is a war against civillians carrying AK-47's. The enemy combatants are civillians. I'm pretty sure almost everyone knows that if you're walking around in public carrying an AK-47 you will probably get shot by the U.S. military. It's not even legal for most of us to do that here in our home countries, let alone in a war zone. I highly doubt any journalist would be retarded enough to hire a private citizen to walk with him carrying an AK-47. That would be Darwin award worthy.
P.S. if you just watch the video it's extremely clear that the military has clearance to engage anyone carrying a weapon. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to live in Iraq and think it's okay to go out into public waving an AK-47 and not know you will be killed on sight. I mean really..
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
For instance, in that video, they may have been a group of soldiers that had a number of people die to a landmine on a vehicle patrol, then gotten raided on at night for a month. Finally, they caught and let loose that day, slaughtering the enemy in a one-sided affair which, to no real surprise, would pump them with adrenaline. Then they see a truck, with four people, two of which possibly have weapons that may or may not be AK47s (or crudely modified/constructed versions of) and even an RPG that would take down their critical air support. Faced with a month's worth of venom, pumping adrenaline, and fear for their lives, they continue their gleeful streak for vengeance.
We don't know. I don't, you don't, the only thing we can do is conjecture, but I think it's absolutely retarded to try to gauge their mental well-being etc. off of a video of soldiers on a freakin' battlefield.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
lol Okay. So I've had to sit through a Rules of Engagement lecture with the British Army and know full well about orders not to return fire, orders to retreat on contact and fire only as a last resort and orders to fire if fired upon. Whereas you have a picture in your head. Come on. You can't just say this is routine and not back it up. I'm saying there is a lot of paperwork and briefing regarding Rules of Engagement and supporting it with my personal experience within the army. You're saying they shoot at kids and women routinely and backing it up with....
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
There was a target, the guys with the guns. If it turned out that they didn't actually have guns, it doesn't change the fact that at the time, the soldiers thought they did and therefore treated them as a target.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
I don't have the patience to argue with people with little or no experience on the matter, so I'll just say watch The Hurt Locker to see why mistakes like that happen.
The movie is actually more lenient than the actual RoEs and it still shows you why war is a big, ugly, hairy mess. Throwing out terms like "evil" and "murderer" might accomplish your deep seeded goal of getting attention, but it does nothing to advance the debate or correct mistakes. You're flat out wrong if you don't think soldiers are making difficult decisions and don't have serious, life long regrets when they do make mistakes.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Of course you shoot civillians carrying AK-47's. In case you aren't aware, this is a war against civillians carrying AK-47's. The enemy combatants are civillians. I'm pretty sure almost everyone knows that if you're walking around in public carrying an AK-47 you will probably get shot by the U.S. military. It's not even legal for most of us to do that here in our home countries, let alone in a war zone. I highly doubt any journalist would be retarded enough to hire a private citizen to walk with him carrying an AK-47. That would be Darwin award worthy.
P.S. if you just watch the video it's extremely clear that the military has clearance to engage anyone carrying a weapon. Someone would have to be incredibly ignorant to live in Iraq and think it's okay to go out into public waving an AK-47 and not know you will be killed on sight. I mean really..
In Afghanistan part of the problem is that the average farmer will be carrying an AK and will fire it into the air for a lot of mundane reasons. Makes it very difficult to judge but they're certainly not fired upon simply for carrying weapons.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
Yes i also agree with their decision to engage. Also agree with hearing those words come out of their mouths is very disturbing but not surprising. My brother got bombed every single day when he was on tour. When you have this happen to you, you change your whole mentality about another race.
Perhaps I have a semi-romanticized view of war, but I believe that soldiers would rather get enraged rather than take a perverse pleasure in killing. However, I suppose it is inevitable to have such feelings on the battlefield. I guess that it then falls to a level headed leader to stop rage killings from creating another My Lai or something of the sort.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses. "you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours so shut the fuck up.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
On April 06 2010 03:59 -fj. wrote: Iraq is like highschool run by highly insecure and ignorant staff, only instead of detention, you and your friends get killed.
From day one till now, this war has been a mistake. From the dawn of time until now, war has only set us back.
and this kind of comment is just stupid and fueling another fucking long ass discussion
just add your opinion to the discussion dont bring another in.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses. "you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours so shut the fuck up.
dumbass
I saw more curses in what you said than what he said. In fact what you said didn't make any sense. reit didn't put any evidence in what he said lol.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses. "you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours so shut the fuck up.
dumbass
lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
i agree with this statement. while we consider ourselves and the war of terror "good" and the terrorists "bad" it really isnt.
Its more of a battle of ideologies. Ours fueled by revenge, theirs fueled by religion and hate. There is no "good" and "bad". Just two sides clashing over differing ideas
Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses. "you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours so shut the fuck up.
dumbass
lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
and you're being an ignorant idiot by dismissing his comment with a string of curses. "you're just spouting off random bs out of ass without any backup for your argument"
i see more in his statement backing up his opinion than yours so shut the fuck up.
dumbass
lol thanks for calling me out. Read my previous posts. I have tried to answer him and made a good attempt to respond to each of his points. Dont call me a dumbass without reading the thread kk thx.
While I'm not agreeing with him swearing at you, you do realise it's possible for people to read the thread and not agree with you? You said earlier I hadn't read your post like it would miraculously change all my opinions. Stop telling people to 'read the thread' when they disagree with you.
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote: Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
On April 06 2010 04:01 KissBlade wrote: Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
What're you trying to say? My point was and still is that people complaining about the supposed "immorality" of the soldiers are stupid. Everyone on the battlefield is probably crazy up their in the noggin. Regardless of which side they're on/what they feel of the war/etc. etc. because none of that is relevant. I don't understand what the background for the "terrorists" (I don't consider the Iraqi forces terrorists, by the way) has to do with anything.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Ah, come now. Hearts and Minds?
That's Bush rhetoric.
The US went to Iraq for OIL.
Too bad China and Iran got it, that's why we're leaving now.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
When did TL stop banning for stupidity?
Some of the comments made by the soldiers were in somewhat bad taste but nothing to rage about.
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Ah, come now. Hearts and Minds?
That's Bush rhetoric.
The US went to Iraq for OIL.
Too bad China and Iran got it, that's why we're leaving now.
Obviously we're there for oil. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the key to keeping a long term stable relationship is winning hearts and minds and I don't care if Bush said it before me.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
.. a bleeding heart liberal perhaps?
So let me see. You expect these men, who've been at war for months on end in a hostile territory, who've watched their buddies die to.. what. remain complacent when an unmarked van that could possibly hostile approaches?
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
It only sounds radical because you're suggesting killing innocent people over your beliefs.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
edit: not that I think your statement is wrong; I do agree that they are not the right people for the job. but that was not at all what the discussion was about.
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are.
I do. But they're not always followed. That is bound to happen in a war. Soldiers are trained to kill, and sending soldiers to do police work equals to mass murder/genocide.
That's why you don't send soldiers to do police work. That's why you don't illegally invade countries that have done nothing at all against you, based on the fact that they're allegedly trying to obtain nukes. Your country has them, who the fuck gives you the godly right to decide who else can have them?
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote: Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
That's a good idea. Shias are the majority, Sunnis are not and it was a coalition between Kurdish and Shias that put Maliki's government in power.
The leading vote getters in the most recent Parliamentary elections (this March) was the Iraqi Nationalist Party, which is made up of both Sunnis and Shias. So yeah...
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
You clearly don't know what rules of engagement are.
I do. But they're not always followed. That is bound to happen in a war. Soldiers are trained to kill, and sending soldiers to do police work equals to mass murder/genocide.
That's why you don't send soldiers to do police work. That's why you don't illegally invade countries that have done nothing at all against you, based on the fact that they're allegedly trying to obtain nukes. Your country has them, who the fuck gives you the godly right to decide who else can have them?
Go eff yourself, America.
No, it doesn't equal genocide. I explained genocide to you very carefully earlier. You still haven't taken it upon. Millions dead in Iraq still won't be genocide unless there's a racial, ethnic, religious or cultural link between them.
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
You don't drop a wolf in the middle of a group of sheep and then wonder why some sheep have been killed.
No, you don't do nation building. It never worked, never will. Especially not through the barrel of an American weapon.
There's not a better way for the army to conduct themselves. They're soldiers. Trained to kill. KILL. Not POLICE or SECURE URBAN AREAS or COUNTER-TERRORISM.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
See Rape of Nanking. But romanticized war only occurs in history books I'm afraid. =)
On April 06 2010 03:40 reit wrote: Ok, let's keep the factors that got us here out of the discussion (I think it's retarded to ignore how we got there but for the sake of the argument I will).
Here's my point: Should American troops be firing on all non-coalition individuals who carry weapons? What about private security contractors? As I said earlier, couldn't these guys simply be the security staff for the journalists? Who shoots a van trying to rescue people? Is it moral to shoot civilians simply because they're armed, even though they did not attack first or seem to pose a threat? Shit, brb, getting my US Army uniform on so I'm given carte blanche to shoot every armed being that moves (And the people who'd try to rescue them after).
Man, the SS weren't so bad after all. When's Nuremburg coming for all the American murderers?
Do you understand the concept of Rules of Engagement? Before leaving the base every morning the soldiers will be told what their Rules of Engagement are. In a country where civilians casually carry firearms in the streets the majority of prep time is avoiding exactly this kind of situation. Obviously you've got no experience with the military or you'd know this stuff. Your point is that collatoral damage is bad. Well done for that contribution but I think the army are actually ahead of you here. They already take extensive steps to avoid it. Evidently it's not perfect but the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous. You speak of something you have no comprehsion of.
This wasn't collateral damage... This was murder. Collateral happens when you strike a target and something else in the vicinity (usually civilians) get injured or killed. There was no military target here. Just a bunch of civilians, some of them who happened to possibly carry a gun (we're not even sure). They didn't shoot at anyone and didn't seem to pose a threat.
Looks like the chopper was on a civilian hunt.
"the idea that the soldiers are riding down the streets taking pot shots at anyone armed is ludicrous."
Where have you been since 2003? Stuff like this is pretty routine. They shoot kids, animals, women. They've probably killed more civies than they hit actual targets.
Do you have any evidence of this. Do you have their rules of engagement. Your just spouting off random bs out your ass without any backup for your argument.
Have you not seen the hours of video footage that's been all over the internet in the past 7 years? Ofc their rules of engagement don't tell them to shoot everything... Do you really think they follow the rules all the time? LoL... The very government that sent them there couldnt obey the rules (declaring war, illegal invasions, etc).
So you're saying collatoral damage is bad. Then we pointed out that everyone knows this. Then you said they shouldn't be allowed. Then we explained about RoE and how seriously they're taken. Then you said it doesn't work. Care to suggest a better solution?
The army already puts a fuckload of time and effort into RoE. They work their asses off trying to avoid this situation because they understand that the war is largely fought for hearts and minds. Whereas you just sit here bitching and wishing you could blow yourself up to kill civilians and get back at the US.
Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
That didn't even make sense. Tadaaaaa!
lol true.
reit stop jumping around with one moral point after another that aren't connected except in the loosest terms to what we're talking about. Or better yet stop posting in this thread. This is just becoming entertainment now.
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote: Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
That's a good idea. Shias are the majority, Sunnis are not and it was a coalition between Kurdish and Shias that put Maliki's government in power.
The leading vote getters in the most recent Parliamentary elections (this March) was the Iraqi Nationalist Party, which is made up of both Sunnis and Shias. So yeah...
You're right. I apologize and withdraw my statement.
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
You don't drop a wolf in the middle of a group of sheep and then wonder why some sheep have been killed.
No, you don't do nation building. It never worked, never will. Especially not through the barrel of an American weapon.
There's not a better way for the army to conduct themselves. They're soldiers. Trained to kill. KILL. Not POLICE or SECURE URBAN AREAS or COUNTER-TERRORISM.
On April 06 2010 03:43 maxor wrote: This is war, this is why its impossiable to purpretrate an urban war.You cant just a little bit of war in the right places as nony says this is not outrageous at all this is war.
Although sad and unfair as it is you cant have individual soliders accountable when follow standing orders in war or your forces will be paralised while they check every action against there own moral sense.
If you go to war in the modern world im sorry but you have to know that horriable things will happen the answer is to give the u.n some teeth and support and use sanctions or the natural end to modern war is rwander and no one wants that.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
We have come a long way, though. Before, when an army invaded a city, it was all pillaging and raping and the gleeful slaughter of citizens. I think soldiers today are very "professional" in comparison. Don't worry though, soon wars will be conducted with robots and this issue won't ever come up again
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I actually quite like the western world the way it is. The system works. I think killing innocent civilians because you want to change the world is a bad thing and not doing it doesn't make me a pussy.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
Jesus stop with this diatribe. Get a soap box man. Take this to the local far left community meeting. It's boring listening to you endlessly give the same opinion like it's related to the topic. IT'S NOT!
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
And send in the police?
Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS).
But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on.
You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
but of course said "wars" wouldn't start if the base ideologies of the world were similar. The foundations of this war are in my opinion religion. Said "terrorists" believing that our lifestyle is destructive tried to destroy us. Our nation saught revenge. (under the shroud of "oil" and "nukes")
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
I agree with you. These men in their helicopter are in a position of power unlike foot soldiers. I don't care if they are traumatized by war or whatever, cheering on a badly wounded man to pick up a weapon so they can shoot him is not acceptable behaviour. One more reason why civilized countries should go to war only as a last resort. This is the 21.century after all.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote: I'm currently watching some now. You need to really highlight the important parts, because a lot of it doesn't seem too relevant...
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance.
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 problem is they didn't want a verification process at all. They said they had Bushmasters in the area and the gunner was acting really estranged, trigger happy. Even from that range, and poor youtube quality you could see that wasn't an AK47 and that couldn't be an RPG by the way he was carrying it, it isn't that light.
The guy being trigger happy has absolutely no bearing on it at all. He ultimately got clearance. That's all he needs.
From that distance, you can't be sure at all what he's carrying, and it sure as shit looks like some kind of weapon. The part at 16:00 where they super zoom to the truck and try to make it like the two objects in the van look are clearly distinguishable as children is fucking stupid. I don't agree with the war at all in the slightest bit, but I'm sorry, this is nothing more than rueters playing victim here and trying to make the Americans look like they did something wrong here.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
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.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to say. It sucks, but you can't see, and it's war.... they did the right thing here. You don't wait until there's a fucking rpg coming at the chopper windshield to return fire.
I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill. However, your point about the RPG does stand. However, I wouldn't say the Apache was in imminent danger, simply because it seemed like it was really, really far away from the "targets", and RPGs aren't exactly the most reliable weapons at long range...
Another problem occurs when you realize that this is merely a video of one incident of many. If other incidents like these are caused by soldiers with the same mentality, then we have a pretty big problem.
How is trigger happiness an issue if they're following protocol?? Most normal civies couldn't be put in that situation, and I think finding a solider who isn't trigger happy is simply impossible, given the circumstances. These dudes face IEDs, ambushes and the like on a daily basis. Someone who isn't attentive and ready to shoot an enemy at a moment's notice is a liability to an entire unit, platoon or whatever.
I agree, the apache was not necessarily in immediate, shoot without question danger. Still, it was certainly within range that a lucky random shot could kill them. Plus, there was American groundtroops in the area. I don't know the exact protocol, but I'm sure the military doesn't want enemies it believes to be armed just floating around openly with weapons.
at any rate, thank you for being one of the few people who watched the vid and responded rationally. It's really apparent most people didn't watch, because you can't tell what they're carrying, or that people are just letting their emotions and strong opinions about the war make their judgement...
being trigger happy doesn't mean you shoot well when your suppose to. its that you dont hesitate to open fire or have bad judgement when your not suppose to open fire on an area or on targets.
i.e. you see a vague figure down the street moving in an area with many combatants and non-combatants...you dont hesitate and just open fire.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I actually quite like the western world the way it is. The system works. I think killing innocent civilians because you want to change the world is a bad thing and not doing it doesn't make me a pussy.
This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves.
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
haha, you must have only seen the for-tv, romanticized stories of WWII. While very interesting, vets from then certainly weren't PC or remorseful at all. Shit, I'd say they were even worse than our modern soldiers. The only difference is that there are a fuckload more ways to see what the guys are up to now—thus, more exposure.
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
And send in the police?
Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS).
But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on.
You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country.
Year later, when the evil corporate government is but a bad memory and people live in peace and are happy, people will look back to this day, to this website and say "It started here. That's the guy, the one from team-liquid who showed us the way".
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I actually quite like the western world the way it is. The system works. I think killing innocent civilians because you want to change the world is a bad thing and not doing it doesn't make me a pussy.
This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves.
that's capitalism. we thought it would work and what do you know. it does
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
It only sounds radical because you're suggesting killing innocent people over your beliefs.
In a democracy, no one is innocent. With freedom comes responsibility.
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
It only sounds radical because you're suggesting killing innocent people over your beliefs.
In a democracy, no one is innocent. With freedom comes responsibility.
You're the one insisting we're slaves. Slaves bear no responsibility. If you're going to babble insanity at least be consistent. Either we're all powerful individuals in a working democracy and complicit in the war in Iraq and you want to murder us all or we're slaves at the whim of the corporate overmind and blameless over Iraq. You're arguing both.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
I actually quite like the western world the way it is. The system works. I think killing innocent civilians because you want to change the world is a bad thing and not doing it doesn't make me a pussy.
This is why we disagree. I can't ignore the fact that a small group of bankers controls the decision making of millions of citizens in the western hemisphere. I see the dictatorship and can't accept it. I guess some people are fine with being slaves.
So is it the bankers or the corporations or the Jews? Or the fucking Illuminati. I hate those guys.
On April 06 2010 04:10 reit wrote: Pro tip: Army =/= Police.
You don't send an army to do police work and nation building. Tadaaaaaa!
wait, your solution to Kwark's question about a better way for the army to conduct themselves in battle... is to not send in the army?
And send in the police?
Don't send anyone to foreign countries. Don't meddle in other countrie's affairs (ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH RADICALLY DIFFERENT CULTURES/RELIGIONS).
But I mean, no one here really believes that the US govt is in Iraq to promote freedom, there is no moral to this war. It's senseless killing and the amount of people who rise up to protest is so small, nothing will change. That's why I'm pissed. Sure I think it's horrible that these people were murdered, but as you guys know, this happens alot. What makes me insanely mad is how enough Americans support this (or just ignore it) that it's allowed to keep going on.
You need to stop marching to stop the war and start marching on Washington to stop the corporate control of your country.
Year later, when the evil corporate government is but a bad memory and people live in peace and are happy, people will look back to this day, to this website and say "It started here. That's the guy, the one from team-liquid who showed us the way".
.... So anyone standing up for their beliefs is just an attention whore who wants to be remembered? I'm sorry, I'm such a fucking self-promoting egoistic attention craving radical for wishing for a more equal (no, not a commie system) society.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
See Rape of Nanking. But romanticized war only occurs in history books I'm afraid. =)
Perhaps I should have clarified: Western recounts
Aside from that, I don't remember coming across any accounts from the Japanese soldiers who took part in it. I don't think any would exist for obvious reasons, but do you know of any?
On April 06 2010 02:07 wishbones wrote: edited, seriously kill those guys involved imo, americans are real stupid.
All you cock suckers that say you want to kill American soldiers and their families, please please come pay me a visit you fucking pile of shit. Ill throw you right off a bridge. They didn't make the decision to move in there, US government did. They are just doing their job, and it so happens to be during a war.
I think u need to go to the war to see what its like, you have no right speaking on a "friends" behalf due to they're exposure to it. The fact is the standard has clearly become shoot first, ask questions later, otherwise you may actually be dead. Shitty as it may be this is how it has to be handled. But, after seeing this I just finalize it with human beings suck ass.
Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
I apologize for lumping samachking into the others; I'd gotten annoyed at all the people bitching about immoral soldiers (by the gods, what a paradox!) and lumped you into them. When I shouldn't have.
Let's change the name then:
On April 06 2010 01:47 Puosu wrote: What the fuck.. how do such mentally ill fuckers get that kind of power to just go shoot around in a god damn helicopter?
We can use Puosu.
On April 06 2010 01:56 majohanimo wrote: What I find the most inreresting, are the incredible comments by the soldiers. I understand, that you have to get into a state, where you can emotionally distance yourself from your actions, but enjoying them like this makes me fucking angry. And FFS, if you can't tell those are cameras, you can't tell those are weapons too...
And why the hell are they even shooting the van?
We can use Majohanimo, and ofc we'll ignore his genius comment about "soldiers should risk their lives to get closer to a van that may or may not blow up in their face to make sure those aren't guns that'll shoot them the moment they show themselves to make sure they're not killing civilians that wandered into the aftermath of a firefight like moth to a fire."
On April 06 2010 01:59 Mystlord wrote: I think the trigger happiness is a problem. We can't have troops in war situations wanting to kill.
We can use Mystlord.
On April 06 2010 02:18 Gumbo wrote: From what I saw, 2 guys were holding "weapons" (which were apparently cameras) and I didnt see anything that looked like a RPG. But what disgusts me even more is how they seemed to have fun shooting those people. AND THEN SHOOTING AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL DEAD.
Gumbo, too. Which is all the more amusing because he admitted he thought they were weapons, too.
Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Edit: Spoilered down the long quote
I agree it is disturbing and I wish it weren't the case, but I don't think this sort of callousness is avoidable. You're training soldiers to kill without question, and expecting them all to have a respectful attitude towards every life they take is a little too optimistic.
In this particular situation there might be a few other factors too - they thought they just took out someone with an RPG, and when a van suddenly pulls up that could very well have a guy getting ready to shoot them down, I can see why they would be anxious to get permission.
See my previous post. I'm not asking for respect for the enemy, I'm asking for adherence to military decorum. But yeah, I can see how I might be too idealized :/ At the very least I don't want emotions to leak out when there's no reason for tempers to flare. If they were on the ground in a firefight, I can kind of understand that reaction, but when they're in an Apache...
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
See Rape of Nanking. But romanticized war only occurs in history books I'm afraid. =)
Perhaps I should have clarified: Western recounts
Aside from that, I don't remember coming across any accounts from the Japanese soldiers who took part in it. I don't think any would exist for obvious reasons, but do you know of any?
Actually the one who really compiled what was going on in China during that time was the Germans, oddly enough (and who fittingly enough for your point, did it because he thought it fell out of place of the stand "conduct of war"). But yeah, as you mentioned for obvious reasons, the Japanese are silent lips on the matter.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
i am ashamed of our government, not for our soldiers.
On April 06 2010 03:47 Mystlord wrote: Immoral soldiers are a problem. There would be a vast difference if the soldiers merely said "Permission to engage" vs "Come on let me shoot at those bastards hahahaha!". I agree with the soldier's decision to shoot. I don't agree with any sort of perverse sadism that they might have had in doing it (Rather exaggerated, but it gets my point across :/).
Our point is that soldiers are soldiers, in a rather hostile environment in which they are under threat every second, from enemies they they cannot distinguish. How many of their close friends have been slain during their time there? It's not difficult to imagine they've developed quite an intensive enmity of the enemy. There's no perverse sadism here, IMO; it's soldiers being soldiers, perhaps being overly hyped-up or vengeful, and perhaps gleeful that they've finally found enemies standing out in the open, as opposed to being hidden. That sort of thing. It's ridiculous trying to impose a "civilized code of morals/ethics" upon their behavior without knowing everything they've gone through.
Southlight, you know that's exactly the point of view the people you call "terrorists" feel right? Except I can probably guarantee they lose a lot more close friends and family members than the American troops do.
Obviously. Most insurgents aren't trying to steal our freedom, they're pissed off because we shot their friend or we're in their country. It's a vicious cycle. But that doesn't make our soldiers evil. They're just stupid people who are taken to camps where they're bonded incredibly closely with the men they're working with. Then the whole group is shipped out to Iraq and put in harms way. Once one of their mates is fired upon they will act to stop it. US soldiers aren't fighting for freedom or democracy. They're fighting to keep the man standing next to them safe and to avenge the man that used to be standing next to them. The entire lot is just herded about.
So why can't we agree? Who sends those men there? The fucking governing elites .... Who is powerful enough to take them out of provoke change? LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Would large groups of people openly revolt or fight their government? Nope. Westerners (including myself) have been "pussified" for years and are now nothing else than a mindless work force enslaved by the powerful. Wars like this will keep happening, people will keep dying for no fucking reason, and the average westerner will keep watching MTV and not give 2 fucks about those innocent families getting destroyed. At least the muslims have the balls to blow themselves up for what they believe in. Maybe they deserve a new world, but we clearly don't.
Wow after you said that, im actually pretty heated now..
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Whenever I hear recounts of WWII, I certainly don't remember seeing/hearing the reaction that I heard from these soldiers.
haha, you must have only seen the for-tv, romanticized stories of WWII. While very interesting, vets from then certainly weren't PC or remorseful at all. Shit, I'd say they were even worse than our modern soldiers. The only difference is that there are a fuckload more ways to see what the guys are up to now—thus, more exposure.
Once again, I'm not looking for remorse. I'm not looking for regret. I'm looking for sadism and enjoyment in seeing people fall down because they got peppered by bullets from their machine gun. I don't recall reading anything like that.
I have to say that the posting quality is rather low here that it made me skip from page 4 to page 10.
Well one thing I really want to know is wouldn't insurgents take cover at the sight of an American chopper? It seems silly to casually walk in the streets and not panic and run for cover at a sight of a superior weapon when it is obvious that you will be shot since you have insurgent weapons.
Another thing that bugged me a bit was that it was clear that it was hard to tell if the guys were carrying guns or cameras, but being that specific about the type of weapon was a bit odd.
On April 06 2010 03:43 reit wrote: If I wasn't so curious about life and the future, I'd blow myself up (edit: In a place full of American civilians ofc) to get back for some of the people who's murder you support and encourage.
lol
I'm dead serious. Would I want to off myself (which I don't at the moment, yes I realize that it makes me somewhat of an hypocrite), I'd probably do it with a lot of explosives and within a US embassy or something similar. Why not? I'd be dead anyway and unless you believe in god (lol), death is death, regardless of when or how it happens. Might as well make it meaningful. Probably wouldn't change shit as I'd be labeled and marginalized as a freedom hating terrorist by the media and the sheep would buy it. But the world won't change through people who are scared of shedding the blood of men.
It only sounds radical cause we've been raised in a western system built to make us brain dead work slaves for the corporate fascists (which I was also raised in). The whole system made us wimps who would never die for a cause like the people who actually changed the world in the past did. The elites don't want change, they run everything, this is perfect. The idea is to perpetuate the system and educate people to WANT to perpetuate the system as the end all be all of human society. Leaders, thinkers, revolutionnaries are labeled as terrorists, hell even militias, the most basic defense mechanism against dictatorship/tyranny in America has been successfully labeled in the masses mind (critical 51% mass to ensure "democratic process") as home grown terror suspects.
It only sounds radical because you're suggesting killing innocent people over your beliefs.
In a democracy, no one is innocent. With freedom comes responsibility.
You're the one insisting we're slaves. Slaves bear no responsibility. If you're going to babble insanity at least be consistent. Either we're all powerful individuals in a working democracy and complicit in the war in Iraq and you want to murder us all or we're slaves at the whim of the corporate overmind and blameless over Iraq. You're arguing both.
I'm arguing that:
1) The official position of the elites (what you see in the media, education and policy) is that the USA is a democracy (it's actually a constitutional republic but you already know that). 2) So either we're slaves to the banking system (which we are), then we need to rise up and destroy the system. Or, we're in a democracy like the kool-aid says and I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist. Well then this is a democracy that's been waging wars of aggression, which every citizen is guilty of participating in, as a voting member of the democracy.
What I'm saying is this is totally wrong, either way you look at it.
My personnal belief, is that this is slavery with invisible chains. Once born, your birth certificate turns you into a corporation which can be subjected to laws, regulation and taxes. You have no choice, you are thrown in a system of infinite debt (central banking, you simply can't disagree that it is a system of infinite, growing debt, imposed on countries by private banking entities). We keep you happy about the system with mass entertainment, cheap consumer products. We keep you from thinking with long work hours (and again with mass entertainment). You assume the majority is happy because the majority's opinion is formed by mass media.
In this light, we aren't "completely" responsible for every death in Iraq, but since Americans like to think they're a democracy and think I'm a nutcase for arguing it is slavery, I like to point out that being a true democracy would make them responsible for each civlian kill, even if its across the world in a country they couldnt locate on a map.
What makes me mad is that in both cases, people are at fault. The system is so well tuned now that I can't see some sort of revolution ever taking form. I truly think that the only thing that could (and eventually, with time, will) change the system is a major crisis that would tear down large parts of civilization (world war, cataclysms, famines, massive shortages).
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
yeah stop saying "fucking americans", im tired of you idiots
i didnt do this, nobody i know did this
stop generalizing america because everyone else does, seriously people like you just make this shit worse
I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
Thoss guys could have been contractors, Iraqi police and probably were bodyguards but who cares let's fire first lol. I mean one of the guys might have an Ak-47. That's a clear danger for our Apache and a Bradley.
Why the hell would they drive towards a fire-fight with a van full of children?! I can somewhat understand the sentiment of wanting to help out, but it's obviously a bad idea if you have children riding in the backseat.
Anyways, the summary of events as I understand them:
1. Soldiers are patrolling an area in an attack helicopter. The fact that they are patrolling this area hints that there might have been some disturbances recently. Really, though, we have no idea about the context these events happened in.
2. Soldiers see a group of armed men who appear to be terrorists, request permission to fire.
3. Soldiers get permission to fire, they fire. They are excited to have killed some (what they thought were) terrorists. They fired again to make sure the terrorists were dead, my guess is they don't want one to suddenly pop up and shoot an rpg at them.
4. An unmarked van pulled up to the group of men, it was unclear what exactly they were doing driving up suddenly to a fire-fight. Soldiers ask permission to fire on the suspicious van.
5. Soldiers get permission to fire on said van, they fire on van.
6. Awkward moment when they find out that some idiot drove into a fire-fight with a van full of children.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
No, it's not a war. It's a slaughter. Also if you can't afford goddamn binoculars or something maybe you shouldn't play god with peoples lives.
Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
No, it's not a war. It's a slaughter. Also if you can't afford goddamn binoculars or something maybe you shouldn't play god with peoples lives.
oh really. its a slaugher. so american soldiers are waltzing into iraq with big guns shooting everyone they see? you're an idiot . This stirs uproar because if affects our moral sense of right and wrong. If this happens on a daily basis as you seem to be suggesting dont you think we'd do something about it?
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.
On April 06 2010 04:44 Boblion wrote: I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
This is the most insightful thing anyone's put in this thread.
On April 06 2010 04:47 Saugardas wrote: Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
Well, if you don't represent it, why don't you do anything about it? What does this say about how the people are thinking / how wierd your country is ?
On April 06 2010 04:44 Boblion wrote: I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
This is the most insightful thing anyone's put in this thread.
It's not really insightful. The place is called a danger zone for a reason. Friendly fire happens; civilians are not somehow magically exempt from it. Not to mention, nowadays most wars take place in areas where you cannot discern between friend and foe. Either side is going to be extremely trigger-happy to save their own skin - you cannot blame them for being so, and you would not be different yourself, unless you are one of 1% of the world who would actually take a bullet instead of firing at a false positive.
The best thing about the video is that you could probably find hundreds of examples of Iraqi forces firing upon other Iraqi to prevent the same goddamn thing from happening. Only the other way around. Where is the outrage?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
.... you are going to call me out.. and call me a peice of shit because a soldier killed somebody.
ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
SERIOUSLY?
Please don't post in this thread, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
Er that's really off. It's a democracy. Sometimes the party or leader you don't want gets in. And they do things like invade Iraq. I didn't support australia's invasion and I'm sure there are plenty of americans who aren't happy with everything Bush did or Obama is doing now. You can't group the entire nation and say it's responsible for everything it's government has ever done. Leave americans alone. Seriously, the second most annoying thing in this thread is ppl bashing americans generally. Dislike the policy or the government, not the people.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
No, it's not a war. It's a slaughter. Also if you can't afford goddamn binoculars or something maybe you shouldn't play god with peoples lives.
oh really. its a slaugher. so american soldiers are waltzing into iraq with big guns shooting everyone they see? you're an idiot . This stirs uproar because if affects our moral sense of right and wrong. If this happens on a daily basis as you seem to be suggesting dont you think we'd do something about it?
Yeah, it's totally a war my bad. While USA advanced against Baghdad they took massive artillery fire and lost hundreds of tanks and supplies. Oh WAIT.... the tanks were actually advancing so fast the gas trucks couldn't keep up so the tanks had to buy gas from their friendly Iraqian gas stations. rofl
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
On April 06 2010 04:47 Saugardas wrote: Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
Well, if you don't represent it, why don't you do anything about it? What does this say about how the people are thinking / how wierd your country is ?
On April 06 2010 04:44 jonnyp wrote: Why the hell would they drive towards a fire-fight with a van full of children?! I can somewhat understand the sentiment of wanting to help out, but it's obviously a bad idea if you have children riding in the backseat.
Anyways, the summary of events as I understand them:
1. Soldiers are patrolling an area in an attack helicopter. The fact that they are patrolling this area hints that there might have been some disturbances recently. Really, though, we have no idea about the context these events happened in.
2. Soldiers see a group of armed men who appear to be terrorists, request permission to fire.
3. Soldiers get permission to fire, they fire. They are excited to have killed some (what they thought were) terrorists. They fired again to make sure the terrorists were dead, my guess is they don't want one to suddenly pop up and shoot an rpg at them.
4. An unmarked van pulled up to the group of men, it was unclear what exactly they were doing driving up suddenly to a fire-fight. Soldiers ask permission to fire on the suspicious van.
5. Soldiers get permission to fire on said van, they fire on van.
6. Awkward moment when they find out that some idiot drove into a fire-fight with a van full of children.
and lol @ riet
What if one of the guys first shot was your brother, you have a van and are close-by? You let him die? We don't know the situation on the ground, maybe the van driver is a close friend? A colleague? All we know is that van was not posing a threat (neither were the first people they shot).
You don't understand that these people have lives, families, aspirations, dreams? You'd let them die there? You wouldn't try to rescue them? At this distance, they probably couldn't even tell what fucking shot them... You fail to consider that these people have reasons to do what they do. It's like the video game generation is stuck in single player mode where everything around them is CPU and isn't as important as themselves.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
.... you are going to call me out.. and call me a peice of shit because a soldier killed somebody.
ME? ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?
SERIOUSLY?
Please don't post in this thread, that's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my fkn life.
I'm gonna call out Americans. Not whatever your name is.
On April 06 2010 04:47 Saugardas wrote: Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
But Osama bin Laden represent the entire Afghan and Iraqi population.
No? Why are your soldiers and leaders thinking like that then? Isnt the government MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE?
On April 06 2010 04:44 Boblion wrote: I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
On April 06 2010 04:44 Boblion wrote: I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
This is the most insightful thing anyone's put in this thread.
It's not really insightful. The place is called a danger zone for a reason. Friendly fire happens; civilians are not somehow magically exempt from it. Not to mention, nowadays most wars take place in areas where you cannot discern between friend and foe. Either side is going to be extremely trigger-happy to save their own skin - you cannot blame them for being so, and you would not be different yourself, unless you are one of 1% of the world who would actually take a bullet instead of firing at a false positive.
The best thing about the video is that you could probably find hundreds of examples of Iraqi forces firing upon other Iraqi to prevent the same goddamn thing from happening. Only the other way around. Where is the outrage?
You make it sound so easy to do so. Would love to see you react if this happened in your city though. Your mom, sister and family died? Though shit homeboy, the place is called a danger zone for a reason!
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
Er that's really off. It's a democracy. Sometimes the party or leader you don't want gets in. And they do things like invade Iraq. I didn't support australia's invasion and I'm sure there are plenty of americans who aren't happy with everything Bush did or Obama is doing now. You can't group the entire nation and say it's responsible for everything it's government has ever done. Leave americans alone. Seriously, the second most annoying thing in this thread is ppl bashing americans generally. Dislike the policy or the government, not the people.
Yeah, just whine at the government and hope that the next 2 candidates the establishment hand picks are magically different and will break off from the elite who runs policy behind the curtains. LOL. Magical thinking does wonders.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
On April 06 2010 04:47 Saugardas wrote: Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
Well, if you don't represent it, why don't you do anything about it? What does this say about how the people are thinking / how wierd your country is ?
You're from Sweden and calling other countries weird? Also, I beat you in a bo3. Sums up this thread very well I guess, 3-4 people trying to keep it civil and masses of "OMG AMERICA SUCKS" kids, 1 guy saying he wants to blow himself up in an American crowd (why aren't you banned already?) and more hilarious shit. Oh, and talking about TV-brainwashed American consumption zombies just makes you look like you're the one being brainwashed by European media, their consensus being "AMERICA SUCKS".
On April 06 2010 04:44 jonnyp wrote: Why the hell would they drive towards a fire-fight with a van full of children?! I can somewhat understand the sentiment of wanting to help out, but it's obviously a bad idea if you have children riding in the backseat.
Anyways, the summary of events as I understand them:
1. Soldiers are patrolling an area in an attack helicopter. The fact that they are patrolling this area hints that there might have been some disturbances recently. Really, though, we have no idea about the context these events happened in.
2. Soldiers see a group of armed men who appear to be terrorists, request permission to fire.
3. Soldiers get permission to fire, they fire. They are excited to have killed some (what they thought were) terrorists. They fired again to make sure the terrorists were dead, my guess is they don't want one to suddenly pop up and shoot an rpg at them.
4. An unmarked van pulled up to the group of men, it was unclear what exactly they were doing driving up suddenly to a fire-fight. Soldiers ask permission to fire on the suspicious van.
5. Soldiers get permission to fire on said van, they fire on van.
6. Awkward moment when they find out that some idiot drove into a fire-fight with a van full of children.
and lol @ riet
What if one of the guys first shot was your brother, you have a van and are close-by? You let him die? We don't know the situation on the ground, maybe the van driver is a close friend? A colleague? All we know is that van was not posing a threat (neither were the first people they shot).
You don't understand that these people have lives, families, aspirations, dreams? You'd let them die there? You wouldn't try to rescue them? At this distance, they probably couldn't even tell what fucking shot them... You fail to consider that these people have reasons to do what they do. It's like the video game generation is stuck in single player mode where everything around them is CPU and isn't as important as themselves.
lol, did you read my post at all? I said I UNDERSTAND wanting to help out, but (and listen carefully to this part) they had a van full of children! You don't drive a bunch of children into a fire-fight, it's basic common sense. If they really had to help out that badly then at least leave the children out of it.
As to the "not posing a threat", they're in an unmarked white van pulling up to a group of what were highly believed to be armed insurrectionists. A little suspicious.
In Iraq, AK-47s are widely owned and often publicly displayed. This, coupled with the fact that there are security firms, private military companies etc. working in Iraq should indicate that just because someone has a weapon does not mean they are automatically a terrorist.
An AK-47 would do little damage (if any) to a helicopter, and an RPG's range combined with a moving target high up in the air means that they, too, are almost useless.
What I'm trying to say that is none of these people should have been engaged in the first place, there was no way at all to identify them as hostiles and even if they were then they would have posed no threat to the helicopter crew. If you want to argue that this was fine, ask yourself why was this covered up in the first place.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
Er that's really off. It's a democracy. Sometimes the party or leader you don't want gets in. And they do things like invade Iraq. I didn't support australia's invasion and I'm sure there are plenty of americans who aren't happy with everything Bush did or Obama is doing now. You can't group the entire nation and say it's responsible for everything it's government has ever done. Leave americans alone. Seriously, the second most annoying thing in this thread is ppl bashing americans generally. Dislike the policy or the government, not the people.
Yeah, just whine at the government and hope that the next 2 candidates the establishment hand picks are magically different and will break off from the elite who runs policy behind the curtains. LOL. Magical thinking does wonders.
so what do you want people to do? blow up a US embassy like you were suggesting?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
this shit is fucking disgusting. whats even more disgusting is how us Americans don't do shit about these god awful wars. completely unjustified with millions of innocents being killed in the name of freedom and security. it's a fucking joke
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 04:47 Saugardas wrote: Another thing that bugs me about this thread is the fact that some people are saying that all Americans ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is as if you are saying those 3 crazy soldiers represent the entire US population of 300,000,000. Please people, do not simplify your thinking like that.
But Osama bin Laden represent the entire Afghan and Iraqi population.
No? Why are your soldiers and leaders thinking like that then? Isnt the government MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE?
You know, despite his ranting, he's got a point on this post.
On April 06 2010 04:44 jonnyp wrote: Why the hell would they drive towards a fire-fight with a van full of children?! I can somewhat understand the sentiment of wanting to help out, but it's obviously a bad idea if you have children riding in the backseat.
Anyways, the summary of events as I understand them:
1. Soldiers are patrolling an area in an attack helicopter. The fact that they are patrolling this area hints that there might have been some disturbances recently. Really, though, we have no idea about the context these events happened in.
2. Soldiers see a group of armed men who appear to be terrorists, request permission to fire.
3. Soldiers get permission to fire, they fire. They are excited to have killed some (what they thought were) terrorists. They fired again to make sure the terrorists were dead, my guess is they don't want one to suddenly pop up and shoot an rpg at them.
4. An unmarked van pulled up to the group of men, it was unclear what exactly they were doing driving up suddenly to a fire-fight. Soldiers ask permission to fire on the suspicious van.
5. Soldiers get permission to fire on said van, they fire on van.
6. Awkward moment when they find out that some idiot drove into a fire-fight with a van full of children.
and lol @ riet
What if one of the guys first shot was your brother, you have a van and are close-by? You let him die? We don't know the situation on the ground, maybe the van driver is a close friend? A colleague? All we know is that van was not posing a threat (neither were the first people they shot).
You don't understand that these people have lives, families, aspirations, dreams? You'd let them die there? You wouldn't try to rescue them? At this distance, they probably couldn't even tell what fucking shot them... You fail to consider that these people have reasons to do what they do. It's like the video game generation is stuck in single player mode where everything around them is CPU and isn't as important as themselves.
lol, did you read my post at all? I said I UNDERSTAND wanting to help out, but (and listen carefully to this part) they had a van full of children! You don't drive a bunch of children into a fire-fight, it's basic common sense. If they really had to help out that badly then at least leave the children out of it.
As to the "not posing a threat", they're in an unmarked white van pulling up to a group of what were highly believed to be armed insurrectionists. A little suspicious.
The video was edited. The chopper had stopped shooting for a while when the van pulled up. Believe me if a person close to you is laying on the ground after being shot, I'm sure many people would go and help him, even with children in the back seat. Maybe you wouldn't, but theres no way to know, as an American, you've never experienced living in a war zone (I haven't either).
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
Slaves weren't freed by picketing and demonstrations. They were freed through war between an ideology that wanted to keep them as sub-human slaves and one that recognized them the same rights as white people.
The people who control policy in the west have us literally enslaved, as we own them ridiculous amounts of money, which we can only pay back by printing more money (at an interest). It's impossible to ever get even with debt in this system. MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Why would they just give up on the choke hold they have the populations in?
It sucks, I'd rather not see any innocents dying. But the power structure won't give up it's total control through pressure. They might with a gun under their their chin.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
There's a really good quote from the Algerian side during the film "The Battle of Algiers" when the French commander asks the Algerian leader, doesn't he think it's wrong to deploy things like suicide bombers and he says "We'll trade you our bombs, knives and pistols for your rockets, planes and tanks". (not exact quote but you get the drift)
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
Except people did protest, and oh, look, we also have a different president now. That my friend is democracy.
And... PEOPLE make up the army, but wait! they're being herded, so they're actually sheep. anyways, they're soldiers - their job is to follow orders, not make decisions. In fact, if their job was to make decisions, the guys in the helicopter would have started firing a lot earlier.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
And, you know, a few warning shots, or getting closer and playing some kind of loud audio recording telling them to drop everything and wait for the convoy would have been less appropriate?
Shit, what is up with this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? They didn't fire any shots (at least, it appeared that none were fired), they could not clearly identify the weapons, they could not see any hostile action, most of the people there were unarmed, they had backup on the way, and they're in a freaking Apache helicopter, which is basically immune to small and medium fire (and no heavy arms were noticeable either).
If they were following the rules of engagement, then it's not really their fault that this happened. It's the fault of whoever designed those rules for that time period.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
Take over Washington? Yeah, that sounds like a great way to go to prison for the rest of my life. I can do a lot from there huh?
Look, I do my part. I go to many countries and deliver medical supplies and help build hospitals. There's much more I can do to make this a better place.
You're the most holier than thou person in this thread. You're the hypocrite. Maybe you should go blow yourself up, and take as many Americans as you can with you.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
Except people did protest, and oh, look, we also have a different president now. That my friend is democracy.
A different president with the same policy, controlled by the same powers. Nice change you got.
On April 06 2010 04:44 jonnyp wrote: Why the hell would they drive towards a fire-fight with a van full of children?! I can somewhat understand the sentiment of wanting to help out, but it's obviously a bad idea if you have children riding in the backseat.
Anyways, the summary of events as I understand them:
1. Soldiers are patrolling an area in an attack helicopter. The fact that they are patrolling this area hints that there might have been some disturbances recently. Really, though, we have no idea about the context these events happened in.
2. Soldiers see a group of armed men who appear to be terrorists, request permission to fire.
3. Soldiers get permission to fire, they fire. They are excited to have killed some (what they thought were) terrorists. They fired again to make sure the terrorists were dead, my guess is they don't want one to suddenly pop up and shoot an rpg at them.
4. An unmarked van pulled up to the group of men, it was unclear what exactly they were doing driving up suddenly to a fire-fight. Soldiers ask permission to fire on the suspicious van.
5. Soldiers get permission to fire on said van, they fire on van.
6. Awkward moment when they find out that some idiot drove into a fire-fight with a van full of children.
and lol @ riet
What if one of the guys first shot was your brother, you have a van and are close-by? You let him die? We don't know the situation on the ground, maybe the van driver is a close friend? A colleague? All we know is that van was not posing a threat (neither were the first people they shot).
You don't understand that these people have lives, families, aspirations, dreams? You'd let them die there? You wouldn't try to rescue them? At this distance, they probably couldn't even tell what fucking shot them... You fail to consider that these people have reasons to do what they do. It's like the video game generation is stuck in single player mode where everything around them is CPU and isn't as important as themselves.
lol, did you read my post at all? I said I UNDERSTAND wanting to help out, but (and listen carefully to this part) they had a van full of children! You don't drive a bunch of children into a fire-fight, it's basic common sense. If they really had to help out that badly then at least leave the children out of it.
As to the "not posing a threat", they're in an unmarked white van pulling up to a group of what were highly believed to be armed insurrectionists. A little suspicious.
The video was edited. The chopper had stopped shooting for a while when the van pulled up. Believe me if a person close to you is laying on the ground after being shot, I'm sure many people would go and help him, even with children in the back seat. Maybe you wouldn't, but theres no way to know, as an American, you've never experienced living in a war zone (I haven't either).
I definitely wouldn't go out of the way to help someone that's probably already dead if it put my children, or anyone else's for that matter, at a high risk of being shot. They could have easily left the children somewhere and then gone to help.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
Except people did protest, and oh, look, we also have a different president now. That my friend is democracy.
A different president with the same policy, controlled by the same powers. Nice change you got.
because if we BLEW UP the old president instead, the president we would get would be SO MUCH BETTER.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
lol
I'm not saying people from TL who read this should pick up their guns and head to DC. I'm saying that's the only solution that I believe would actually change shit.
Let's go back to the war of independance, how many would've "lol'd" at the idea of revolting against Britain? If the American colonists were like you, America would still be British (which you personally might be happy with).
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
lol
I'm not saying people from TL who read this should pick up their guns and head to DC. I'm saying that's the only solution that I believe would actually change shit.
Let's go back to the war of independance, how many would've "lol'd" at the idea of revolting against Britain? If the American colonists were like you, America would still be British (which you personally might be happy with).
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
Er that's really off. It's a democracy. Sometimes the party or leader you don't want gets in. And they do things like invade Iraq. I didn't support australia's invasion and I'm sure there are plenty of americans who aren't happy with everything Bush did or Obama is doing now. You can't group the entire nation and say it's responsible for everything it's government has ever done. Leave americans alone. Seriously, the second most annoying thing in this thread is ppl bashing americans generally. Dislike the policy or the government, not the people.
Yeah, just whine at the government and hope that the next 2 candidates the establishment hand picks are magically different and will break off from the elite who runs policy behind the curtains. LOL. Magical thinking does wonders.
I'm sorry I just don't share your view about politicians and parties in general. So I'm pretty happy when the party I vote for gets in. But you're basically espousing overthrowing elected governments and tearing down the system so I'm not so surprised we see it a little differently.
Anyway, we don't have '2 candidates' in Australia . We have compulsory voting and a fairly decent political system that's given us alot of good leaders and governments. Sorry you feel so jaded and cynical about your own system, but you know, you might be wrong?
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
Dont try to justify their actions, because they were by the books and they were soldiers. Did you read what they were talking while shooting at the people? This is crazy, man. These soldiers are mentaly fucked up too much.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
There's countless people revolting, except they're not barbaric and blow up their own people with a bomb strapped to their back.
People picket this shit every day.
Picketing wont change shit. When was the last time you saw an American administration stepping down due to public pressure? Coups work better. Arm yourself, take over Washington. Keep the states as independent from central federal government as much as possible.
Picketing ... rofl. I'm sure it makes those people feel good about themselves though
Take over Washington? Yeah, that sounds like a great way to go to prison for the rest of my life. I can do a lot from there huh?
Look, I do my part. I go to many countries and deliver medical supplies and help build hospitals. There's much more I can do to make this a better place.
You're the most holier than thou person in this thread. You're the hypocrite. Maybe you should go blow yourself up, and take as many Americans as you can with you.
I have no clue why you're not banned. Seriously.
Actually, the mods have been pretty hard on pseudo-moderating and people calling for bans have been receiving them for themselves so if I were you I'd keep my opinions on who should be banned and who shouldn't to myself. I haven't insulted anyone personally, I pretty much said that if I didn't find as much as I do to live for, I'd rather go in a meaningful way than just offing myself in a basement. I'm too much of a pussy to blow myself up, but I have a lot of respect for those who do. Believe me, if they had tanks and choppers, they wouldn't bother blowing themselves up in crowded market places. No one is actually "evil", hell, most terrorists don't even fight for ideology anymore, the bulk of their "troops" are people who've the west has wronged. People who's families, friends and lives have been ruined by the greed of the American government. They have every fucking right to be mad at US citizens, you guys are supposed to be free, to be a democracy, yet you let this massacre happen for SEVEN FUCKING YEARS.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
Dont try to justify their actions, because they were by the books and they were soldiers. Did you read what they were talking while shooting at the people? This is crazy, man. These soldiers are mentaly fucked up too much.
if your job is to end lives, you can't be entirely normal.
I kinda wonder why reit hasn't been banned yet with his talk of wanting to blow up innocent people.
Anyway, I think it would have been better if the chopper could have gotten closer for a better look to see if they actually had weapons ect, but from the video and how far away they were I can see how it would be understandable to assume those were AK's and perhaps an RPG.
I think it's really hard to judge them on their actions when none of us were actually there. It is really easy to nit pick over these videos that we have all the time and leisure to look at, but for them they only have a few seconds to look, decide what they are seeing and react.
I don't really blame the troops, even if they were a little overly happy to be slaughtering these people. It's war.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
ohmygod. -_- are you serious?
first of all . "All americans should be ashamed of this shit" you're judging a large group of people because of the action of a few? Like saying all germans are nazi's.
secondly, ITS A WAR. honestly if i were in uniform standing guard, and there was a person with a object THAT LOOKS LIKE A GUN i'd be scared shitless. They did what was expected of them. Of course it lead to unexpected deaths but if they hadnt and it had been enemies they would have been the ones who had died
Cut the fucking "I am me, he is him" argument. You are an american (lets assume you are). that was an american army shooting fucking civilians. they represent your fucking country. they represent you. im gonna call you out, and say you are a piece of shit. You don't get to have your leaders kill innocents, and not a be part of the blame. Just like your fucking army generalizes terrorists and shoots them just in case, I'm gonna generalize americans, and say you did it and support it. If you want that to change, then go do something about it.
except half the americans DIDN'T support it and in fact had no idea so many civilians would get killed. and the ones that did support it weren't thinking "man i hope a lot of civilians die"
Was less than half, and many of those who did, did so based on emotions left over from 9/11. The real issue is that it wasn't anybody's decision, there was no declaration of war, it was issued from the president directly. That my friend is dictatorship. The fact that no one rose to revolt, that no soldiers refused to be part of it is what is scary. Again look at the Nazis, it's just like the SS soldiers working in camps. They didnt plan out the gas chambers, they obeyed. PEOPLE make up the army... No one from the elite is actually fighting or getting their loved ones in harm's way. That's what's scary. People obeyed without questionning. That's called being herded. Happens to sheep.
Except people did protest, and oh, look, we also have a different president now. That my friend is democracy.
A different president with the same policy, controlled by the same powers. Nice change you got.
because if we BLEW UP the old president instead, the president we would get would be SO MUCH BETTER.
It's not THE PRESIDENT.... Jesus wtff Of course if you just kill the president they'll replace him with a different puppet .... Killing 1 person doesnt require a revolution, it requires the CIA (lol jfk joke).
It's the whole SYSTEM you have to take down. The families that control most of the world's wealth, banks and directly/indirectly policy in many countries, have been some of the most powerful families since the fucking middle ages... Don't you see this system is a modern monarchy (which is dictatorship)? Even better, 90% of the people don't know about it, so they couldnt revolt of send their monarchs to the guillotine. They use debt instead of chains and brute force and people think (and are educated to think) that they're free
On April 06 2010 05:26 Eben wrote: I kinda wonder why reit hasn't been banned yet with his talk of wanting to blow up innocent people.
Anyway, I think it would have been better if the chopper could have gotten closer for a better look to see if they actually had weapons ect, but from the video and how far away they were I can see how it would be understandable to assume those were AK's and perhaps an RPG.
I think it's really hard to judge them on their actions when none of us were actually there. It is really easy to nit pick over these videos that we have all the time and leisure to look at, but for them they only have a few seconds to look, decide what they are seeing and react.
I don't really blame the troops, even if they were a little overly happy to be slaughtering these people. It's war.
It's ridicolous how most Americans use that argument. Whatever happens it doesn't matter, "it's war anyway". I guess you could just nuke the whole goddamn country then, it's war!
On April 06 2010 05:26 Eben wrote: I kinda wonder why reit hasn't been banned yet with his talk of wanting to blow up innocent people.
Anyway, I think it would have been better if the chopper could have gotten closer for a better look to see if they actually had weapons ect, but from the video and how far away they were I can see how it would be understandable to assume those were AK's and perhaps an RPG.
I think it's really hard to judge them on their actions when none of us were actually there. It is really easy to nit pick over these videos that we have all the time and leisure to look at, but for them they only have a few seconds to look, decide what they are seeing and react.
I don't really blame the troops, even if they were a little overly happy to be slaughtering these people. It's war.
Mowing down the first group can be explained with bad observation and quick decisions, but firing on the truck was simply a murder and a war crime. Nothing justifies it at all, don't even try.
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
On April 06 2010 04:44 Boblion wrote: I find highly amuzing the people in this thread who are blaming the two journalists because one of their bodyguards ( ? ) might have one Ak-47 ( ? ). This is especiallly funny because they are the same people who have defended their right to own a weapon ( in the US ) because of potential threats. I mean yea it is perfectly okay to have a weapon in the United States but in Iraq where kidnapping is common, militias and robbers everywhere people shouldn't be afraid to walk in the street unarmed. Gotta love the hypocrisy.
This is so true I laughed out loud lol
I hope you're both kidding. If either of you think the most likely case is that the guys with guns are bodyguards to the journalists then you might be more naive than a journalist that would pay someone to carry an AK-47 and follow him around in the middle of a war zone. Seriously there is absolutely nothing in the video that indicates they are bodyguards. They aren't even walking with the journalists. They aren't escorting them. The journalists probably get paid shit and don't have the money to hire bodyguards.
P.S. there is a difference between having a concealed handgun license and waving around a fully automatic machine gun in public.
So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
Totally agree with you. Didn't think it ever looked like weapons. Saw the 2 micro second screen shots. Rewatched a second and third time. Still doesn't look like weapons. And if you're shooting at anyone with a strap on their shoulder.... geez fun time to be a civilian in Iraq.
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
It's not about keeping it chivalrous. Winning it long term requires strict adherence to RoE to avoid two men taking up arms to avenge every man you kill. It's not regulated out of any sense of honour or morality, it's regulated because it has to be. RoE are taken really seriously from the very top all the way down.
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
I'm undecided, but leaning towards being okay with what this video shows. But I have some questions for people who know more about this than I do.
Someone said it is common for people to own and display AK-47's in Iraq. Is that true? I remember watching a documentary (I think it was "Heavy Metal in Baghdad") where the filmmakers hired security, but I don't remember if the security carried AK-47's openly. If it is common, though, then it does seem questionable for them to engage, although this could very, very easily be justified by context not provided by the video.
Also, I'm not really convinced that it was necessary to open up on the van. It seems like most people defending this believe that it would be impossible for a civilian to just happen upon the scene. Can you explain why that is the case?
Finally, as an aside, why is it that reit feels comfortable saying he wants to kill civilians? It seems like a lot of bad things could come of that.
On April 06 2010 05:39 enthusiast wrote: Finally, as an aside, why is it that reit feels comfortable saying he wants to kill civilians? It seems like a lot of bad things could come of that.
Unfortunately reit is no longer with us. Lol
reit was just temp banned for 1 week by Hot_Bid.
That account was created on 2009-10-21 01:32:19 and had 141 posts.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
On April 06 2010 04:43 Saugardas wrote: I have to say that the posting quality is rather low here that it made me skip from page 4 to page 10.
Well one thing I really want to know is wouldn't insurgents take cover at the sight of an American chopper? It seems silly to casually walk in the streets and not panic and run for cover at a sight of a superior weapon when it is obvious that you will be shot since you have insurgent weapons.
Another thing that bugged me a bit was that it was clear that it was hard to tell if the guys were carrying guns or cameras, but being that specific about the type of weapon was a bit odd.
No, they had a telescopic sight from like couple thousand feet in the air, didn't you see how long it took for the gunshots to respond after they fired? Like a couple seconds, which means the chopper was HELLA far up in the air, far enough that the insurgents couldn't see it in plain sight but could still hear the rotors whirring.
On April 06 2010 05:42 LuCky. wrote: No, they had a telescopic sight from like couple thousand feet in the air, didn't you see how long it took for the gunshots to respond after they fired? Like a couple seconds, which means the chopper was HELLA far up in the air, far enough that the insurgents couldn't see it in plain sight but could still hear the rotors whirring.
People are clearly getting overworked here. I mean if I were in Iraq, gathering with a bunch of people on a street who probably lived there all their life, and carry something that has a strap on it, say a laptop, a big handbag or whatever fucking else that has a strap on it I would expect a helicopter to shoot us dead from so far away I wouldn't even know what hit me. It's the fucking gatherers at fault here clearly, as the troops, you see, they followed protocols. Frankly I don't understand what's there to get outraged here. You have to understand that these soldiers are under tremendous stress and that's a good reason why you got shot.
Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that. That is UNLESS you have a van with a big red cross on it for anyone from a mile away to instantly recognize that your van has a big red cross on it, don't ever go near wounded civilians (you see, you are on the ground, you get to tell what the thing strapped onto their shoulders are) without a vehicle that has a big red cross on it or otherwise it's your fault if you get shot from things you can't see out of nowhere.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If some army spokesmen gave, ehh, "their version" of the story, they are really just making some honest mistakes. These things, like whether the bodies had cameras on them or RPGs on them after your ground troops have arrived on the scene, they are not easy to determine, Things can get lost in translation, reports and whatnot, so those criticisms are void as well.
Finally you aren't supposed to carry any weapons if you don't want to get shot. Everybody knows that Americans are the only god-chosen people allowed the god-given rights of carrying firearms.
In conclusion people need to calm down over trivial little things like these. The army spokesmen are professional and you should trust professionals, as well as current/former army prostar forum posters like Hawk and some other kid, they know best. As the man said, don't be a "menstruating woman".
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
It's not about keeping it chivalrous. Winning it long term requires strict adherence to RoE to avoid two men taking up arms to avenge every man you kill. It's not regulated out of any sense of honour or morality, it's regulated because it has to be. RoE are taken really seriously from the very top all the way down.
Oh, no, I'm aware of the importance of RoE. But I've seen people be like, "omg they should be making sure they're guns." Really? How about we just walk on down and ask them politely? Good sirs, are you wielding guns? Who are you going to shoot? Oh, me? Cheerio chaps! What a bummer.
It's like playing a team deathmatch FPS with no HUDs whatsoever. And each person has to toss $50k into the pot every time they die. Unless you're like, Rekrul or something you're going to be goddamn twitch-fingered, and shit will happen (like friendly fire) because some people are going to be nervous. Is it unfortunate? Of course. Is it completely avoidable? Probably not. Hike up the cash penalty and you'll probably have more and more occurrences of accidents, and you can dial it up even more by forcing them to play for extended periods of time without rest.
Shit happens. It's unavoidable. It's laughable that people can sit here and say "well if so-and-so did this-and-that this could have been avoided." Sure but of ten thousand similar occurrences the likelihood is that at least one time things will go wrong. That's why there're friendly fire deaths even amongst troops, on both sides, and if you think this is limited to army-on-civilian encounters you're sorely mistaken. We just happen to have been fed a video of one incident where it DID go wrong. And the blame can be spread around.
Pat Tillman is an example of communications gone wrong causing friendly fire.
Eep. I'm sure I can't in any way fathom the shit that those soldiers go through every day.... but wow. Some of their dialogue was just disturbing. It does kind of make you think they were waiting for an opportunity to shoot someone... ugh t.t;
Shit happens. It's unavoidable. It's laughable that people can sit here and say "well if so-and-so did this-and-that this could have been avoided." Sure but of ten thousand similar occurrences the likelihood is that at least one time things will go wrong. That's why there're friendly fire deaths even amongst troops, on both sides, and if you think this is limited to army-on-civilian encounters you're sorely mistaken. We just happen to have been fed a video of one incident where it DID go wrong. And the blame can be spread around.
Pat Tillman is an example of communications gone wrong causing friendly fire.
Murdering the people in the van was not a communication failure.
I really was outraged when I saw this video, about how they're laughing when the tank drives over the dead body and how the gunner is saying "c'mon pick up a weapon" when the wounded camera man is just trying to survive.
But what everone has to realize is the psychology of war. Killing for these men and women is nothing new. It's something they do on a daily basis and if you were in a war you'd act the same way. This is in no way a defense for the people in that helicopter, what they did was inexusable, but if you get a group of people together all fearing for their lives on a daily basis this is what happens. You create killers. Wars create killer. You get a group mentality of "shoot them before they shoot us" (which was valid in the beginning of the war) and that just doesn't change in a day. You can even hear them trying to justify their behavior by saying "who brings their kids to a battle".
The problem is how the military acts when something like this happens. They decide to cover up all the incidents instead of trying to take something from it. I understand them shooting the first time, because that really looked like a RPG behind that house wall. But what about the other time. A van pulls up. Two guys jumps out and try to save the wounded man. No guns were aimed towards the helicopter. They hardly even looked over there. They were trying to save a life. When something like this happens the soldiers in the helicopter needs to be reviewed. Not a pat on the back, not a slap on the wrist but a real investigation needs to take place on how to prevent this from happening again.
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
People are clearly getting overworked here. I mean if I were in Iraq, gathering with a bunch of people on a street who probably lived there all their life, and carry something that has a strap on it, say a laptop, a big handbag or whatever fucking else that has a strap on it I would expect a helicopter to shoot us dead from so far away I wouldn't even know what hit me. It's the fucking gatherers at fault here clearly, as the troops, you see, they followed protocols. Frankly I don't understand what's there to get outraged here. You have to understand that these soldiers are under tremendous stress and that's a good reason why you got shot.
Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that. That is UNLESS you have a van with a big red cross on it for anyone from a mile away to instantly recognize that your van has a big red cross on it, don't ever go near wounded civilians (you see, you are on the ground, you get to tell what the thing strapped onto their shoulders are) without a vehicle that has a big red cross on it or otherwise it's your fault if you get shot from things you can't see out of nowhere.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If some army spokesmen gave, ehh, "their version" of the story, they are really just making some honest mistakes. These things, like whether the bodies had cameras on them or RPGs on them after your ground troops have arrived on the scene, they are not easy to determine, Things can get lost in translation, reports and whatnot, so those criticisms are void as well.
Finally you aren't supposed to carry any weapons if you don't want to get shot. Everybody knows that Americans are the only god-chosen people allowed the god-given rights of carrying firearms.
In conclusion people need to calm down over trivial little things like these. The army spokesmen are professional and you should trust professionals, as well as current/former army prostar forum posters like Hawk and some other kid, they know best. As the man said, don't be a "menstruating woman".
That actually made me laugh out loud. Which one said the awful sexist line again?
edit- Oh it was Hawk:
Having to deal with killing people all day isn't gonna exactly make you a ball of sunshine or something... should our soldiers be weeping like menstrating women every time they discharge a round? Jesus.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
It's not about keeping it chivalrous. Winning it long term requires strict adherence to RoE to avoid two men taking up arms to avenge every man you kill. It's not regulated out of any sense of honour or morality, it's regulated because it has to be. RoE are taken really seriously from the very top all the way down.
Oh, no, I'm aware of the importance of RoE. But I've seen people be like, "omg they should be making sure they're guns." Really? How about we just walk on down and ask them politely? Good sirs, are you wielding guns? Who are you going to shoot? Oh, me? Cheerio chaps! What a bummer.
It's like playing a team deathmatch FPS with no HUDs whatsoever. And each person has to toss $50k into the pot every time they die. Unless you're like, Rekrul or something you're going to be goddamn twitch-fingered, and shit will happen (like friendly fire) because some people are going to be nervous. Is it unfortunate? Of course. Is it completely avoidable? Probably not. Hike up the cash penalty and you'll probably have more and more occurrences of accidents, and you can dial it up even more by forcing them to play for extended periods of time without rest.
Shit happens. It's unavoidable. It's laughable that people can sit here and say "well if so-and-so did this-and-that this could have been avoided." Sure but of ten thousand similar occurrences the likelihood is that at least one time things will go wrong. That's why there're friendly fire deaths even amongst troops, on both sides, and if you think this is limited to army-on-civilian encounters you're sorely mistaken. We just happen to have been fed a video of one incident where it DID go wrong. And the blame can be spread around.
Pat Tillman is an example of communications gone wrong causing friendly fire.
I fully agree. In short, what happened was a tragedy. Extensive steps are already being taken to avoid tragedies. Unfortunately you don't hear about the tragedies that didn't happen, only the ones that did, and with an operation of this scale the probability is that they will happen.
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
God dammit, what has this thread come to. I find it even more disturbing that most of the ppl here are trying to justify what those soldiers did than those soldiers actually killing those Iraq journalists and wounding the children. We are civilians, and we should show sympathy to our fellow civilians killed in war.
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians.
You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions:
the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper?
also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat??
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions:
the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper?
also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat??
Did you miss my entire point about how they showed no awareness of the Apache or the fact that it doesn't even look like one? I meant, yeah it's great that you can bring up "They got AK-47's and RPG's and are looking to kill some Americans" but doesn't that argument sound awfully close to the "THEY GOT WMD'S!!!"
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
They aren't a threat to the Apache and its crew? The Apache is there backing up the troops on the ground and a guy with an AK/RPG is a threat to them. They don't sit there and refuse to engage people they believe to be insurgents because they are in an armored vehicle way up in the air where nobody can hurt them.
You know what? I'm done with this tagteam of you and Hawk in this thread about the video. I honestly couldn't give a shit about it till you two would double team anyone even naysaying with "OMG DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?"
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
what the fuck?
The basic moral of the story is that when a bullet has just hit someone standing there it's not a good place to stand. Like a modern day parable.
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence. That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence. That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
Except war sets up a prisoner's dilemna. Sure you can follow X and Y rules. In fact, during the Civil War, Crimean War, WW1, the battles were fought relatively honorably in the beginning. Then as each war dragged on morals would go out the window, see General Sherman, U-boats, etc. Because at the end of the day, your side still needs to win and when your body count starts stacking up, it's every man for themselves.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians.
You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
What are you going on about? I clearly mentioned the journalists in a half dozen posts so far. It's extremely obvious that the point I was making is that the journalists are there with guys that have weapons. The guys I posted are not journalists. They are not carrying cameras. The video identifies the journalists and the pictures I took are not of the journalists. Yet for some reason you seem to keep making up this nosense about how the pictures I posted are of "elongated cameras" or "shadows." That's so oblivious it makes me laugh.
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
Actually, what terrorist (pick your cell) snipers are trained to do is shoot to wound, not to kill. If they kill a soldier, they know the other soldiers will hide if they're well trained. If they wound the soldier, the rest are going to help if they're well trained.
On April 06 2010 05:30 Southlight wrote: It's ridiculous how many people think war can be regulated and kept chivalrous, like a boxing match.
Harsh punishment, thats how. If say you executed everyone involved in this incident, i'm not gonna say something like that would never happen again, but it would definitely become a very rare occurrence. That's how the US managed to achieve a significant drop in crimerate amongst the poor- ridiculous sentences for minuscule crimes seed fear into people(while parole system is established to make the sentences fit the actual crime).
Yeah, that's not a good idea. When you're asking guys to risk their lives to fight for you you can't start executing them for fucking it up.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians.
You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
I just watched this again multiple times. It is clear they mis ID'ed the camera men that are standing with people that have guns. They are in a hot zone, aka they are in a zone that was just part of a battle only hours before and this Apache is out on a raid. I do see 2 guys behind the cameramen that seem to be clearly holding guns and a possible RPG.
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
Actually, what terrorist (pick your cell) snipers are trained to do is shoot to wound, not to kill. If they kill a soldier, they know the other soldiers will hide if they're well trained. If they wound the soldier, the rest are going to help if they're well trained.
They won't if they're well trained. The first page in the British Army aid memoir says "win firefight".
Even though this thread has degenerated into people making stuff up, I do appreciate the OP. I've never heard of wikileaks before and it's pretty cool. Maybe one day I'll have the courage to make a contribution
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote: [quote]
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
You know what Hawk, you've been constantly harping on this "did you watch the video" point over and over again and I want to say, "Did you actually watch the fucking thing itself?". AT WHAT POINT did it actually look like those guys were going to actively be a danger to the chopper pre firing?
I dunno, maybe when troops spotted unIDed hostiles with possible weapons, including RPGs, with troops in the vacinity on the ground in an occupied zone in a war??
Listen, I know you're mr pro-asian and anti anything white American establishment after reading all your posts here and elsewhere, but use your brain a bit. If you think objectively, there's nothing wrong with the actions that were taken. Unfortunate, yes. But definitely not wrong.
You know I'm not surprised you want to try to bring up topics from posts that isn't related to this topic or my point now that you're actually caught especially since I didn't even want to type how much of a pro-US bias you've had in your FAR more significant post count but I guess you realize you're caught and trying to shift the point now. Watch the video. And I urge everyone else who is in this thread to do the same instead of the two points where BlackJack simply highlights the backstraps. Aside from those two BRIEF millisecong glimpses where the angle makes the camera look slightly elongated due to the diagonal, at no point would anyone actually be able to mistaken the objects for weapons. I didn't even think about it until Hawk's comment made me want to rewatch the video again till I started realizing how nonsensical it appeared. So yeah ...
In the pictures I posted, those guys weren't journalists and it wasn't cameras they were carrying. The video pointed out the journalists with the cameras and they weren't in the screengrabs I took.
Then you are either lying about actually watching this video (and just looked for random areas where you could find things to look like weapons) or photoshopping very very well. The time stamp of your screenshot shows 3:45. You can see from 3:15-3:40 ish clearly that those were the two journalists with camera mentioned. You'd have to REALLY REALLY try to stretch your imagination if you watched the entire clip from 3:15 to 3:50 to think that you spot FIVE to SIX AK-47's and a RPG as the ones in the Apache states.
/facepalm
You can see both camera people up until 3:40 when they both walk under the building and out of camera view. My screenshots were taken after 3:40 when both journalists were off the screen. It's really pathetic how you keep telling people to go watch the video again when you are so wrong about what you're saying happened.
Nice attempt to nitpick my point to twist the issue. The Apache identified the JOURNALISTS as carrying weapons as soon as the journalists were spotted. Yet you decided to woefully neglect this up until far after to find one isolated frame where you think the shadow looked just good enough to present a farce of an argument. That is so disgusting I'm not even certain what to say. As I said, if you watched the video in whole, you'd have to REALLY twist things in order to think that you can spot a credible threat there from the civilians.
You know what? You want to use the video as a backup for your "evidence" then let it speak for itself. Everyone can watch the whole 3:00 to 5:00 scene and make up their mind on their own.
I just watched this again multiple times. It is clear they mis ID'ed the camera men that are standing with people that have guns. They are in a hot zone, aka they are in a zone that was just part of a battle only hours before and this Apache is out on a raid. I do see 2 guys behind the cameramen that seem to be clearly holding guns and a possible RPG.
I think it's possible for a moment to think those two guys you're talking about seem to be holding guns. But then watch the part a few seconds before they opened fire (where the light is much clearer), it doesn't even look like they're carrying any armaments at the time.
On April 06 2010 06:08 KissBlade wrote: You know what? I'm done with this tagteam of you and Hawk in this thread about the video. I honestly couldn't give a shit about it till you two would double team anyone even naysaying with "OMG DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?"
It's funny you say that because I never accused anyone of not watching the video until you accused me of not watching the video, which is pretty ridiculous since I'm the one that posted screengrabs from the video. But, sure, see things they way you want.
On April 06 2010 05:45 GoodWill wrote: Of course everybody knows when people lay around wounded and bleeding on the street you are not supposed to go anywhere near them, hell even my five year old son knows that.
Anyone who has used a sniper rifle in Time Splitters 2 knows this. You don't even have to move the sights. Kill the first guard and a patrolling guard will see him go down, run up to where he was and curiously examine the corpse with his head exactly where the first mans was. They just keep running into the crosshairs.
Actually, what terrorist (pick your cell) snipers are trained to do is shoot to wound, not to kill. If they kill a soldier, they know the other soldiers will hide if they're well trained. If they wound the soldier, the rest are going to help if they're well trained.
They won't if they're well trained. The first page in the British Army aid memoir says "win firefight".
Not if they're actually in the firefight, but when there's a hidden sniper and they haven't acquired a target yet, I doubt they're going to leave a wounded soldier out there.
On April 06 2010 06:08 KissBlade wrote: You know what? I'm done with this tagteam of you and Hawk in this thread about the video. I honestly couldn't give a shit about it till you two would double team anyone even naysaying with "OMG DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO?"
It's funny you say that because I never accused anyone of not watching the video until you accused me of not watching the video, which is pretty ridiculous since I'm the one that posted screengrabs from the video. But, sure, see things they way you want.
I didn't accuse you of not watching the video. My post where I said "this suggests you either decided to pick the one frame of the clip to take out of context or be VERY good at photoshopping" was only an accusation of you trying to take things out of context. Your paint job highlighting was the equivalent of pointing at a cloud and going "that looks like so and so!". Obviously when you decide in your mind it does so, your brain does try to construct it to. As for accusing anyone of not watching it, I just said you keep harping at people to "Watch the video" when it's clear if they did, they'd still hold to the opinion they do.
What KwarK said. A civilian will try to go and help someone, a soldier will first try to clear the area, then give aid.
About the video - the soldiers were extremely trigger happy and just looking for an excuse to light something up. Misrepresenting the number of weapons (there were just 2 machineguns), shooting the van trying to help wounded people on the street, laughing at running over bodies with vehicles, denying medic aid to wounded children. I can't even understand the RPG scare by those guys. The bullets from the apache take about 2 seconds to reach the target, so that's at least 1,5 km away. RPG is a VERY unreliable weapon and you'd need to be ultra lucky to hit anything with that after 300 meters. Hitting a flying helicopter more than 1,5 km away? Seriously, not gonna happen in real life.
But the coverup is bigger than the story itself. Many high-ranked officials lying about the incident, then trying to get the video removed and now a shitstorm has erupted. Heads will roll and that lt. col. probably won't ever get full bird.
Who doesn't know about this kind of stuff going on? I hate it when people say Americans are stupid because that's not true. Quite a few like the ones we have on TL are very smart, but I would guess about 60% really are stupid. In America knowing about someone's personal life is more important than thousands of people dying. (Tiger Woods, and shows like Keeping up with the Kardashians)
On April 06 2010 01:52 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: well apparently they dont matter nearly as much.
...
so it seems like a us/citizen is like 100 times as much worth as a arab.
...
this is hypocrisy at its best and most disgusting level.
...
it just seems pisses me off to fucking hell when its a drama when a western guy gets killed but when 1000 arabs get killed it doesnt matter at all.
*When someone is killed by a murderer*
Well, apparently they don't matter as much.
It seems like your own family is like 100 times as much worth as someone else's.
This is hypocrisy at its best and most disgusting level.
It just pisses me off to fucking hell when it's a drama when your own family gets killed by when like 1000 other people get killed it doesn't matter (to you) at all.
Umm...I'm pretty sure you're misinterpreting what he said. He meant exactly what you did; he was exasperated by how the world seemingly considers Western lives worth more than the lives of Third-World individuals. He wasn't saying that "our" lives are worth more than "other people's" lives; he was arguing that it shouldn't be that way.
Then again, I could be wrong, and you could just be agreeing with him after all.
On April 06 2010 06:29 m0rra wrote: What KwarK said. A civilian will try to go and help someone, a soldier will first try to clear the area, then give aid.
About the video - the soldiers were extremely trigger happy and just looking for an excuse to light something up. Misrepresenting the number of weapons (there were just 2 machineguns), shooting the van trying to help wounded people on the street, laughing at running over bodies with vehicles, denying medic aid to wounded children. I can't even understand the RPG scare by those guys. The bullets from the apache take about 2 seconds to reach the target, so that's at least 1,5 km away. RPG is a VERY unreliable weapon and you'd need to be ultra lucky to hit anything with that after 300 meters. Hitting a flying helicopter more than 1,5 km away? Seriously, not gonna happen in real life.
But the coverup is bigger than the story itself. Many high-ranked officials lying about the incident, then trying to get the video removed and now a shitstorm has erupted. Heads will roll and that lt. col. probably won't ever get full bird.
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote: Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
Yeah, because I was even saying anything about the election. I was making a general point and I made it. Don't be a jackass, friend.
I 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.
Anyway, soldiers at war are put under tremendous, tremendous stress. We all know this to some degree, but we don't know exactly how bad this is. 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.
This just in: people who are paid to kill people killed some people.
This is not surprising in the least. Disgusting and abhorrent yes, surprising, no. Stuff like this has always happened. As long as you have troops occupying hostile areas it's going to happen.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens.
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.
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.
Then you need to massively increase the pay to the non-commissioned corps, as they are often the ones making the decisions. You can't get geniuses for $3k/month.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over. It's somewhat expected that they are both under stress, and lacking respect for the people they think are the ones killing their countrymen.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
Agreed, while I didn't find their actions inappropriate given what information they had, I definitely don't think its very respectable the way they handled themselves. That is probably why this video was kept quiet, it makes the US military look bad.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens.
You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job, and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death its all okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like a wrong call matters when human lives are at stake.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens.
You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death is okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like those matter you know when human lives are at stake.
If you are a journalist in a war zone, you accept some serious fucking risks. Especially when walking around with people carrying AK-47's.
The crew of the apache definitely could have handled themselves better, but the decisions they made did not seem inappropriate to me in any way based on what they thought they saw.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens.
You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death is okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like those matter you know when human lives are at stake.
If you are a journalist in a war zone, you accept some serious fucking risks. Especially when walking around with people carrying AK-47's.
The crew of the apache definitely could have handled themselves better, but the decisions they made did not seem inappropriate to me in any way based on what they thought they saw.
I agree with this mostly. Insurgents don't wear uniforms, and they actively do all they can to disguise themselves as innocents. You have people making 50k a year making snap decisions after having people they know killed in situations just like this, and you expect something else?
This is the reality of war against a non-uniformed, insurgent force.
On April 06 2010 05:36 Hawk wrote: So those brief glimpses aren't enough to ID it as a weapon, but enough to determine that it's just a camera? And similarly, the brief glimpse of the people in a van is enough to determine they're civie kids and not possible insurgents?
Brief glimpse versus the good five to ten seconds of when you can actually see the real size of the object is different than "just a brief glimpse". In fact, I'm almost convinced you didn't even watch the video yourself if you don't realize this. I didn't think much of it at first since I didn't really care to press the point but considering your "argument" in this entire thread as of the latter half has consisted of "did you watch the video" I figured it was a fair point to address.
On April 06 2010 01:31 Hawk wrote:
around 3:30, you first see the camera men. around 5:00 most of the shooting is done. aorund 10, unmarked van comes to pick up wounded and is shot at, after clearance. around 13, they try to get you outraged because they accidently hit one of the bodies in a truck. and then mention the children were given to Iraqi police to go to the Iraqi hospital instead of a US place... like it somehow matters in the context of this. around 15:30, rueters goes to great length to make viewers feel like the US somehow knew there was kids in the van. @16:00, they are expected to somehow determine the two dots in the front of the van are kids.
that's second post in the thread homie. Hell, they even say around 3 min that they are being shot at
As I said, you are clearly twisting things to make it work towards your argument. In fact, deflecting the pint towards the van is pretty masterful on your part since it lets you skip the entire first 3:15 to 5:00 minute instance where as I say again, for those willing to even watch a minute and a half of the clip will note that at NO point is the Apache and members there in question ever a threat. As another pointed out already, the travel time of the apache fire will give a clue to how high up the Apache is and the fact that the civilians on the street seemed to show ZERO awareness of it's being there.
Since you keep on ignoring it or skipping it, answer these questions:
the chopper IDed possible RPG, which, if you search '500 meters is also the maximum range of rocket assisted flight'... which is a lot, even if it's about as accurate as you are right when you post, still a threat. Is that not a threat to the chopper?
also IDed AKs, up to six. There were US troops nearby patrolling the area, clearly in unison with the chopper. This includes personnel and tanks/humvees. Are RPGs and AKs a threat??
Did you miss my entire point about how they showed no awareness of the Apache or the fact that it doesn't even look like one? I meant, yeah it's great that you can bring up "They got AK-47's and RPG's and are looking to kill some Americans" but doesn't that argument sound awfully close to the "THEY GOT WMD'S!!!"
Aware or not, is someone with a gun and/or rpg a threat? Perhaps the marines were going to micro on the ground! It's not that hard of a question
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
Agreed, based on the video it looked as if they were carrying weapons. It's these apache pilots jobs to keep our troops safe by watching over the entire area, and blowing anyone away who is armed and looking suspicious near our ground troops. It's unfortunate that these journalists were mistaken for insurgents, but these guys were just doing their job, and I honestly have to say, if I saw what they saw, I couldn't tell you whether or not it was an RPG or a camera, and it definitely looked like some of them were armed. This situation (spotting armed people on the ground, and gunning them down) is common for apache crews, and they simply made the wrong call this time. It's war, and unfortunately this stuff happens.
You must be fucking kidding me. So its okay if you were the one getting shot at because its their job, and the person shooting at you called you scum and laughed at your death its all okay, I mean, it was simply a wrong call, its not like a wrong call matters when human lives are at stake.
Of course it matters. Nobody is saying this is a good thing. Innocent lives were lost. People were saying it was an acceptable thing. Always going to happen. Nature of warfare. etc etc It's not okay. It just is.
Anybody have statistics on reporters in war zones with non-uniform fighters? Maybe something about Vietnam War reporters? I'd bet that fatalities like this are fairly common in places like that.
Additionally, I freak out and focus fire the bengal tiger things thinking it's a zergling. Who knows what somebody would do if his life were actually in danger?
I think the idea that you can decide to invade a country and then justify atrocious acts through just stating "war is dirty you gotta do what you gotta do" is ridiculous. it's not like this knowledge (war is dirty) wasn't available prior to the decision to invade.
now, the culprits of this particular incident might not be crucifiable, but these sorts of acts are certainly valid arguements against warfare. Hopefully at some point people in charge will realize that horrible acts during war are inevitable, and hopefully people electing those in charge won't be willing to accept warfare for exactly this reason.
Absolutely sickening. We should never have even gone into Iraq in the fucking first place.
End American Imperialism and the Warfare State now!
Where are the principled Chomskyites to come together with us Anti-State Market Libertarians to hold mass protests? Fuck Obama and Fuck Bush. Fuck unjustified violence.
On April 06 2010 08:06 Lycaeus wrote: Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth.
Doesn't make it right, or legitimate, or less wrong. Of course lying to get us into war has always happened. From Lusitania, to Japanese Embargoes, to Gulf of Tonkin, and the 'Iraqi WMD'. We shouldn't even be there in the first place!
Using your argument, slavery had always existed when abolitionists sought to end slavery. Why even be outraged and try to end slavery, it's always existed; it's the truth.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways.
As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways.
As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
You talk about people deserving the responsibility that being a soldier brings. It's not about who deserves the responsibility of being an infantryman. They give the responsibility to anyone stupid enough to ask for it. The people with the intellectual capacity to properly respect the power given to them have better things to do with their time. It's unfortunate but the way it is.
On April 06 2010 08:06 Lycaeus wrote: Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth.
Doesn't make it right, or legitimate, or less wrong. Of course lying to get us into war has always happened. From Lusitania, to Japanese Embargoes, to Gulf of Tonkin, and the 'Iraqi WMD'. We shouldn't even be there in the first place!
Using your argument, slavery had always existed when abolitionists sought to end slavery. Why even be outraged and try to end slavery, it's always existed; it's the truth.
Ass Backwards.
Bad analogy. Nobody here is saying, "Nobody cares about this. Accidental deaths make us want to jerk off with glee." People simply accept that it's part of the mess that is war. If a better solution prevented itself, other than simply stating, "Don't go to war.", I'm sure the public would be all ears to avoid such mishaps.
Most people who are "ok" with this simply don't wish to see the soldiers of these actions vilified or condemned over what was simply a bad accident.
I don't feel like the next 16 pages will change my opinion so I won't read them.
What happened here was wrong, but what would you have done? If I was in the situation of the helicopter pilots I would have done the same thing. They believed that they saw weapons. The view where the person was looking around the corner is the only time where I would question weather or not they had weapons, but even that could be explained as the back of a RPG-7. To prevent this the helicopter needs a better camera.From what I've read the U-2 spy plane can see FOOT PRINTS with it's camera why didn't these pilots have a better one? That might have saved lives.
I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
In short there need to be changes in policy to keep such things from occurring again. If they would have just sent in a armored vehicle and saw if they scattered (far from perfect just the best I can think up on the spot) things would have turned out differently. If the attack choppers would have had better equipment they might have just looked said "those are cameras" and moved on. I hope this brings about changes, but the people making the decisions need more information to keep things this messed up from happening.
EDIT: I forgot to throw in the generic war is hell and bad things happen to the wrong people, but we need to prevent these things and try to justify latter.
People need to watch closely and listen to those soldiers... People arguing about the stress levels of those soldiers clearly didnt listen to what they were saying... It really sounded like they were playing a video game and were rushing conclusions. It took them a couple seconds to decide they were AK47s RPG... they began to ask for engagement in just a couple seconds... They were all excited and happy and forcing words into the command person...pressing him to give them engagement rights. What disgusts me is are the words and dialogue between the helicopters... The soldiers were having fun there is no arguement about that! Finding every excuse to kill and engage. Sickening and later on they fired multiple missles into a abandoned building just because a group of unidentified civilians entered it? WTF
Horrible situation. War is hell, theres. no disagreeing with that. Unfortunate case of collateral damage = /. Imagine the pilot of that apache though, imagine if it WAS a RPG. If he had hit the apache, downed it, the pilot would of had his body mutilated and dragged through the streets. Horrible situation non the less
On April 06 2010 09:11 SonKiE wrote: Horrible situation. War is hell, theres. no disagreeing with that. Unfortunate case of collateral damage = /. Imagine the pilot of that apache though, imagine if it WAS a RPG. If he had hit the apache, downed it, the pilot would of had his body mutilated and dragged through the streets. Horrible situation non the less
the helicopter was miles away.... the people o the streets couldnt even see the helicopter and notice how how it took the bullets to actually to hit their targets... think about that ...
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Do you feel they were justified in feeling no remorse for shooting at and injuring children?
On April 06 2010 09:11 SonKiE wrote: Horrible situation. War is hell, theres. no disagreeing with that. Unfortunate case of collateral damage = /. Imagine the pilot of that apache though, imagine if it WAS a RPG. If he had hit the apache, downed it, the pilot would of had his body mutilated and dragged through the streets. Horrible situation non the less
Are you kidding me? That helicopter was MILES way, there was no way those men could in any way threaten the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 08:06 Lycaeus wrote: Well, situations like this have happened since forever. Saddening and disheartening, but it's the truth.
Doesn't make it right, or legitimate, or less wrong. Of course lying to get us into war has always happened. From Lusitania, to Japanese Embargoes, to Gulf of Tonkin, and the 'Iraqi WMD'. We shouldn't even be there in the first place!
Using your argument, slavery had always existed when abolitionists sought to end slavery. Why even be outraged and try to end slavery, it's always existed; it's the truth.
Ass Backwards.
Bad analogy. Nobody here is saying, "Nobody cares about this. Accidental deaths make us want to jerk off with glee." People simply accept that it's part of the mess that is war. If a better solution prevented itself, other than simply stating, "Don't go to war.", I'm sure the public would be all ears to avoid such mishaps.
Most people who are "ok" with this simply don't wish to see the soldiers of these actions vilified or condemned over what was simply a bad accident.
Why is the solution -- Ending Imperialism and Mercantilism -- not a valid one? Seems to me it is the best, and most logical solution to ending these atrocities and violations of liberty and natural rights. The Military attracts a certain type of person, likewise, the Government apparatus attracts certain types of people. These types of people are drawn to the power of both systems -- Militarily & State. While this is bad, this isn't even nearly as bad as whats going on in Pakistan thanks to Obama and him ratcheting up Afghanistan. The whole system itself needs to be reversed. Will those of you who are Anti-War join forces with us Anti-Statists & Anti-War Libertarians? Let's end this war.
Rationalize away, I'm sure those Reuters journalists are feeling much better now. (Not that I approve of Reuters mind you ;p)
I also approve of all those who are Anti-War to join us in our Anti-Tax protests, where we 'evade' taxation. You are funding Imperialism. Want to stop it? Stop supporting it monetarily!
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:38 FortuneSyn wrote: Wow what a piece of shit excuse for protocol to allow engagement. Fucking americans. First they engage on targets that you cannot identify whether they are armed with a rpg or a FUCKING CAMERA. Then they engage a fucking van that comes over to pick a wounded person up.
IF YOU SEE YOUR COUNTRYMEN DIEING ON THE STREET, WOULD YOU HELP HIM? DOES THAT CATEGORIZE YOU AS A FUCKING TERRORIST?
What a pathetic excuse for a country. All americans should be ashamed of this shit.
??? Did you watch the video?
On April 06 2010 02:56 BlackJack wrote:
I'm pretty sure those are weapons. In case it's not obvious, they are just as readily going to kill 4 guys with AKs as they are 2 guys with AKs and 2 guys with cameras.
Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Exactly my points... People who defended these soldiers is what is disturbing and I believe a good percent of american population thinks that way because all the cover ups, excuses, brainwashing by media and governement. We see on the news "2 americans soldiers" killed in iraq but never see the news report the 1 Million iraqis killed since the start of this war!
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:45 Mystlord wrote: [quote] ??? Did you watch the video?
[quote] Quoting it again.
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
Hmm ... I question this. My thought is that it might be a U.S mercenary group or something like that, like the Black Water incident. The U.S military should know better than to do this because whoever was the CO his/her ass is defiantly on the line and would probably get court marshaled. That saying it is an unexcuseable action and for this to continue to happen would cause even further anti-America sentiments.
On April 06 2010 09:11 SonKiE wrote: Horrible situation. War is hell, theres. no disagreeing with that. Unfortunate case of collateral damage = /. Imagine the pilot of that apache though, imagine if it WAS a RPG. If he had hit the apache, downed it, the pilot would of had his body mutilated and dragged through the streets. Horrible situation non the less
You do know it would almost be impossible for an RPG to hit an Apache from that distance? My dad is Bosnian and was in a war from 1990-1995 and I asked him the likeliness of the RPG hitting the Apache and he said its close to none.
What I've also learned is that when people try to protect their own fucking land they are the ones called a terrorist.
Example: America invades Iraq, some news story is going on and 2 Americans are dead. They got killed by Islamic terrorists. They need to point out it was Muslim's who killed the men when that is fucking obvious, and they try to paint a bad picture on Muslims like they are the ones who are killing little children. Secondly they are the terrorists when an invading country came in and killed a million people and the Muslims want them off of their land
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:50 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Where's the excuse for americans shooting at the van that was helping the wounded?
Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
On April 06 2010 09:11 SonKiE wrote: Horrible situation. War is hell, theres. no disagreeing with that. Unfortunate case of collateral damage = /. Imagine the pilot of that apache though, imagine if it WAS a RPG. If he had hit the apache, downed it, the pilot would of had his body mutilated and dragged through the streets. Horrible situation non the less
You do know it would almost be impossible for an RPG to hit an Apache from that distance? My dad is Bosnian and was in a war from 1990-1995 and I asked him the likeliness of the RPG hitting the Apache and he said its close to none.
What I've also learned is that when people try to protect their own fucking land they are the ones called a terrorist.
Example: America invades Iraq, some news story is going on and 2 Americans are dead. They got killed by Islamic terrorists. They need to point out it was Muslim's who killed the men when that is fucking obvious, and they try to paint a bad picture on Muslims like they are the ones who are killing little children. Secondly they are the terrorists when an invading country came in and killed a million people and the Muslims want them off of their land
Sounds about right. Hence why you hear Patriots called Terrorists. "Domestic Terrorists" my ass. The only 'terrorists' are in DC.
I feel like there is a lack of understanding regarding the life of soldiers in these threads. Reading books like Generation Kill and Joker One I see how events like this can happen and how the personalities of troops can develop over time to something that is often critiqued by people on TL. Reading this thread I feel like there is a lack of understanding and too many over generalizations. What happened was wrong, but I'm not outraged like others are.
The spoiler is a excerpt from Joker One, the story of a Marine in Iraq and his unit. Its a little long for the internet, but it is gripping and well worth the read.
On May 27, I woke up to a horrible feeling of dread. I can't really properly put that heavy sense of impending doom into words, but the feeling meant that, for the first time, I was so scared about what the day held that I didn't want to leave my sleeping bag. I had been scared before other missions, of course, but never before had I felt such a deep certainty that something bad would happen to my men if they left the Outpost that day. I didn't want us to leave, but what I wanted was irrelevant. We had a mission, and, with or without me, my Marines were going to go out into the city and get it done. I forced myself out of bed and headed downstairs.
Our task that day was deterrence. General Jim Mattis, in charge of all USMC ground forces in Iraq, was hosting the second day of talks with dozens of tribal leaders and local officials at the Government Center. Such a concentrated host of important people from both sides made the center a very attractive insurgent target, so one Joker platoon was tasked to guard the building itself while another patrolled the environs to prevent mortar attacks. The day prior, Joker One had stood post on the Government Center'swalls. Now it was our turn to leave them to patrol the city.
We planned to use five Humvees to zip unpredictably about the city, moving quickly from one foot patrol site to another as we investigated areas favorable for mortar launches. However, at the last minute, very typically, the CO threw an unexpected change at us. In consonance with his contracting duties, the Ox needed to inspect an elementary school that Golf Company had paid a local builder to repair. As long as Joker One was patrolling the area, the CO reasoned, the company could kill two birds with one stone by taking the Ox to the schoolhouse and guarding it while he performed the inspection. I protested mightily. After our last experience with Joker Five and his decision-making process, I didn't want the man coming within one mile of my Marines and a mission. Furthermore, inspections take time, and from numerous previous patrols I knew that the area around the school offered only minimal cover for vehicles. A lengthy wait in the middle of a densely populated area with our vehicles completely in the open was a recipe for disaster. I said as much to the CO.
However, he overruled me, and my sense of unease deepened. To limit the damage from this undesirable assignment, I made two demands of the Ox: 1) that he give no orders to my men and 2) that he take no more than five to ten minutes inside the schoolhouse. Ten minutes, I told him, was pushing it; any longer than that and we were almost certain to get attacked. The Ox, still humbled by the Devil Siphon debacle, agreed. Done with the COC, I finished readying myself, and sometime before 10 am, Joker One left the Outpost in five Humvees to carry out our assigned mission. As usual, Bolding was right behind me, driving our second vehicle.
We started our foot patrols with a few open areas in the middle of the city, then we moved in the vehicles to the wide fields at Ramadi's southwestern tip. There we spent at least half an hour patrolling the lush rural area next to the Euphrates offshoot, hoping to focus the enemy's attention on that place before we mounted up and headed back into the city for the school inspection. Sometime shortly before noon, we abandoned the open fields for the densely packed butchers' district and the little nameless school it contained. Ten minutes later, we arrived. The school was constructed somewhat strangely in that it was not the usual thickly walled compound with a squat building complex inside. Instead, four thin, one-story, wall-less buildings joined together to form a hollowed-out rectangle, with a small break on the northern side creating an entrance to the rectangle's center and the open courtyard it contained. To its north, west, and south, the school was surrounded by twenty to thirty meters of soft dirt field, and beyond them the dense housing complexes sprouted thickly again all around. To the east, though, there was no field, just the usual long line of housing compounds separated from the school itself by a small, trash-lined north-south street. It was on this street that we pulled up sometime around noon.
Immediately upon arrival, the Ox hopped out of his vehicle and headed into the school with the translator, a radio operator, and one of my teams. Just before he stepped through the rectangle's northern break, I called the Ox on the PRR.
"Hey, Five, remember, no more than ten minutes. I don't like this area."
"Yeah, One-Actual, I got it. I'll be out shortly."
"Roger that. I'd better see you soon."
The rest of us dismounted and knelt next to our vehicles, taking what cover we could. The drivers, Waters, Bolding, Fyfe, Henderson, and Lance Corporal Moore, stayed close to the driver's side doors in case they were immediately needed. They were a bit more exposed, but it was a necessary trade-off. The Humvees ran in a long, evenly spaced line down the street, from the tip of the very northernmost school building to the end of the open field to the rectangle's south. If the stay extended any longer than ten minutes, we would reposition the vehicles to form a rough 360-degree perimeter around the school, but establishing that formation would take precious time, as would getting out of it. As long as the inspection finished quickly, we would stay well aligned, ready to mount up and head out in ten seconds or less.
Three blocks to our south we could see the busy east-west street, called Baseline Road by us, that marked the southern boundary of the butchers' district. I eyed the compounds lining it with hard suspicion, but nothing seemed amiss. Civilian foot and vehicle traffic was normal for the time of day. The weird little rhythms of commerce that marked the area seemed in sync, and all three squad leaders called in periodically. Nothing unusual to report, sir.
After five minutes, I started getting nervous, and I called the Ox to get a situation report. He was just finishing up, he said. He'd be right there. Five more minutes passed with no sign of the Ox. I called back, more forcefully this time, informing Joker Five that he either needed to leave the building immediately or let me know how much longer he was going to stay so that we could modify our defensive posture accordingly. Even with the heavy .50-cals mounted and manned on our first and last vehicles, sitting in a line along the road was only appropriate for a very short stop, I reminded him. His stay was starting to put us in danger. He'd be right out, the Ox replied.
Maybe three minutes later, the Ox and his entourage finally reappeared, trailing the usual crowd of twenty to thirty small children behind them. Designated Marines rapidly handed out the soccer balls and other small gifts that we had brought, and, vastly relieved, I gave the order to mount up. The drivers hopped back in first, and the rest of Joker One began loading the vehicles smoothly and quickly, just as we had done hundreds of times before.
I waited with my door open until the last of the Marines started mounting. The little kids stood in a tight knot on the sidewalk right next to our third vehicle, waving at us as we hopped in the Humvees, pleading for us to hand out more gifts. I smiled a bit—it was nice to be appreciated—and threw my left leg through the door as Noriel, Bowen, and Leza called out almost in unison that all squads were mounted and ready to head out.
Then a few things happened simultaneously, or maybe there was a timeline, but everything sort of runs together in my head as I try to remember it. A boom tore open the silence and an RPG hissed by, maybe a few feet over the top of my closing door. Small-arms fire rang out from our south, and from the .50-cal turret right above me, Brown started firing back with his heavy gun. My platoon sergeant flung himself out of the way of the rocket, twisting in the air, wrenching his back. Another explosion rang out, and the crowd of small children disintegrated into flame and smoke. From somewhere behind me, Marines started screaming out the worst words a platoon commander can hear: "Doc up! Doc up! Someone get a corpsman! Doc up!"
I jumped out of the Humvee and looked around. I can't give specifics of the scene—I was too busy scanning the whole area and sorting out the enemy threat in my head—only a general impression, and it was of a macabre tableau from hell. The rocket had missed us. Instead it had impacted squarely in the middle of the crowd of small children. Dead and wounded little ones were draped limply all over the sidewalk, severed body parts mixing in with whole bodies, or in some cases flung even farther, into the street. Blood, always the blood, streamed onto the sidewalk and into the dirt, where it settled darkly in pools or rivulets. Across the whole scene drifted smoke and dust. The Marines jumped out of the vehicles and ran helter-skelter among the children, collecting the wounded and their body parts, applying first aid where they could. The docs were working frantically. I noticed, strangely enough, that they 'adn't bothered to put on their latex gloves.
Throughout it all, Brown continued hammering at the enemy firing position he had spotted in the housing compounds across Baseline Road. At some point in time, the AKs ceased chattering, and one of my Marines, Fyfe, shouted at me that he had seen the RPG gunners, that they had taken off to the east, that he could guide us there. All three squad leaders called in to report that none of our Marines had been wounded and that the only fire we appeared to be taking was coming from due south.
That information was what I needed to hear, so I started giving orders over the PRR:
"One-Three, you are the casualty squad. Stay here with the docs and set up a collection point for the kids inside the school. One-One, One-Two, mount up. We're heading south."
Three terse "Rogers" came back, and first and second squads flung themselves into the first three Humvees with abandon. When they were mounted, the first two vehicles screeched south in pursuit of the terrorists. My driver took a hard turn, skidding the Humvee sideways, and headed east. Behind us, Bolding took the turn more carefully, and his vehicle dropped back. Twisting around and not seeing his vehicle, I called back to Fyfe, sitting in the seat kitty-corner from me.
"Where'd they go, Fyfe? Where'd they go? Tell me!"
He was suddenly no longer sure, and I can't blame him for that, for as soon as we had made the eastern turn onto Baseline, the Humvee had been enveloped by the normal butchers' area crowd. Completely impervious to our private tragedy just three blocks away, the locals were carrying out business as usual. Foot traffic thronged the area, merchants hawked their wares, and more blood, animal this time, ran through the streets. Fyfe settled on a likely house, and my driver bounced the compound gate open with the Humvee. Five of us hit the house, but it was a dry hole. I came back out to find that our vehicle was still alone. We had left too quickly, and the other three Humvees were zipping about somewhere nearby. I tried raising them on the PRR, but had no success. With crowds everywhere and no sign of our attackers, I decided to head back to the schoolhouse and the misery and to regroup there. On the way, we caught Joker Five calling over the PRR, and I instructed him to rally the rest of the convoy with us at the school. Less than ten minutes after we had left hell, we were back.
While squads one and two had been hunting, Bowen and his men had been doctoring, emptying their first aid kits until they had no bandages left, then using whatever else came to hand—bandannas, T-shirts, anything to help the kids. At some point during the process, Brooks found a little huddled pink-and-red mass, blown almost ten feet from the site of the explosion. Leaving his weapon dangling across his chest (and himself completely defenseless), Brooks picked up the bundle with both of his arms to find a pale, badly wounded little girl, bleeding profusely from her neck and breathing shallowly. Later, Brooks told me that as he ran with her to the docs, all he could think of was his own daughter. She was the same age as the shredded thing that he now held so tenderly.
When I arrived back at the scene, a pale but composed Bowen ran up and reported in. I noticed that his first aid kit was open and that his sleeves were rolled up to mid-forearm. Both sleeves and forearms were streaked dark with blood. I could barely make out the tattoos.
"Sir, we've got most of the little kids back in the school, but that explosion blew them everywhere. We're still finding them in random places, sir. The docs are working as hard as they can, but we've lost some already, and we're gonna lose more if they can't get to a hospital or something. We've managed to keep some of the most badly wounded alive, sir, but we can only do so much. They need to get some professional help."
His report finished, Bowen waited expectantly for direction, and right at about that time the rest of the convoy pulled up.
I wish I could say, given what followed, that I thought for a bit then, that I carefully weighed the pros and the cons of the various available courses of action, that I made a well-reasoned decision based on an in-depth analysis of the varying outcomes of any action. I wish I could say that I stepped back and coolly and dispassionately evaluated the situation, but if said that, I would be lying. The fact of the matter is that as soon as I spotted my first and second squads, my decision was already made. We were United States Marines, and a bunch of dying children needed our help. It was just that simple. There were too many of them to medically evacuate all, and the U.S. doctors might not cooprate even if we did so, but damned if we couldn't remain there to protect and minister to the little ones until Iraqi help showed up. Of course, a protracted stay meant another attack, and I knew this fact even as I settled instinctively on my decision. But we had been hit dozens and dozens of times to date, and none had yet resulted in any serious casualties. With the decision made, I started issuing orders, and I began with Bowen.
"Okay, Bowen, we're gonna stay until these kids get some help. We're gonna form a solid defensive perimeter around the CCP [casualty collection point], so you've got the standard six to ten o'clock area. Keep the docs and whoever else you need working on 'em and get Anderson and his scope up on a house so we've got overwatch to the west. One-One'll take ten to two, and One-Two'll take two to six. Got it?"
Bowen nodded. "Yes, sir. We'll make it happen." Then he was off, hustling toward the school and shouting orders at his men. I relayed the defensive perimeter positions to Noriel and Leza over the PRR and got two "Roger that, sirs" in return. With the decision made and the orders issued, I paused for a second to watch my squad leaders in action. They were magnificent. To the north, Noriel had one hand on his weapon and another outstretched as he stormed fearlessly this way and that in the middle of the street, indicating exactly where he wanted his vehicles and their machine guns pointed. I could hear the distinctive Filipino voice ring out.
"No, damn it, I want him here!" He gesticulated forcefully. "Here! No, not Hendersizzle [Henderson's nickname], stupid, the vehicle, damn it, the vehicle. Right here. Two-forty this way. This way! Tig, where are you, Tig? Oh, good, get your team up in one of these buildig. Now, move it, damn it! Move it! Bolding, where are you? Oh right, by the Humvee. Okay. Good."
Then, over the PRR: "One-Two, where are you tying in?"
Leza called back. "I've got Raymond's team right in that building—see it?" I looked over to see him pointing. "No, not that one . . . Yeah, that one.'I'll watch the street to our south. Make sure you get the one to our north. Hey, One-Three, whe'e's your guys?"
In my left ear, Bowen spoke up. "Hey, we've got the kids inside the building and I've got some of my squad tied up with them. Can you guys take more of my sector? I think we're gonna have to put some guys on the top of the school to cover the west. One-Two, I need you tie in farther south. Oh, shit, I've found another kid. They're everywhere. Hey, if your men find them, bring them here inside the compound."
Everything was moving fluidly. Just north of the school, the docs were hustling around in the street, treating the kids who were hurt too badly to be moved inside the compound. I wanted to help, to reposition the vehicles and shape our perimeter as I saw fit, but my squad leaders were doing a much better job corporately than I could have done individually. For now, I reasoned, I was best off staying out of their way. Just then, the full impact of the moment hit me: My men didn't need me, they were doing just fine without me. I had done my job with my squad leaders. The feeling produced ten seconds of beauty inside a day of horror.
The Ox interrupted the reverie, but, for once, I was glad to see him—because, for once, he had a productive suggestion.
"Hey, One, George and I can bang on all of these houses to see if someone'll let us use their phone to call an ambulance? We've gotta get these kids some fucking help."
It was a good idea. I had no idea when or if the locals would take action, and we—and the children—co'ldn't afford to operate under the assumption that they would. I had already called the COC to inform them of the situation and to let them know that our battalion needed to call the Iraqi police liaison and get some help on scene. Th' Ox's idea, however, promised more immediate returns, so I nodded my agreement, and the Ox took off. Something like ten minutes later, though, he was still gone, and my pride in my men had been dispelled by the anxiety of remaining tethered to a fixed position. I called the Ox.
"Hey, Joker Five, where are you, what's taking so long?"
"Hey, One. These stupid Iraqis won't open their doors to us. I've got the translator screaming at them that we just need to use their phone to call an ambulance, but they don't care. They won't let us in. I hate these fucking people. Their own kids are lying wounded in the street and we're trying to help as best we can and they won't even let us in. Fucking cowards. Screw this, I'm kicking in a door."
The tirade over, the Ox signed off. I sympathized with his feelings. Five minutes later, he was back on the PRR. The hospital had been contacted. An ambulance was on its way. I breathed out my relief, then continued moving around the perimeter, keeping a watchful eye on my Marines and the surroundings for any signs of trouble, but it was Corporal Walter who spotted trouble first and called over the PRR.
"One-Actual! One-Actual! The people on that street three blocks west just started running."
"Roger that," I shouted back. "Everyone, stand by, we're about to get hit."
Later, Walter informed me that right after his transmission and during mine, he had started raising his SAW to his shoulder to take aim down the street over his open Humvee door. Halfway through the motion, two men dressed in head-to-toe black suddenly popped around the corner, one standing, armed with an AK, and the other kneeling, armed with an RPG. Walter fumbled with the SAW's safety for a second, then pushed it through the weapon and loosed off a few rounds. Maybe he hit the men, maybe not. It didn't really matter. Our attackers had managed to get the RPG off.
At the time, I was walking on the eastern side of the school, halfway down the long side of the rectangle. I heard the first boom and whipped my head north; then I heard the second. Gunfire rang out, and mixed with it came the horrifying cries of my first squad screaming, "Doc up! Doc up! Doc up!" My heart sank. I started running north, toward the sound of the explosion and the gunfire.
As soon as they heard the cries for the corpsman, Docs Smith and Camacho rose from where they had been taking cover and ran pell-mell down the street toward the second explosion, heedless of the tracers that clearly zipped all around them. I watched as together they sped across my field of vision, and then I continued my run toward the action. Over the PRR came Noriel's frantic voice: "Sir, sir, sir. Bolding's been hit, sir. His legs, they're gone, sir. They're gone, sir."
I heard the transmission, and some part of me howled out briefly, but the rest was so overwhelmed with trying to sort out the tactical situation that it didn't feel anything at all. Adding to the confusion, at just that time, despite all the fire, an ambulance trundled up to the school from our north. The drivers belatedly realized what they had gotten themselves into, and they dived out of the van, disappearing into the rectangle's interior. Still running, I reached the northern tip of the school and took cover behind some junk. Then I called breathlessly over the PRR to Noriel.
"One-One . . . Get ready to evac Bolding . . . You and the docs'll get him out of here . . . I'll be there in just a bit."
No reply came, and I started moving carefully toward Walter to get a visual on our enemies. As I ran across the street, it slowly dawned on me that the firing had ceased. By the time I made it over to Walter, all signs of combat had vanished. All signs save the screaming Bolding, of course.
The human body has a lot of blood, more than most of us realize. Cut some of the major veins that carry that blood and it starts spilling out everywhere. Cut some of the major arteries and it starts spurting out everywhere. Major veins and arteries run up and down the legs, and Bolding didn't have any of those anymore below his knees, so blood absolutely poured out of the lower half of his body. First squad, Staff Sergeant, the Ox, and Docs Smith and Camacho worked frantically to stop it.
As is often the case, Bolding was unaware of his missing appendages, perhaps because his nerve tissue had been badly burned. The RPG that took his legs had first hit a lightpost next to which he had been kneeling, as he faithfully stayed near his vehicle in case his services as driver were needed. The impact with the lightpost had caused the RPG's hot metal penetrator to detonate, and some combination of molten copper and sharp metal post fragments had gruesomely severed both of Bolding's legs at his knees. The Marines collected the separated pieces, and they gently placed them into an ice chest in the back of a Humvee. The legs were still wearing their boots.
The medical term for this type of injury is "traumatic amputation," and, like much of our shorthand, these two sterile words paper over a lot of gruesome reality, like, for example, the fact that Bolding was shouting, over and over, that his legs felt tangled. Would someone please untangle them, he asked. Or the fact that, for a second, the shouting stopped as Bolding gripped Walter, his best friend, by the collar and demanded to know if his nuts were still in place. I don't know whether Walter checked or not, but he did reassure Bolding that everything he needed was still intact. I'm told that Bolding was greatly relieved.
I'm told because I never saw the injury at close range. Once I realized that the firing had stopped, I moved out of cover and started walking to the street corner where I could see the docs hunched over, working on Bolding. I made it to within about ten feet of them when the Ox did a wonderful and magnificent thing. Seeing me approaching, he straightened up from where he crouched near Bolding, walked up to me, and held up his outstretched hand. Blood dripped from it.
"Hey, One. That's close enough. You don't need to see this, trust me. It'll just fuck you up. You need to fight the platoon with a clear head, and you're gonna have a hard time doing that if you see Bolding up close. We're doing everything we can. We'll get him out of here. Turn around. Fight your guys."
Over the Ox's shoulder I could see Bolding's torso jerking and twitching, and the docs working to hold him steady. I still felt nothing, and in my detached state I realized the truth of the Ox's words. I nodded and turned around to find a defiant Sergeant Noriel.
"Hey, sir," he said. "We're good here. We don't need to go. We need to stay and fight, sir. Get someone else to evac Bolding, sir. I want to fight."
Later, Noriel would tell me that at that exact moment he was furious and that he and the rest of his squad wanted only to fight and to kill, to exact some revenge in retaliation for what had just happened to their most beloved member. However, I sensed none of this bloodlust. As I stared at my angry squad leader, all I knew was that his squad was the casualty evacuation (casevac) squad that day—they were always the casevac squad—and that now they had to do their job. Whether they wanted to or not was, like everything else in our world, absolutely irrelevant. So I replied very simply to No'iel's demand: "One-One,'you're the casualty squad. You know that,'you've been that on every mission' It's because'you've got the most drivers. You are 'vac'ing Bolding and you are doing it ASAP becaus' he's bleeding out. Get going. Link up with us back at the Government Center when'you're done."
I have no idea what happened to the children after our departure; the need to fight had yet again overtaken the need for compassion. I know that we saved a few of the kids, and I can only hope that some of the children survived who otherwise wouldn't have, because God knows we paid a terrible enough price for staying.
As my two squads pushed west, everybody we encountered fled as soon as they set eyes on us. It could have been that news of the fight traveled quickly, but I believe it was more likely that the civilians knew immediately by our faces, by our body language, by the way we moved in short, vicious spurts that we were on edge and looking for any excuse to take up a fight. None offered itself, and none of my men were so far gone that they made up their own, so we made it back to the relative safety of the Government Center without firing a shot. I have no idea how long our movement lasted or what time we made it back there, only that we did and that I was completely exhausted when we finally took off our helmets in a room inside the center. First squad may have been there by the time we returned, but they may also have arrived a bit after us. Again, time in these situations is very fluid.
As I sat there, vest on, forearms resting on my thighs, head hung down above my knees, weapon slung limply across my chest, I still felt nothing. My mind was fixed in tactical mode, trying to sort out which new problems were going to present themselves and how I should prioritize and respond to them. Slowly, it dawned on me that we weren't fighting anymore. I looked around at my Marines.
Some of them sat as I did, stunned and silent. Others gathered in huddled little knots, talking quietly to one another. Still others, like Teague, stood by themselves with hard eyes and stone faces, fingering their weapons. Over time, I watched as more of my Marines joined the latter category, and I knew what that group wanted. They wanted revenge on our faceless enemies and on the fearful civilians whose hesitance had prolonged our waiting and cost us one of our best men. They wanted revenge on the stupid, broken Iraqi public services whose ambulances had taken so long to respond to the wounded little children whom some of us had watched die. And they wanted revenge on the whole miserable city of Ramadi for forcing us to make horrible choices, day in and day out, until it seemed like no matter what path we took, we lost.
I knew that the hard ones were thinking these thoughts because I was thinking them myself. The numbness had worn off, and in its stead rose a dull rage at more or less everything in my world except for my Marines. But the rage was irrelevant. I was a lieutenant, and a leader, and no matter what I felt, I had to take care of my men and accomplish our mission, and, unfortunately, revenge wasn't our mission.
After some time sitting there, I sorted myself out enough to figure that my job hadn't ended just yet. My Marines still needed caring for. So I found the squad leaders and told them to gather our men. When they were ready, I spoke words to the platoon that I didn't feel but that needed to be spoken nonetheless because they were true and because they would help us. I started by telling Joker One that I wanted to kill very, very badly, and that a part of me didn't really care what it was that I killed as long as I got to do so. I fixed my eyes on Teague as I said this, and he nodded back. I told the Marines that a lot them probably wanted something similar. Teague nodded again. Then I told everyone that what we wanted didn't matter because we were United States Marines, and since our Corps had been founded, we had kept our honor clean and that Joker One was going to be no exception to this rule. We knew our mission and what we had come to do and it was still worthwhile, and we knew that as well. Something horrible had just happened, but it didn't change the mission and it didn't change how we got it done, and they knew this, I told them.
Some of the Marines nodded, but most just stared blankly at me.
So here's what we're gonna do, I continued. We're gonna go out there tomorrow and we're gonna try to make life a little bit better for the people we can. (Teague's face was immobile at this.) And if anyone attacks us while we're doing this, God help them because we're going to kill as many of them as best as we possibly can. And when we're finished fighting, we're going to get back to the business of rebuilding. (Teague's face was still blank.)
At about this time, I noticed that the CO and the Gunny had somehow appeared at the back of our room and that they were watching me. I ignored them because I wasn't talking to them, and I continued the little speech to my Marines:
Here's what we're not going to do. We're not going to kill everyone we feel like. We're not going to shoot indiscriminately at random civilians every time the fire breaks out. We've worked too hard to quit on the mission now. (At this, more Marines started nodding. Some were still silent, tears running down their young faces. Teague's dry eyes, though, bored back at me, his face still emotionless.) And you know what? I continued. Bolding wouldn't want us to start killing everyone randomly. You know Bolding, you know this is true. If he were here, you know that he would tell us to never mind him, to keep doing what we were doing because it's the right thing to do. You know this. You know this.
Now almost every one of my Marines was nodding. Some were still crying and some were still dry-eyed, but they were nodding along with the words. I looked at Teague. He was nodding, too, and I knew that I had gotten through.
As soon as I knew this, though, the mantle of leadership crumbled, and the full weight of what had happened finally overwhelmed the tactical numbness. The dull rage died, and in its place I felt only tremendous sadness and the crushing feeling of failure. Because of my decisions, one of my Marines had lost both of his legs. It may not have been my fault, but it was certainly my responsibility because everything that happened to my Marines was my responsibility. That's one of the first things you learn as an officer, and if you're a leader who's any good at all, then as you go on you know that you always err on the side of taking too much responsibility until the weight crushes you, and then your men pick you up, and then you take still more responsibility until they need to pick you up again.
Staring at the Marines, I started getting crushed, and I started losing it. Tears welled up, and I choked them back and probably finished up the talk with a few inane, meaningless sentences. Then I literally turned on my heels and fled the room, helmet in hand, for the filthy, excrement encrusted, piss-stained Iraqi bathroom down the hall and to the right. I arrived there blind from tears and banged open the door with my shoulder. Then I sank to the ground, curled up on myself, and cried and cried and cried.
I didn't know it, but the Gunny had noticed my abrupt departure. Maybe ten seconds after I crashed through the door, he opened it very gently and looked in on me. I didn't see him then, and in fact I didn't notice the Gunny's presence at all until he sat down next to me and wrapped his arms around me. Instinctively, I hugged him back, buried my face into the rough Kevlar of his shoulder, and sobbed. He told me that it was all right, and then he didn't say anything at all.
I think a rational person could see this from both sides. The chatter over the radio confirmed the targets were not known friendly personnel, meaning this group of journalists didn't have clearance to be in that zone. I'm not sure how it works over there, but I imagine you need to let people know what you're doing in a war zone.
However, I also think the U.S. military should of taken some more time to examine the situation being as the targets weren't exactly going anywhere. A few more minutes and maybe they could of seen they were setting up cameras as opposed to carrying weapons. As others have said, the soldiers seemed a bit eager to get some action (understandably), but they should of been more professional with how the went about the situation.
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
So no, I don't think "americans are stupid" (really, how are these people still on TL?), but I also think rash and unfortunate decisions are often times made in wars where people have guns and want to use them.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:51 Hawk wrote: [quote]
it's an unmarked van, not a medic or an ambulance. Big difference.
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
On April 06 2010 04:52 Jibba wrote: [quote]Because due to a hand full of Teaparty members withholding on paying taxes, the US government could not afford to fit all military personal with standard issue E1337 Clairvoyance Goggles.
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
On April 06 2010 04:04 tonight wrote: Can't be picky here. Dudes look like they have guns can't just say, "Well, maybe those aren't guns?" Whoever said this is genocide is a dink. I can't even imagine how much collateral damage has been done throughout the country on both sides. I'm sure Iraqis are are wounding and killing there country men, not on purpose, throughout this whole war, too. This is nothing to get up in arms about.
Iraqi's are wounding and killing their own countrymen because the US displaced the dominant majority population (the Sunni's) to put the minority faction (Shiites) in power all in the farce of democracy. Did you honestly think the Iraqi election was anything fair considering a Sunni will NEVER vote for a Shiite pres and yet the Shiites hold all the position of political power now? Honestly, learn a little bit about the situation before posting next time.
Yeah, because I was even saying anything about the election. I was making a general point and I made it. Don't be a jackass, friend.
I apologized for this post one or two pages after I made it.
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
EDIT: What if I'm determined to infringe upon other people's rights?
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
You couldn't be more wrong. If I have to hear another 'Why don't you move' if you don't like X, I'll be more annoyed at that falsifiable statement moreso than I am. Besides, I am moving to New Hampshire to enact freedom and liberty, so why would I move to a centralized totalitarian State that's worse than the US?
Anyways back on-topic. At the very least these men should be held accountable for their actions. I would like to see justice for the victims families through remuneration, and court-martial for these individuals.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways.
As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
My point with respect to pay is that this is a capitalist world and you simply can't expect a certain high-level of competence in this kind of situation for 30-50k a year, because the people who possess those qualities are able to find higher paying, similar work.
As for respect, if you want to maintain any sanity you have to largely dehumanize the enemy. If you want someone who can both kill and make excellent decisions and regret taking life, you can't pay enlisted people 30-50k a year, as those people will work elsewhere for more.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote: [quote]
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
You couldn't be more wrong. If I have to hear another 'Why don't you move' if you don't like X, I'll be more annoyed at that falsifiable statement moreso than I am.
That's part of the argument for a fully private school system, is it not? If the schools in your area aren't performing adequately, you are free to move to another city/state.
Besides, I am moving to New Hampshire to enact freedom and liberty, so why would I move to a centralized totalitarian State that's worse than the US?
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote: [quote]
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the realities of war, not whether that war is justified or not.
On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote: [quote] [quote] [quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the realities of war, not whether that war is justified or not.
On April 06 2010 07:13 Z3kk wrote: I admit I haven't actually seen the video, so I don't know the actual extent of the soldiers' disregard for civilian lives (trigger-happiness, etc.), and what I do know is drawn completely from your guys' observations.
I believe that soldiers who must consistently go out into the battlefield are impacted extremely negatively. I've read some of TIME's articles about PTSD and war in general, and a lot of those returning soldiers commit atrocious, cruel acts of crime. They are all mentally impacted, and almost all soldiers are worse off. After fighting day after day against some--mostly--unseen enemy you know to be callous and very dangerous, you probably would become quite trigger-happy and ready to shoot at anything you think could kill or hurt you or your friends, however unlikely it would appear to a "normal" American sitting in the relative comfort of his/her home.
I'm just saying. >_____<
Yes, they are put under stress. And yes, that to some degree can explain their abhorrent behavior. But just because you are capable of rationalizing the reasoning of their actions doesn't excuse their gross irresponsibility. No matter what stress they are under they are wielding immense power, the power to take one's life away. Whats more is that they have been sanctioned by the government as mentally capable of rendering the decision of who gets to live and who gets to die. A decision like that shouldn't be placed in the hands of, to be completely honest, a moronic trigger happy scumbag.
I'm just saying.
Keep in mind its the guys job to do exactly what he did. Lets pretend for a moment that it wasn't journalists and the camera was an RPG (what the crew thought they saw). It would be grossly irresponsible for them to not fire upon these people, because with friendly ground troops in the area, you are risking our soldiers lives by not doing so.
Obviously none of this really excuses the commentary from the crew, but I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of talk among pilot/gunners isn't common. Remember that these are the same guys getting shot at on a regular basis and losing friends and family on the same soil they are flying over.
I guess I take more of an issue with the way they treat the situation than the actions themselves. And its unfortunate that the lives of those killed weren't respected by those who took them, considering they're making these decisions with such limited information.
What were you expecting for people making 30-50k a year, sent to a place where their friends are killed and they are in regular combat?
This isn't a thought experiment, this is real life and this is always how war has been. Read "The Vietnam War" by Baker if you think that this is at all even unusual.
There is also no good preventative measure. You don't get highly trained and mentally disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with death without difficulty at 30k a year.
I never claimed it was unusual, in fact this sort of shit is to be expected from any military. That's the problem. And if you can't deal with death without some degree of respect for the people who unlike yourself will never see the light of day again, then you don't deserve to be in a position where you may have to kill someone. I'm not advocating paying soldiers more to pay more respect, I'm advocating that it be part of the job description and a prerequisite to keep one's job. The people who are out there as soldiers are representing the United States. They don't need to represent us as barbarian invaders, its already a shitty situation anyways.
As a side note: Isn't it ironic that my quote is from Thucydides, yet I'm arguing an extremely idealist viewpoint?
My point with respect to pay is that this is a capitalist world and you simply can't expect a certain high-level of competence in this kind of situation for 30-50k a year, because the people who possess those qualities are able to find higher paying, similar work.
As for respect, if you want to maintain any sanity you have to largely dehumanize the enemy. If you want someone who can both kill and make excellent decisions and regret taking life, you can't pay enlisted people 30-50k a year, as those people will work elsewhere for more.
What? There's so many things wrong in this post, I'm not sure where to begin. You're equating pay grade with empathy, which couldn't have less of a correlation, and you think that the mercenaries with PhDs working for Xe make better decisions because of their degree? Experience is the deciding factor in these cases, and again, an experienced soldier isn't going to react much differently.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker.
What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote: [quote]
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker.
What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists..
I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post.
All right just one more.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote:
Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
Would you think differently if they enjoyed killing Americans? I think you would haha
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
It's both an individual problem and a systemic problem. It's disturbing, but the point I'd emphasize is that in some respects, it's unavoidable. The drugs can be done without (which is a huge deal), but when you're constantly sitting in a symphony of audio and visual stimulation, with a constant stream of adrenaline, you're going to act in ways that would be unforgivable in the civilian world. In order to continue to be a soldier, at some point in time, you need to dehumanize the enemy. That's why post-traumatic stress syndrome exists, when it catches up to you.
On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote: [quote] [quote] [quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker.
What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists..
I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post.
You're still stuck on something that's totally irrelevant. This could be any conflict in the world. Say, NATO troops bombing Serbs during the raid on Kosovo.
On April 06 2010 11:36 NewStart wrote: Would you think differently if they enjoyed killing Americans? I think you would haha
I've defended the rationale for things like suicide bombings plenty of times on this website.
On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote: [quote] [quote] [quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
In a war zone? Where enemies look like civilians? I keep seeing people post with 20/20 hindsight and it's incomprehensible to me- can't you people think for a second without the outcome in mind, the way soldiers have to actually deal with these situations? It's exactly why rules of engagement exist. They don't go after everyone, but there's things you don't do to military personnel, and in Iraq driving at them in an unmarked van is one of them. They make mistakes, but they try to correct them. Again, watch The Hurt Locker.
What would your reaction be to this video if you didn't know the people killed were news reporters. You might think the soldiers were assholes for the way they were speaking, but are you going to criticize their actions when you might still be thinking that the targets were terrorists?
Again America was the one to invade Iraq and the people of Iraq didn't do nothing to America beforehand, so I think you're calling the wrong people terrorists..
I got to go to sleep now so I only responded to my "favorite" part of your post.
On April 06 2010 05:12 Hawk wrote: [quote] [quote] [quote]
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
What's funny is that Americans don't even realize that America was borne from what would be defined today as 'Terrorists'. What the fuck do you think the Sons of Liberty were? Let's get the fuck out of the Middle East and the World! The right of self-determination should never be infringed.
Why don't you move to Haiti? The Haitian government is far too weak to actually do anything or even infringe on its citizens' rights. The country is basically run by NGOs.
You couldn't be more wrong. If I have to hear another 'Why don't you move' if you don't like X, I'll be more annoyed at that falsifiable statement moreso than I am.
That's part of the argument for a fully private school system, is it not? If the schools in your area aren't performing adequately, you are free to move to another city/state.
Besides, I am moving to New Hampshire to enact freedom and liberty, so why would I move to a centralized totalitarian State that's worse than the US?
The Haitian government doesn't do anything.
No. The argument for a Free-Market in schooling is numerous.
• Compulsory Education and State run Schooling infringes upon liberty and freedom and conditions and indoctrinates the students with whatever curriculum the State decides with no other choice • Open market entry allows for expanded areas of education purely for the needs of differing individuals • Open Market entry leads to higher standards • Freedom of association and choice will necessarily better reflect local values • Free-Market in Education would allow you to end Property Tax forever. • Taxation is theft
If you feel the schools in your area are inadequate the argument for a Free-Market is that you yourself, or others in your area may freely compete and open your own Schools, or if you so choose homeschool. I am a big advocate of home-schooling. If you don't like something the solution is not to move, but to compete with them. Entreprenuers and free-enterprise is the bedrock of liberty. Why do you think in all totalitarian States the first thing they Nationalize is education? There is a great Kitty Werthmann clip on Youtube where she recounts her experiences in Austria under Fascism and State-Schooling.
I would also recommend reading some John Taylor Gatto.
As for Haiti, they are not in a case of political anarchy:
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
So what is your point, just because they followed their RoE still do not justify the killing of innocents. I don't think the average tax payers are going to be happy with their military's actions. Why would they keep supporting their military if majority of Americans feel what they did was wrong. If those soldiers action is the norm in the military, then their RoE should be changed, because the tax payers are not going be happy of how they handled the situation.
On April 06 2010 01:50 Pervect wrote: "One small child wounded. Over."
"Roger. Ah damn. Oh well."
I mean I don't know what you could possibly say in a situation like that, but the ability to kill while being completely disconnected from the actual action (helicopters, drones, etc) really makes the killing a lot easier.
O when I watched the video I thought it was a regretful "AH. damn. Oh well" nothing we can do now sort of thinking. I suppose I am wrong?
I watched the video, at 3:45 one of the men they were zooming in on had a long tube like object that was about half his height. It looked like an rpg to me. It also definitely looked like those guys next to him did in fact have ak47's. I watched this part over and over and I can't come to any other conclusion. I don't see how anyone can say that the Apache crew only seeing those guys once for a few moments could come to any other conclusion than that they were armed.
Now, for all you idiots saying the Apache crew is not in danger, they shouldn't have fired, shut up. Its not about them being in danger, they are air support for ground troops in the area. People brandishing what appears to be assault rifles and an rpg are a threat to your troops on the ground. You take them out so your friends don't have to engage them on the ground and possibly get killed.
I will say the shooting of the van was a bit questionable, but honestly you cannot tell whats in that van, could have been anything including more people with weapons. They don't have x-ray vision people.
I think most of you have such an overwhelming anti-american sentiment that you simply overlook some of the factors involved in the situation, and immediately jump to "duurrr Americans are all evil and stupid!" Typical.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
If you look back a page, Jibba gave the reason they act like this - your mind has to dehumanize your enemy or else you're going to regret what you've done later. PTSD follows, and the next thing you know soldiers are killing themselves or someone else back home. It's grotesque that any part of civilized society finds this okay, and even more so that people are willing to attempt to justify it when things like this come to light.
For the record, it's things like this that are the reason my TL profile has country left blank rather than saying 'United States'.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
If you look back a page, Jibba gave the reason they act like this - your mind has to dehumanize your enemy or else you're going to regret what you've done later. PTSD follows, and the next thing you know soldiers are killing themselves or someone else back home. It's grotesque that any part of civilized society finds this okay, and even more so that people are willing to attempt to justify it when things like this come to light.
Then do you disagree with Jibba's explanation? All I said was I thought the behavior was understandable, and I'm not going to judge people based on comments they make in those types of situations.
And there are "normal" people who hunt animals for sport. I wouldn't enjoy killing an animal, but I don't think people who smile when they make a nice shot at a bird or something are mentally ill.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
If you look back a page, Jibba gave the reason they act like this - your mind has to dehumanize your enemy or else you're going to regret what you've done later. PTSD follows, and the next thing you know soldiers are killing themselves or someone else back home. It's grotesque that any part of civilized society finds this okay, and even more so that people are willing to attempt to justify it when things like this come to light.
Then do you disagree with Jibba's explanation? All I said was I thought the behavior was understandable, and I'm not going to judge people based on comments they make in those types of situations.
And there are "normal" people who hunt animals for sport. I wouldn't enjoy killing an animal, but I don't think people who smile when they make a nice shot at a bird or something are mentally ill.
Killing animals is a lot different then killing humans and I would say normal people do it all the time but as for your point I agree to a certain extent.
I've come to the conclusion that anyone who is outraged is also stupid.
First, if you're outraged because of the troops' behavior, why? Only someone who has experienced combat or a complete moron could say with certainty that they would handle the stress these men are under more gracefully. And, even if their language is somehow indicative of a lack of compassion, then why does that matter so long as it didn't affect their actions? We don't imprison psychopaths for being psychopaths. They described what they saw (accurately, I think) and requested permission. They got permission, and they fired. Now, I know I've already said that everyone who is outraged is stupid, but, of these stupid, the stupidest are certainly those who said the worst part of this video was the way the soldiers talked to one another.
Now, if you disagree with the rules of engagement, that is somewhat understandable. Personally, I think it is reasonable to open fire on a group of men congregated with AK-47's in an area where another unit was taking small arms fire earlier, especially when one of them has an RPG pointed at your buddies on the ground. I don't remember if this was in the 17:00 minute version, so here it is if it wasn't:
14:53 Bushmaster or element. Which Element called in Crazyhorse to engage the eight-elem- eight-men team on top of a roof. 15:02 Bushmaster Six; this is Hotel Two-Six. Uh, I believe that was me. 15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over. 15:20 Hotel Crazyhorse One-Eight. 15:26 Crazyhorse One-Eight; this is Hotel Two-Six. 15:28 Yeah Two-Six. One-Eight I just also wanted to make sure you knew that we had a guy with an RPG cropping round the corner getting ready to fire on your location.
So we've got a group of men with AK-47's and an RPG. They're in an area where other units have recently taken small arms fire. And one of them is pointing the RPG at a unit's location. Not feeling the outrage.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
I guess I think it's okay for the pilots to be happy, thinking they were eliminating a threat and possibly saving the lives of soldiers on the ground. I dunno what you mean by "enjoyment", but I don't think anyone's suggesting they were enjoying it physically/sexually.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
I guess I think it's okay for the pilots to be happy, thinking they were eliminating a threat and possibly saving the lives of soldiers on the ground. I dunno what you mean by "enjoyment", but I don't think anyone's suggesting they were enjoying it physically/sexually.
I think you're being a little naive, if you think they're just glad they saved lives. It's sad that the gunners and pilots are so callous, but it's by no means surprising. In fact, I'm shocked that the military tried to cover this one up considering it's not much worse than other gun cam shots. It just so happened that they made a mistake with the targets on this one.
We're asking these guys to go over there and kill people, so of course the type of people we get will be the type that has no problem with killing. If you give them a big gun and what looks like a target, they'll gleefully light it up. It's ugly. That's war.
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
So if some family is going to their friends you have the right to kill them because you may have thought they have a bomb, right?
Welcome to war, welcome to real life.
Yes, welcome me to a unjustifiable war that a horrible president got us in.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We are talking about the realities of war, not whether that war is justified or not.
Are you Dick Cheney? User was temp banned for this post.
On April 06 2010 10:58 eMbrace wrote: Their enjoyment of it all really isn't all that bothersome and that's not what they should be judged for.
On April 06 2010 08:52 Zack1900 wrote: I don't feel that the pilots were wrong in enjoying the killing. They believed that they had killed insurgents that were going to try to kill soldiers. If I kill someone breaking into my house with a note taunting the cops to find the murder that killed everyone in the home I would be ecstatic.
Are you people serious? Enjoying killing another human being is okay? I think that says about as much about your mental state as it does theirs.
It is pretty funny that you're trying to justify it with a Castle Doctrine approach, though. You know, because the US are the ones breaking into the homes here (literally and figuratively).
And your mental state is equally disturbing if you think you have any idea how people should feel in a warzone when they gun down what they think to be terroists disguised as civilians.
So it's disturbing to be upset that someone could be so far removed from humanity that they felt enjoyment when killing someone? I don't care who you're killing, you shouldn't be enjoying doing such. Even killing animals for food when you're starving is not something you actually enjoy the process of. Many meat-eating cultures have extreme respect for the animals they kill - taking time to offer such even though the killing is necessary for their survival. They may celebrate later as they eat, but they at least pay respects to the dead. Even if you somehow justify the killing itself, taking joy in the act is something that is absolute insanity.
I guess I think it's okay for the pilots to be happy, thinking they were eliminating a threat and possibly saving the lives of soldiers on the ground. I dunno what you mean by "enjoyment", but I don't think anyone's suggesting they were enjoying it physically/sexually.
I think you're being a little naive, if you think they're just glad they saved lives. It's sad that the gunners and pilots are so callous, but it's by no means surprising. In fact, I'm shocked that the military tried to cover this one up considering it's not much worse than other gun cam shots. It just so happened that they made a mistake with the targets on this one.
We're asking these guys to go over there and kill people, so of course the type of people we get will be the type that has no problem with killing. If you give them a big gun and what looks like a target, they'll gleefully light it up. It's ugly. That's war.
I think QibingZero was suggesting the pilots were getting off on killing people, which I don't sense to be the case. A large part of training is preparing people psychologically to follow orders and kill without question. Chain of command and all that.
I don't understand what people are complaining about in terms of enjoyment, if there is any. Are the soldiers supposed to show remorse or something? Or treat each person they kill with respect? That's a little unrealistic.
What those quotes remind me of was that bit on CoD 4 when you were the gunner in that AC130 and the other crew are having an awesome time slaying hundreds of poor bastards, you know, like
"This is gonna be one hell of a highlight reel" "Man, that guy's pissed, that looked like a really nice car"
etc.
I always thought that was a bit unsettling, tbh...
at least in CoD 4 the church was not to be fired upon. Good to know SOMETHING'S sacred to the flytboys.
On April 06 2010 13:25 iaguz wrote: What those quotes remind me of was that bit on CoD 4 when you were the gunner in that AC130 and the other crew are having an awesome time slaying hundreds of poor bastards, you know, like
"This is gonna be one hell of a highlight reel" "Man, that guy's pissed, that looked like a really nice car"
etc.
I always thought that was a bit unsettling, tbh...
at least in CoD 4 the church was not to be fired upon. Good to know SOMETHING'S sacred to the flytboys.
The thing you need to realize is that air support is usually far removed from the action. If all you're shooting at are splotches of light on your scope, it's pretty easy to get desensitized to this sort of thing.
Public warning to all - This thread is NOT about Nationalism or blind hatred towards any nationality, American or otherwise. It is also not about the war itself and the justifications (or lack thereof) for the reasons behind it.
It is about a very specific incident that occurred; and if you can't keep yourself on that topic, please do not post in this thread.
On April 06 2010 12:49 starfries wrote: I think you're being a little naive, if you think they're just glad they saved lives. It's sad that the gunners and pilots are so callous, but it's by no means surprising. In fact, I'm shocked that the military tried to cover this one up considering it's not much worse than other gun cam shots. It just so happened that they made a mistake with the targets on this one.
We're asking these guys to go over there and kill people, so of course the type of people we get will be the type that has no problem with killing. If you give them a big gun and what looks like a target, they'll gleefully light it up. It's ugly. That's war.
I think QibingZero was suggesting the pilots were getting off on killing people, which I don't sense to be the case. A large part of training is preparing people psychologically to follow orders and kill without question. Chain of command and all that.
I don't understand what people are complaining about in terms of enjoyment, if there is any. Are the soldiers supposed to show remorse or something? Or treat each person they kill with respect? That's a little unrealistic.
I dunno, it sounded like they were having fun blowing the crap out of the building in the liveleak videos, and I didn't hear a "for Aiur!" to suggest that they were just happy to serve their nation. Maybe to a lesser extent in the wikileaks one, but it's not just following orders.
I think we agree that it's pretty much unavoidable though, and people who have moral problems with killing others (innocent or not) generally don't become soldiers.
Im having a hard time seeing this as news. . . Other then the fact that its caught on tape - this has been going on daily since 2003. Cameraman films cameraman getting killed. . . . my god, the irony. Should we have more people in Iraq with cameras?
US needs to GTFO. It was an embarrassment in 2006 when no WMDs were found, now its just insane. Majority of Iraqis want the troops out. How about having some respect for democracy
I see no reason for outrage. They fired at questionable targets and accidentally hit children that were impossible to see inside a van. Their demeanor is not an issue imo, you can't expect pilots and people to be completely politically correct and moral when they have to kill on a daily basis. Eventually it just becomes second nature and they can't help but take a less serious tone.
TL;DR: I'm military and been right over that neighborhood at a different time; the video may be disturbing but doesn't strike me as unjustifiable. The coverup is what we should save our real vitriol for. I know some of you will immediately dismiss this as you view everyone in the military as inherently evil. I find that silly. (There are also people who think I can do no wrong because I AM and I find that dangerous). Give it a read anyway.
War is an ugly, atrocious action. Bad things happen every day; good things only rarely. It's a waste of money, time, potential, and especially lives. What's in this video is distasteful to say the least, but it's also intentionally inflammatory (presumably so WL gets more clicks, and we all obliged them). This video is from a period of increasing, and increasingly violent, action by insurgents. Mortar and rocket attacks, IEDs/EFPs, executions in the most grotesque manner, were all becoming the norm.
The men you hear are reacting to stress from a variety of sources: lack of sleep because of indirect fire attacks, stress from friends being WIA/KIA, stress from feeling little support from the Iraqis at that time, from being away from home and family. In all that stress, they still behaved according to the rules of engagement. They positively identified small arms (which are a threat) and misidentified an RPG. Had I not known, I would also have called out RPG. It unfortunately looks like it, and that was amplified by the pose he took. WL added in captions to let you know there were cameras to amplify outrage, but having flown around Baghdad in helos everything looks like a threat after they shoot at you.
Shooting the van was also justifiable because the "insurgents" were going to collect their wounded and weapons. Clearly the aircrew were wrong, but not unjustifiably and probably only in hindsight. They followed the ROEs, received approval to fire, and did so efficiently. Further, the initial statements that said they were engaged with a violent group also does not strike me as "cover up." If you've ever been involved with an emergency situation you know the first reports out are usually wrong. The later reports, however, I find repugnant. Events like this make me want to stay in the military because I don't want the bastards trying to cover up what was a horrific mistake thinking I won't be right over their shoulder next time.
I have found virtually all the military members I was with in Iraq serious, professional (at least on duty!), and genuinely concerned for civilians. You saw the soldiers running out with the kids. Genuine concern there, from fathers, older brothers, cousins that know kids like that back home. The amount of work we did to keep civilians out of harms way was breathtaking sometimes because it put us in much more vulnerable situations. I'm good with that. I signed up, they didn't. As for the attitude and demeanor of the aircrew, yep, it's stomach-turning. I did see this on occasion, and it's not something I've seen many redditors say they teach you in training. It's a defense mechanism to deal with the privations and violence you see. Dehumanizing the enemy makes it easier to deal with it. If you've never read or seen a synopsis of On Killing you absolutely should. That's why running over a body was seemingly funny. I'm ashamed to say I've had similar gut reactions of really terrible things, and like those guys I feel awful about it when I reflect.
This post isn't to justify the killings, but hopefully to tone down some of the hyperbole. It's a terrible tragedy; it's a waste; I'd love to see us out of Iraq as soon as feasible. It's not a war crime. It's not 18-year-old kids just wanting to kill people for the fun of it. Now, let's all be pissed together that it took this long to get the real story out. OK, too long of a ramble but I needed to get it off my chest. Ask away if you have questions; I'll tell you what I can.
I think context should also be taken into consideration as well.
This was during 2007 where like lowbright said,
This video is from a period of increasing, and increasingly violent, action by insurgents. Mortar and rocket attacks, IEDs/EFPs, executions in the most grotesque manner, were all becoming the norm
basically that spoiler he put makes a ton of sense.
And on a side note, I am glad that mods are handing out bans to some of the ridiculous posts in this thread.
On April 06 2010 13:47 Emon_ wrote: Im having a hard time seeing this as news. . . Other then the fact that its caught on tape - this has been going on daily since 2003. Cameraman films cameraman getting killed. . . . my god, the irony. Should we have more people in Iraq with cameras?
US needs to GTFO. It was an embarrassment in 2006 when no WMDs were found, now its just insane. Majority of Iraqis want the troops out. How about having some respect for democracy
So I've spent about two and a half years deployed to Iraq, and seen my share of combat. I've served in several different infantry positions, both as a dismount and as a gunner in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle (the "Brad" mentioned in the video). I am always skeptical of these sorts of videos, because they lack context. As a third party, one never knows the full tactical situation, the histories of individuals and groups in the area, the mission and orders of the soldiers involved. So everything I say must be understood to be the view of a third party observer, one with a fair amount of boots-on-the-ground experience, but a third party nonetheless. Based solely on what appears in the video, it doesn't look like the gunner(s) had sufficient justification to fire. Simple possession of an AK-47 is legal in Iraq, and having it on the street isn't always enough to warrant immediate termination, and certainly not when the target is standing in a crowd of unarmed personnel. The "RPG" was poorly identified, and didn't appear to be of significant threat to the Crazyhorse element. It does sound like there had been recent combat in the area, so that may be why there was a minimum standard of ID used prior to engaging the targets. One thing to remember is that Bushmaster element can't always see everything that Crazyhorse does; they rely to some degree on the helos' info to inform their commands. If nothing else, this looked like a textbook situation for dismounted troops with air cover. It sounds like they had Bradleys and dismounts nearby, and they probably should have been sent in to deal with the situation. Dismounts have an infinitely superior view of what exactly is happening on the ground, and when combined with top-down info from the birds, they can properly assess a situation. If these RPGs and AKs were really cameras as reported by the site, then that would have been obvious to dismounts. Firing on the van completely blew my mind. This looks like a series of tactical mistakes combined with an overeager air element, combined with total disregard for the normal RoE (and again, I don't know if they were operating on some kind of modified Rules of Engagement). U.S. soldiers, in my experience, go to great lengths to prevent civilian casualties. Maybe things are different in the air, but those of us working on the ground have to look at everything we do, up close and personal. Don't paint U.S. forces with a broad brush based on the actions and mistakes of a few individuals. Also, remember that it's not the line troops that are performing coverups. Talk to your government about that.
The tape is, in my opinion, authentic. I was serving in the area at the time. I note four things in the tape:- 1. Double-tap --- engaging an individual or individuals after the threat has been eliminated.
2. Engaging personnel with anti-material weaponry; this isn't illegal but it looks bad. :-p
3. Failing to establish PID (Positive Identification of a threat) before engaging the "bongo truck" full of injured individuals.
4. Failing to establish PID before engaging what is, basically, a group of civilians wandering around the streets.
In essence, they shot some people for carrying weapons, then shot up the ambulance. I'm very saddened by this, since it's not the first violation of the ROE that I've encountered. The last one wasn't caught on tape. I had to put a stop to it myself.
That's two posts stating that the video shows a clear violation of the rules of engagement.
Also, I'd like to know how many of you people defending the actions of the soliders have actually watched and listened to the video?
At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".
Seriously, how can you defend that shit?
War is ugly and blah blah blah, doesn't make this any less atrocious.
It's one thing to kill for your own survival. It's another to kill because you love it.
On April 06 2010 14:47 EvilTeletubby wrote: Thanks lowbright... pretty much sums everything up correctly IMO.
dont blame all military personel, but if there is an error of judgment based on not completing procedures (lack of information, assesment of the situation), acting on stress as they say, is not a reason for them not to assume responsability for the result, since if there is clear error in the process of the assesment, someone is to blame.
I don't think they're in complete disagreeance Bill; lowbright's post and your first post both put most of their anger towards the coverup approach taken by leadership in this situation, which I completely agree with.
As far as the remainder, about whether the Rules were followeded appropriately or not; your first post does what is probably the best summation of the entire situation in his disclaimer; we don't fully know the situation that they were in, what had happened prior in that day (ie, taking fire from area prior in the day, and a few hours later armed men are walking around in the open might paint it slightly differently than if you had no prior information)... it's hard to get into their state of mind; you'd litterally have to have been in that situation yourself IMO.
For the second post - Pretty sure you can say the PID was accurate, for what it's worth, of the original group, in terms of what the men saw/thought they saw, and apparently given the history of the area, they had no reason to think otherwise.
I agree completely however that the shooting of the 'bongo truck' was incredibly gratuitous - there was, without a doubt IMO, no threat on that side. I do not believe anything the soliders did however was born of any malicious intent or for glee or gratification... I think they whole-heartedly believed every person they fired upon was an insurgent.
And yes - the comments made by the crew are very unempathetic in nature; that's without a doubt a simple disconnective defensive mechanism towards the duties they perform... as someone pointed out, it had nothing to do with the situation itself (which I'm glad none of the three quotes harped on - proof that all three posters knew exactly what it meant).
On April 06 2010 14:47 EvilTeletubby wrote: Thanks lowbright... pretty much sums everything up correctly IMO.
dont blame all military personel, but if there is an error of judgment based on not completing procedures (lack of information, assesment of the situation), acting on stress as they say, is not a reason for them not to assume responsability for the result, since if there is clear error in the process of the assesment, someone is to blame.
Not sure if you meant to quote me or the article itself; I'm not saying no one is to blame by any means... I'd be curious to know what the leadership had done in this situation... were they overstressing/overworking the men? Not continuously reinforcing the RoE's as they should have? A little too eager to give the authority themselves with partial information?
On April 06 2010 15:14 Bill307 wrote: Also, I'd like to know how many of you people defending the actions of the soliders have actually watched and listened to the video?
At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".
Seriously, how can you defend that shit?
War is ugly and blah blah blah, doesn't make this any less atrocious.
It's one thing to kill for your own survival. It's another to kill because you love it.
Um, I don't think they were 'killing because they loved it'. Yes, his statement is ridiculously appalling when you hear it as an observer, but I whole heartedly believe it was simply a complete detachment/dehumanization of your enemy and of the situation that is typically required in those conditions.
Not to say there aren't people who sign up just for the priviledge of shooting others... but I don't necessarily believe that's the case here. Read the second half of the second to last paragraph that lowbright posted, I think that sums up the point.
On April 06 2010 15:14 Bill307 wrote: Also, I'd like to know how many of you people defending the actions of the soliders have actually watched and listened to the video?
At 8 minutes 30 seconds you can hear the guy in the Apache, crosshair hovering over a gravely wounded individual that is clearly struggling to even get anywhere saying and I quote "Come on buddy all you gotta do is pick up a weapon".
Seriously, how can you defend that shit?
War is ugly and blah blah blah, doesn't make this any less atrocious.
It's one thing to kill for your own survival. It's another to kill because you love it.
Um, I don't think they were 'killing because they loved it'. Yes, his statement is ridiculously appalling when you hear it as an observer, but I whole heartedly believe it was simply a complete detachment/dehumanization of your enemy and of the situation that is typically required in those conditions.
Not to say there aren't people who sign up just for the priviledge of shooting others... but I don't necessarily believe that's the case here. Read the second half of the second to last paragraph that lowbright posted, I think that sums up the point.
You also have to remember that very few people are professional in any line of work when they don't think they are being recorded. Doctors, engineers, etc, all say callous things they might not want to hear repeated when they think they are just among friends and not being recorded. In other words, what you say is not always exactly what you are thinking and believe.
That said, what's wrong with wanting the guy to pick up a weapon? If he goes for it he's clearly not an innocent, which both justifies the original shot and allows the pilot to confidently take out an insurgent. I'd want him to pick up a weapon too.
Or are you suggesting that he should not have the mindset of wanting to kill insurgents? Because that would be very counter-productive to both the mission and his psychological health: very few people can honestly feel good about killing other people without dehumanizing them or creating an "us or them" scenario.
On April 06 2010 14:47 EvilTeletubby wrote: Thanks lowbright... pretty much sums everything up correctly IMO.
dont blame all military personel, but if there is an error of judgment based on not completing procedures (lack of information, assesment of the situation), acting on stress as they say, is not a reason for them not to assume responsability for the result, since if there is clear error in the process of the assesment, someone is to blame.
Not sure if you meant to quote me or the article itself; I'm not saying no one is to blame by any means... I'd be curious to know what the leadership had done in this situation... were they overstressing/overworking the men? Not continuously reinforcing the RoE's as they should have? A little too eager to give the authority themselves with partial information?
was disagreeing with some aspect with the article, as to te writer seemed to take this attack on all military personel (hes probably trying to fend of the haters who blame it on all on every amrymen) hence disagreeing with your opinion that it sums it up correctly. imo :D i just think someone must be blamed here (im no military expert, far from it). all error needs correction of some kind, if no it gets repeated, and the way the article is written, only one to blame is the war itself. the later article made good points of the possibilty of error that could have been prevented, and im sure its not absurd that these situations can be avoided.
in no way do i assume you are defending the "collateral murder" as only possible outcome.
I'm still surprised that people didn't understand that this is what the realities of warfare against an insurgency actually is. It was like this in Vietnam and its like this now, and it always has been this way.
The war in the middle-east can't be reduced to combat between American uniformed troops and 20 to 50 year old Arab men with long bears screaming "Death to America" as they shoot AK47s, its about human shields, dirty tricks, people of indeterminate hostility and firefights in crowded areas. Its about very little time to think and much potential danger. This has always been how these wars are.
If it was as easy as fighting off Arabs burning American flags in one hand and shooting guns with the left people would be able to survive it much more easily. There is a reason real combat veterans almost never talk about it, why "war is hell" and why combat changes a person. This is why, and this is war.
On April 06 2010 15:52 cz wrote: I'm still surprised that people didn't understand that this is what the realities of warfare against an insurgency actually is. It was like this in Vietnam and its like this now, and it always has been this way.
The war in the middle-east can't be reduced to combat between American uniformed troops and 20 to 50 year old Arab men with long bears screaming "Death to America" as they shoot AK47s, its about human shields, dirty tricks, people of indeterminate hostility and firefights in crowded areas. Its about very little time to think and much potential danger. This has always been how these wars are.
seems you know alot about warfare, and what do you do? your "reduction" seems more like a scene from counter strike game.
Im glad to see that someone came back in here and reeled this thread back in. It was getting out of hand.
I have been working hard to try and find some background on the subject and i finally found some. This situation really needs some context to really understand possibly what their rules of engagement were. According to the reports and the huffington post, there was a fire fight in the area about 2 hours before hand and it was considered a hot zone. They had humvees deployed on the ground and the Apache was providing cover.
The helicopter crew, which was patrolling an area that had been the scene of fierce fighting that morning, said they spotted weapons on members of the first group
Stuff like this helps to maybe put it into perspective that it is very dangerous for camera men to be accompanying armed men in a hot zone hours after fierce fighting.
On April 06 2010 16:03 lightrise wrote: Im glad to see that someone came back in here and reeled this thread back in. It was getting out of hand.
Not to side-track, but in all seriousness that's what I'm here for. If anyone ever sees a thread go so far OT like that, please don't hesitate to PM me.
On April 06 2010 01:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: I don't see reason for outrage here.
I agree. The whole reason they were there is people on the ground were being shot at from that area. 20 minutes later there are inarguably men with weapons walking into a building nearby. Assuming they were weapons really wasn't a big deal.
The ROE were not followed. The deaths were intentionally covered up the by the military when Reuters requested a FOIA on the deaths of their reporters. Think about how this is not a unique incident, this shit has been happening for 8 years.
"oh, deaths like this are unfortunate but hey it's the price of war." But why are they at war? Why are the soldiers there to begin with? For what noble purpose does the US military continue its occupation?
edit: yeah it's totally not a big deal that we killed some civilians. happens all the time bro. nevermind the fact that Iraq never had WMDs or had anything to do with the 9/11 WTC. hey it's their fault they were walking around where our helicopters were!
all of the above sentences are things people say to shift the uncomfortable feeling of partial responsibility. what does it take to say "yeah, we fucked up really bad this time. we'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again." do you see the fundamental dischord here? it places the blame on the victim for being shot at, rather than on the army for shooting the victim. If the goal of the U.S. army is to peacefully rebuild Iraq into a democratic nation that is friendly towards the West, as is oft said, they are doing a terrible job of it by killing peoples' neighbors. User was temp banned for this post.
Public warning to all - This thread is NOT about Nationalism or blind hatred towards any nationality, American or otherwise. It is also not about the war itself and the justifications (or lack thereof) for the reasons behind it.
It is about a very specific incident that occurred; and if you can't keep yourself on that topic, please do not post in this thread.
So am I the only one that thinks it's acceptable for soldiers to celebrate when they kill the enemy? Maybe not in this case since the enemy isn't clearly identified and they weren't much of a threat, but if I was in a firefight and I killed someone shooting at me, I would be slightly happy that I ended a serious threat to my life. I don't even blame insurgents for celebrating when their IED goes off and kills a bunch of people. You're supposed to be pumped up about killing your enemy, at least that's what I've taken from Braveheart.
Hmm watched the video and don't really understand why they fired at the truck picking up the wounded. Some people here have said it might've been dangerous, but was there any reason to think it was? I mean, atleast they saw the group of people carrying some weeapons before shooting them, but with the car... was there anything that suggested that they were hostiles besides that they could've been?
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote: Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote: Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
No, fighting with knife = no innocent children get wounded.
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote: Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
No, fighting with knife = no innocent children get wounded.
Fighting with knives means 50-100% casualties amongst combatants. Comparing an insurgency and civil war to a war is a bit murky though. You might be able to save a few kids. Unless of course you don't have modern communications either, which would make it impossible to control or regulate anything soldiers on the ground did. Think that wouldn't result it dead kids?
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote: Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
Maybe, but that would require that you actually kill a man with your own hands and not just pull the trigger from a long distance away. I have huge issues with young redneck soldiers shooting down arab men from a chopper with their counter-strike skills. It's pretty fucked up
On April 06 2010 18:07 Foucault wrote: Someone else annoyed about how modern war is fought by people who sit behind a gun far away from their victim playing real life counter-strike?
Get in there and stab the guy with a knife if you're such a man
That would result in higher casualties. Really, it is a blessing we fight with such advanced weapons.
Maybe, but that would require that you actually kill a man with your own hands and not just pull the trigger from a long distance away. I have huge issues with young redneck soldiers shooting down arab men from a chopper with their counter-strike skills. It's pretty fucked up
I think we should just all be angry at the people who sent them there
I actually agree with Focault on here. Civilian Casualties were always on the same level, until WW1 and have risen ever since. Instead of risking the lives of people who are paid to fight and possibly die the civilian life has become more expendable. 1. If civilians die, you get political backup due to the outrage in your own population. (This thread is a good example lol) 2. Civilians aren't as expensive as soldiers, talking of western standards, they were trained for years and carry expensive equipment.
Of course it's a bit difficult when at war in poor countries which can't afford a real army, because combatants there are almost always "civilians". Iraq is such a country, so let's not forget western soldiers there face an insane amount of pressure, not knowing who's a threat or not.
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
i wouldn't consider this to be "murder" because these kinds of mistakes happen during war time. being a war journalist is risky business and there are just so many ways for you to die.
On April 06 2010 18:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: I actually agree with Focault on here. Civilian Casualties were always on the same level, until WW1 and have risen ever since. Instead of risking the lives of people who are paid to fight and possibly die the civilian life has become more expendable. 1. If civilians die, you get political backup due to the outrage in your own population. (This thread is a good example lol) 2. Civilians aren't as expensive as soldiers, talking of western standards, they were trained for years and carry expensive equipment.
Of course it's a bit difficult when at war in poor countries which can't afford a real army, because combatants there are almost always "civilians". Iraq is such a country, so let's not forget western soldiers there face an insane amount of pressure, not knowing who's a threat or not.
Civilian casualties used to be much higher in the less civilised wars where cities would be levelled for resistance. But yes, there was a brief paradigm in which the country that would lose a war thought it was a good idea to put all their soldiers in uniform and line them up where the stronger invader could find them. That was never a historical standard because it's a really stupid idea. Civilians haven't become more expendable because of the invader, it's the intelligence of the defender that created this situation.
On April 06 2010 20:24 meegrean wrote: i wouldn't consider this to be "murder" because these kinds of mistakes happen during war time. being a war journalist is risky business and there are just so many ways for you to die.
Its not just journalists. Most of the time its civilians who've had nothing to do with the war.
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote: [quote]Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
Also why would they put a wounded man in a van filled with explosives if they were going to blow it up in the near future?
On April 06 2010 05:04 mdb wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
I dont think there was any danger of that van smashing into the helicopter.
On April 06 2010 05:03 FortuneSyn wrote:
On April 06 2010 05:01 Jibba wrote:
On April 06 2010 04:58 FortuneSyn wrote: [quote]
Oh ok, so next time you're helping a fellow citizen of yours wounded on the street almost dieing, make sure you go paint your car white and red and put a blinking light on top of it.
[quote]
Oh right, so if in doubt, shoot? Great protocol for engagement these americans have.
Yes, it makes perfect fucking sense when unmarked vans are often used to ram through barriers while carrying explosives.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know your chopper was in danger of being rammed by that van.
did any of you watch???
when the van rolled up, ground troops were already closing in to secure the area. unmarked van, suicide bombers.....
Well, that must have been the fastest ever suicide truck preparation.
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
I think that the war is fucking retarded, as do most of the people here, but you have to be incredibly fucking stubborn to find anything wrong in the way the soldiers acted here. Take it in a vacuum—it's all by the books.
WOW.
I cannot believe how many people are defending this. This is ridiculous.. finding all sorts of stupid excuses to defend this makes me sick. Of course almost all of you are American, probably too proud to admit a mistake committed by fellow countrymen.
"so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on....."
Seriously? Is that your argument? It was obvious that these people were no threat to anyone. There were people trying to hide from the firing helicopter and saving wounded people into a truck. Yes, there is probably a 1:10000000 chance that this truck can be harmful. But there will always be a chance equal to that or greater that ANYONE who looks like a civilian can be harmful. And the whole point is that THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO MAKE THE DECISION TO KILL PEOPLE WHO MOST LIKELY ARE INNOCENT.
And stop the bullshit about this being a situation where there is a lot of stress etc to defend their behaviour. Their decisions are really really poor and based on what they obviously wanted to believe, just assuming everyone is holding a gun without being certain and rapidly begging for permission to fire without having any more proof at all or them being under any threat at all. All the "what if he had an RPG that has a 1:1000 chance of killing them" bullshit shouldn't be enough to grant them permission to fire upon someone who they're not even certain has this weapon. Not to mention that there is an obvious lack of professionalism in the way they communicate and base their decisions for opening fire. The decision on whether they get to live or die is so easy to them, its really disgusting how you can defend that.
Some of you say they were just following orders, however, the reason they received the order to engage was because they told the people who issued the orders that they saw multiple hostiles with AKs and RPGs and whatnot. The way they made this sound 100% certain (they never ever questioned whether they were civilians or not, as if they were either stupid or just didn't care) obviously was the reason they were granted permission to open fire so quickly..
Honestly, take your European pretentious attitude elsewhere, it's not that we're "too proud" to admit that someone from our country made a mistake. Just because they're American doesn't mean we have some stubborn drive to protect the U.S.'s dignity at any cost. We're playing devil's advocate so that it doesn't turn into a 100% hate America discussion.
It is not an "attitude", I am using examples to show you that arguments some of you have used make no sense and are completely ridiculous. That is why I believe many of you might be too proud to admit that the decisions made by the people in this video were wrong. You have to admit though, that everyone is obviously not being 100% objective when obviously this is pretty much a thread where most Americans defend the soldiers and the rest are against them... (of course there are exceptions). And I also have to add that even though I admit my statement is a little too generalized, it would be naïve to believe that everyone who has posted in this thread has watched the video and given a completely objective unbiased opinion regardless of the nationality of the soldiers. That is very hard to do, and your opinion most likely automatically leans towards the defense of your own countrymen in the subconscious mind..
On the other hand, to stay on topic, what you are referring to was only the first paragraph in my post. I follow up by using valid arguments which should be pretty on-topic, so lets stick to that instead of starting a completely different discussion.
Nothing in your post was valid. You made a bunch of uneducated, civilian based judgments on the level of threat and the general situation without being there, all while exhibiting that you have almost no concept of what goes on during warfare or what rules of engagement actually are.
Every single military personnel in the world is going to react similarly in that situation. When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you. Any soldier from a NATO country should react that way because it's in their RoE. FAF, SAF, all of them. Can you warn first? Sure, when it's at a certain distance but at some point you just have to stop it.
Do you know why these videos exist? It's not some slip up that someone was recording or so that Dick Cheney could put together an awesome kill clip video set to "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor." Engagements are always recorded so that they can be reviewed and true mistakes, mistakes that were out of line and truly purposeless, can be corrected and punishment can be served.
And that's exactly what I thought, there came the great argument of "your arguments are invalid and you don't know anything about RoE" without referring to anything I posted.
So tell me then, what kind of argument is invalid? I start referring to this statement, made by Hawk:
so there's no conceivable way that the truck could have been rigged in advance, and when troops come near, it detonates? Come on.....
Do you believe that my statement about this not being good enough reason to attack the van to be invalid? How?
Something about this situation is not right. If the correct RoEs have been applied in this circumstance, and the soldiers in fact did not make any mistake, then I believe these procedures should seriously be reconsidered. For gods sake, at least they must have another way of identifying weapons at that range instead of just saying "yeah he has a weapon lets shoot" when the people who look like, and are likely to be civilians just walk around without seeming to be any threat at all. And this is just the first part of the story...
What is much worse and cannot be defended IMO (and yet has to be defended by some better argument than "there is a slight chance there are explosives in the van" (by which standards no one can survive because there is always a slight chance someone has a bomb in their pants and wants to kill you) is them shooting at the van.
When an unidentified vehicle enters your sector, while a hostile target is being called, you stop it before it reaches you.
The van was STOPPED and the driver was out of the vehicle on the ground helping a wounded man. Oh wait, there is probably a slight chance this 20 year old van had some autopilot configuration so it could drive without a driver and blow up American troops. There is also probably a slight chance that the van has some built in donatello-technology style wings that can be folded out and that the van can travel at the speed of light and strike the helicopter......... Seriously, stop telling me this van was a threat, the arguments for this are ridiculous, and they are far from solid enough to justify the shooting on the van and people around it.
Wake up guys. If you can't admit the shootings of the people who supposedly had AKs and RPGs is wrong, at least be able to admit shooting the van wasn't justified.
And no matter how you view it, even if say the soldiers were completely right in their decision (which I still believe they were not), then there is still something to be learned from this incident. This is not acceptable. Yes, it probably happens all the time, but that doesn't make this incident meaningless. Something must be learned from this to prevent this in the future, be it different RoE or just better equipment to distinguish a camera from an RPG, which with technology should be pretty easy. Think about how ridiculous it is, we are gambling with human life because we don't use a tool as simple as binoculars to distinguish two completely different objects. And also, maybe taking more than 3 seconds to make the decision to fire when there is no immediate threat could help!
estherolle:
They got clearance to fire on a questionable target. There is no way at all to verify that there was children in the van. Everything checks out here and it's an unfortunate circumstance. Anyone who says otherwise isn't even trying to be objective
So just because they got clearance to fire this is just an "unfortunate circumstance"? So just because there is a clearance involved everything is OK? Obviously that is not necessarily the case. Also, watch the video and see the process through which the clearance was issued, it wasn't as if someone analyzed the situation and made a decision. The guys in the helicopter asked for it a split second after they thought they saw hostiles on the ground, and someone else (who as far as I understand didn't even see the situation) gave them the clearance.
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.
In the end, does it really matter whether or not the ROE were followed? If they were followed, that means there's a systematic flaw in how the US conducts its occupations. Trying to win over a general population won't happen if this kind of incident repeatedly happens. There are no good results that can come out of something like this for anyone really; a 10 year old kid gets wounded and in 8 years grows up to blow himself up on a train in the West, a reporter just trying to do his job gets killed for no real reason, the entire region loses what little bit of faith it had in the US trying to help. You don't win an occupation by having trigger happy troops that lol about shooting some random ass guys walking around because they think they can get a double kill, and LETTING them do it without reprimanding them and covering their asses.
If the ROE were followed in that situation I can't imagine how anyone can believes the US will actually accomplish anything in the Middle East. The way I see it, the only way to really win an occupation is to have much stricter controls on when and where you can engage which will unfortunately result in more US troops getting killed. The payoff is that after 6 years of fighting there will hopefully be a populace that has a change of heart towards the occupation rather than having no real progress at all.
Watch the video again and try to empty your mind of the preconceived notion that the people were journalists. I see several people with weapon-like objects and the tell-tale shoulder-straps of AK-47s. It doesn't help that they're partially covered by a building and some tricks of lighting and perspective seem to push reasonable doubt over the edge. When the helicopter is about to lose sight of them, a guy leans over and a long cylindrical object can be seen just past the end of the house, and when he cries RPG, I can understand how any doubts that these are enemies of the free world left his mind.
When the van entered the battlefield, it was presumably to offer aid and comfort and recover the injured enemy combatants. Even if that was all they were going to do, it is reason enough for the helicopter to engage the van. And as Zeal said, it is pretty much understood by the Iraqi people at this point that you don't go near engaged military personnel, especially in an unmarked vehicle.
The entire scenario seems to be something of a freak accident in that the timing, perspective and lighting conspired to make a 'perfect storm' of confusion that led to this tragic result. To me the only really fundamentally 'wrong' thing the Americans did was to not send the children to the American hospital after they'd realized their mistake. And that truly is a shame.
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.
On April 06 2010 22:27 Hawk wrote: 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.
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.
I am amazed once again. Seriously, is this the logic by which you think it is OK to open fire at someone? If that's how it works I do not understand how US troops are able to let anyone live over there. These situations you use to justify shooting the van are completely ridiculous, the way the situation looks there is no way that is what is going to happen. If there is the slightest chance what you are saying will happen, it is still far from enough to justify the firing of that van, since circumstances show that very most likely this is only someone trying to help the wounded.
Let me try to make myself more clear: it is not hard to understand what you are saying is possible, however, the question is whether this is likely enough that it is worth killing them. Do you even agree that given the circumstances it is more likely that this van is just helping wounded people and is no harm? Or do you really believe that it being a bomb is more likely given the situation? If it is the latter, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, because such a belief would be (in my opinion) completely without logic and down right stupid, simply because there is NOTHING that points towards it, and how can I convince you if you don't agree with what is logical?
If you DO believe that the van most likely is innocent, but that there might be a slight chance that it can be harmful, then it is all a question of judgment and how likely it is the van can be dangerous. Is it likely enough that you are willing to kill several peoples' lives for your allies' safety? Where does the line go? Do you kill someone if there is a 1:1000 chance some of your allies will die if you don't? 1:100 chance? 1:10 chance? To me in that situation the chances are so slim given the situation and what it looks like that I would not fire. At least you can wait a little at no risk considering the guy is outside the vehicle trying to help wounded and see what he does, because chances are he is just helping (which he was, obviously) and waiting a little to confirm that the van was harmless instead of just firing away without thinking, which it seemed like they were doing.
Also I have to say I don't quite understand your logic. Are you saying that he was planting a bomb on the corps, and that he was then going to hop back in the car and go kill someone? Seriously, this is just getting more and more silly, give me a break. If you have any common sense you see that this is obviously not the case. It is mind-boggling to me how you cannot realize that everything points towards this as being someone who is trying to help the wounded, and contrary to your beliefs, to me it does make sense to go help someone after they have been shot.
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.
It's apparently a hard concept to grasp that there is a much greater chance these people are civilians trying to help the wounded and not carrying bombs. I do grasp that there is a slight chance the van could be harmful to ground troops though, but as I just wrote in my reply to Jibba (yours came as I posted) there are probably many other ways this can be solved than to instantly open fire at a van when there is no evidence it can be harmful, especially when the driver is OUT of the vehicle, the vehicle is STOPPED, and he is on the ground OBVIOUSLY trying to help a wounded person.
Don't tell me I can't grasp the fact that the van might have been dangerous if you can't even grasp the fact that it might not have been dangerous.
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.
I am amazed once again. Seriously, is this the logic by which you think it is OK to open fire at someone? If that's how it works I do not understand how US troops are able to let anyone live over there. These situations you use to justify shooting the van are completely ridiculous, the way the situation looks there is no way that is what is going to happen. If there is the slightest chance what you are saying will happen, it is still far from enough to justify the firing of that van, since circumstances show that very most likely this is only someone trying to help the wounded.
Let me try to make myself more clear: it is not hard to understand what you are saying is possible, however, the question is whether this is likely enough that it is worth killing them. Do you even agree that given the circumstances it is more likely that this van is just helping wounded people and is no harm? Or do you really believe that it being a bomb is more likely given the situation? If it is the latter, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, because such a belief would be (in my opinion) completely without logic and down right stupid, simply because there is NOTHING that points towards it, and how can I convince you if you don't agree with what is logical?
If you DO believe that the van most likely is innocent, but that there might be a slight chance that it can be harmful, then it is all a question of judgment and how likely it is the van can be dangerous. Is it likely enough that you are willing to kill several peoples' lives for your allies' safety? Where does the line go? Do you kill someone if there is a 1:1000 chance some of your allies will die if you don't? 1:100 chance? 1:10 chance? To me in that situation the chances are so slim given the situation and what it looks like that I would not fire. At least you can wait a little at no risk considering the guy is outside the vehicle trying to help wounded and see what he does, because chances are he is just helping (which he was, obviously) and waiting a little to confirm that the van was harmless instead of just firing away without thinking, which it seemed like they were doing.
Also I have to say I don't quite understand your logic. Are you saying that he was planting a bomb on the corps, and that he was then going to hop back in the car and go kill someone? Seriously, this is just getting more and more silly, give me a break. If you have any common sense you see that this is obviously not the case. It is mind-boggling to me how you cannot realize that everything points towards this as being someone who is trying to help the wounded, and contrary to your beliefs, to me it does make sense to go help someone after they have been shot.
Do you know what this is, yes or no?? This shit is incredibly common, and while it's all nice for someone sitting comfortably in there room to scream WHAT AN ASSHOLE, HE WAS PROBABLY JUST HELPING! the fact is, any uniformed guy who comes in with that mentality is going to have his guts blown clear across the desert. There are literally several hundred TONS of unaccounted ammo that is being used as IED munitions. The guy helping could have been rigged, he could have been rigging the truck (which, if completely loaded, would easily flatten that area) rigging the body.... a ton of things. That is FAR more likely than an someone honestly trying to hlep
'According to the Washington Post, 63% of U.S deaths in Iraq occurred due to IEDs.'
'Vehicles may be laden with explosives, set to explode by remote control or by a passenger/driver, commonly known as a car bomb or vehicle-based IED (VBIED, pronounced vee-bid). On occasion the driver of the car bomb may have been coerced into delivery of the vehicle under duress, a situation known as a proxy bomb. Distinguishing features are low-riding vehicles with excessive weight, vehicles with only one passenger, and ones where the interior of the vehicles look like they have been stripped down and built back up. Car bombs can carry thousands of pounds of explosives and may be augmented with shrapnel to increase fragmentation. The U.S. State Department has published a guide on car bomb awareness.[21]'
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.
In a very plausible situation that the terrorists stole a Iraq ambulance and armed it with explosives and drive straight into the us soldiers, it is against their rule of engagement to shoot the van just because it has a red cross on it?
I would rather believe it is the misconduct of those individual soldiers that caused this tragedy than to believe there are many more such occurrences just because this is so common during war. If couple more of such "commonly" occurrences are caught on video, it is going to make people more angry, and not just Iraqis.
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.
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.
I am amazed once again. Seriously, is this the logic by which you think it is OK to open fire at someone? If that's how it works I do not understand how US troops are able to let anyone live over there. These situations you use to justify shooting the van are completely ridiculous, the way the situation looks there is no way that is what is going to happen. If there is the slightest chance what you are saying will happen, it is still far from enough to justify the firing of that van, since circumstances show that very most likely this is only someone trying to help the wounded.
Let me try to make myself more clear: it is not hard to understand what you are saying is possible, however, the question is whether this is likely enough that it is worth killing them. Do you even agree that given the circumstances it is more likely that this van is just helping wounded people and is no harm? Or do you really believe that it being a bomb is more likely given the situation? If it is the latter, then there is no point in continuing the discussion, because such a belief would be (in my opinion) completely without logic and down right stupid, simply because there is NOTHING that points towards it, and how can I convince you if you don't agree with what is logical?
If you DO believe that the van most likely is innocent, but that there might be a slight chance that it can be harmful, then it is all a question of judgment and how likely it is the van can be dangerous. Is it likely enough that you are willing to kill several peoples' lives for your allies' safety? Where does the line go? Do you kill someone if there is a 1:1000 chance some of your allies will die if you don't? 1:100 chance? 1:10 chance? To me in that situation the chances are so slim given the situation and what it looks like that I would not fire. At least you can wait a little at no risk considering the guy is outside the vehicle trying to help wounded and see what he does, because chances are he is just helping (which he was, obviously) and waiting a little to confirm that the van was harmless instead of just firing away without thinking, which it seemed like they were doing.
Also I have to say I don't quite understand your logic. Are you saying that he was planting a bomb on the corps, and that he was then going to hop back in the car and go kill someone? Seriously, this is just getting more and more silly, give me a break. If you have any common sense you see that this is obviously not the case. It is mind-boggling to me how you cannot realize that everything points towards this as being someone who is trying to help the wounded, and contrary to your beliefs, to me it does make sense to go help someone after they have been shot.
Do you know what this is, yes or no?? This shit is incredibly common, and while it's all nice for someone sitting comfortably in there room to scream WHAT AN ASSHOLE, HE WAS PROBABLY JUST HELPING! the fact is, any uniformed guy who comes in with that mentality is going to have his guts blown clear across the desert. There are literally several hundred TONS of unaccounted ammo that is being used as IED munitions. The guy helping could have been rigged, he could have been rigging the truck (which, if completely loaded, would easily flatten that area) rigging the body.... a ton of things. That is FAR more likely than an someone honestly trying to hlep
'According to the Washington Post, 63% of U.S deaths in Iraq occurred due to IEDs.'
'Vehicles may be laden with explosives, set to explode by remote control or by a passenger/driver, commonly known as a car bomb or vehicle-based IED (VBIED, pronounced vee-bid). On occasion the driver of the car bomb may have been coerced into delivery of the vehicle under duress, a situation known as a proxy bomb. Distinguishing features are low-riding vehicles with excessive weight, vehicles with only one passenger, and ones where the interior of the vehicles look like they have been stripped down and built back up. Car bombs can carry thousands of pounds of explosives and may be augmented with shrapnel to increase fragmentation. The U.S. State Department has published a guide on car bomb awareness.[21]'
I do now what an IED is, and I am aware of a lot of what you wrote. However that was a pretty informing post, so I thank you for that. However, you fail to address a lot of my counter arguments in my post. As I said, there are still many ways this could have been avoided.
First of all, as far as I can tell the van is pretty much harmless where it is right there and then as it is stopped with the driver outside the van, and there are no US troops close to it. If the purpose was to blow it up there, then why would the driver step out of the van and get on the ground next to a wounded person's body?
If the driver didn't stop, and continued rushing towards US troops then of course there is no doubt that a quick decision to open fire on the van is unquestionable. But the van is STOPPED (how many times do I have to right this word in capital letters to point it out?) and the driver is OUT of the vehicle. What is the sense in that if the van is armed with explosives?
As the poster above me suggests, and like I suggested before (which you never commented on), wouldn't it be better to wait and see what the person on the ground did? If he goes back in to the van and starts rushing towards US troops, then obviously, as I said, I would also fear for the life of my allies and I would not hesitate to open fire. But first of all they don't even wait to see if that happens, and also, how the fuck would that make sense if he stopped the vehicle at the location of a wounded person first? Why wouldn't he just rush on and kill ASAP?
If the shooter waited, he could for example have seen the guy pick up the wounded, put him in the van, and drive away from the scene. This would make it unnecessary to shoot it, as it would be obviously to no harm for any US troops.
How can you tell if an unIDed van is harmless without seeing if the flooring hasn't been ripped up and replaced with C4 or warheads?? And you are wrong—when that thing shows, troops were already enroute and they tell them to stay back because of the van. That van was preventing them from securing the perimeter and searching the scene of the battle. They were within detonation range.
The reason he would get out if he wanted to kill them was to get a sympathetic sucker like yourself to think 'he's just helping' and when you go over, he blows the entire unit to bits. Read that wiki—there's a ton of ways to detonate the things. Hell, it's a movie, but pretty damn accurate... go watch Hurt Locker. It doesn't necessarily have to be the guy on the scene who is detonating. His buddy could be watching from inside his house down the street.
Furthermore, why would the military want to let an injured insurgent get away?? That's intelligence right there. He could have a map to all the IEDs in the area, their weapons cache...
There is a very logical answer for every one of those things you've asked. I don't deny that it sucks that apparently some innocent people were killed and hurt. But the way the war is, these guys did exactly what they had to do.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
How much does the excuse of war justify? Do Hawk, Jibba et al. also believe that it is justified for US soldiers to place 'drop weapons' on the corpses of civilians 'accidentally' killed as described in the following video?
On April 06 2010 18:54 [DUF]MethodMan wrote: I actually agree with Focault on here. Civilian Casualties were always on the same level, until WW1 and have risen ever since. Instead of risking the lives of people who are paid to fight and possibly die the civilian life has become more expendable. 1. If civilians die, you get political backup due to the outrage in your own population. (This thread is a good example lol) 2. Civilians aren't as expensive as soldiers, talking of western standards, they were trained for years and carry expensive equipment.
Of course it's a bit difficult when at war in poor countries which can't afford a real army, because combatants there are almost always "civilians". Iraq is such a country, so let's not forget western soldiers there face an insane amount of pressure, not knowing who's a threat or not.
Civilian casualties used to be much higher in the less civilised wars where cities would be levelled for resistance. But yes, there was a brief paradigm in which the country that would lose a war thought it was a good idea to put all their soldiers in uniform and line them up where the stronger invader could find them. That was never a historical standard because it's a really stupid idea. Civilians haven't become more expendable because of the invader, it's the intelligence of the defender that created this situation.
I can't find an online source but I have read about before WW1 civilian casualties being at about 10-20% which has risen to about 60% nowadays. I'm not so sure about the exact number, but I remember it being ridiculously high compared to the days before WW1. Like it was mentioned before, if you fight with a sword you just can't kill X enemies + X2 civilians. Controlling a drone from thousands of miles away also makes you less affected by the death you cause because it feels like a videogame and not like actually killing somebody (I'm not saying people don't know they're killing sb when controlling a drone, but it just doesn't feel like it).
When civilian casualties occured in pre-WW1 wars, it wasn't by accident.
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...
"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 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.
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!
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.
One of the most presumptuous and fallacious arguments possible.
1. There are many nations who are more 'free' than America.
2. The reason other nations are unhappy about us is not jealousy but our oppression and insistence on being world police. Imagine if Saddam decided that Bush was evil, sent a shit load of troops and fighter planes, and started doing what we are doing there. Do you think people would be pissed off at him here in America? I think so too.
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.
One of the most presumptuous and fallacious arguments possible.
1. There are many nations who are more 'free' than America.
2. The reason other nations are unhappy about us is not jealousy but our oppression and insistence on being world police. Imagine if Saddam decided that Bush was evil, sent a shit load of troops and fighter planes, and started doing what we are doing there. Do you think people would be pissed off at him here in America? I think so too.
Nobody seems to mind when we are "world policing" for all the damn humanitarian aid projects the military does.
Anyone who is shocked by this video and believes that American's are the only ones who talk like that in a wartime environment really should try to crawl out from under the rock they are in. These people are under a lot of stress...and objectifying your enemy is a very easy way to deal with it. Is it right? Probably not...but don't think America is the only one doing it O.o.
P.S And don't be so naive that you actually think we are over there because we want to police the world...little thing called natural resources has driven conflict since the beginning of time.
I'm not going to get into arguing whether the war is wrong or right since that's not what this topic is about.
I will however say that given the same situation (Yes, I watched the video and I'd be scared as fuck that those were real RPG's after I did see something that looked like AK-47s) I would most likely request permission to fire as well. It'd be my job to protect the troops below, and that includes taking out possible threats. I probably wouldn't react the way the gunners did, (trigger happy wanting to kill) but it's a war so I won't be quick to jump on the hate bandwagon. Shit happens that can really mess up the mind and make someone think that way.
It DOES look like a few people had AK-47's and when that one guy peeked around the corner (as if he was hiding) I would have deemed that as enough threat to be an RPG. The unmarked van was also a possible threat considering soldiers were moving in to the area.
Imho, there was also not enough information about the situation was released. All we have is a video of unclear items in the people's hands. Aside from the journalists there were items that looked similar to weapons in the hands of the other people. They could have been cameras. They also could have very well been weapons, but the anti-American/war media won't ever suggest that possibility. It's unfortunate that journalists were also killed, but that's the risk they do take walking around in areas like that.
TL;DR: I think the action was justified however unfortunate.
This 'stress' argument is being thrown around a lot in this thread. But again, how much does this justify? The soldiers who commited acts of torture, rape and murder in Abu Ghraib were also no doubt under stress; does this make what did acceptable?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
here 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.
Well, I just watched the video once again to be sure, and its not in the middle of a fire fight. First of all, to point it out again, there was never even a fire fight. There was one helicopter shooting. Second of all, the van arrives after the shooting is done, and troops are well informed about this and as far as we can tell from the video no one is close to the van at the time the van comes, stops, and tries to help the wounded (this is clearly pointed out by the people in the helicopter).
How is it not normal to go and help someone who is alive but injured after the shooting is over? Do you just sit and wait? Even though it can be argued that this is safer, you cannot say it is not a normal reaction to help a friend who is dying after he has been shot at and the firing seems to be over, which it was until he came with the van.
You can even see two children in the vehicle in the front right side window. I don't expect anyone to see this at first sight but I am sure things like this could have been seen if using different procedure, like for example examining the vehicle closer before opening fire. You can hear the soldier beg for permission to fire without even giving it any thought. "Can I shoot?" "Come on, let us shoot!"
And then of course the ending comment: "well its their fault for bringing their kids into a battle"
How stupid can you get? Seriously, at least at this point it must be obvious that PERHAPS the people you just slaughtered weren't armed forces but innocent people.. did they really think any attack group or any insurgents would bring their kids into battle? Yeah, they just happened to bring their two kids for the suicide bombing... What a bunch of idiots, seriously.. only explanation is that it must have been something they said because they wanted to feel better, not wanting to accept the fact that they actually killed a lot of innocent, unarmed people.
I don't know if this can be either condemned or defended - it's war and it's a tragedy but that's par for the course.
But for the hell of it, can someone who knows more than me please state what the general rules of engagement would be for a situation like this? I was operating under the assumption that a person would not only have to be holding a weapon, but would also have to demonstrate an immediate willingness to use it. Though, like I said, that's just an assumption - and I'm obviously wrong.
I think the interesting this is that while this is something that had to be 'leaked' in order to be seen by the western population, it's the kind of video, image, and story being passed along or seen every day by the civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. And we expect them to stop treating US troops as invaders.
this conversation could be a teamspeak recording from counterstrike or battlefield.
"all right, hahaha, i hit 'em" "oh yeah, look at all those dead bastards" "nice" "good shooting" "thank you"
the last living is crawling on the ground. "come on buddy, all u gotta do is pick up a weapon"
a van comes up to help the crawling wounded person, helicoptor is waiting for shoot permission. "come on let us shoot"
als sie dann nach erlaubnis auf den van geschossen haben. as they got the permission and had shoot the van. "i think the van is disabled" "go ahead and shoot it"
as the fog clears up and they see the dead driver in the van. "oh yeah, look at that. right through the windshield" "haha"
as the tanks are ariving the scene. "i think they just drove over a body" "really" "yeah" "maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it"
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
If the Russians or Chinese did something like this i highly doubt that you people would be making up excuses for their actions. This is not the first time something like this has happened, nor will it be the last. The UN can do jack-shit about American war crimes, or do anything to prevent them. A list of the crimes the US military committed in the last century would take up 2 pages of this forum in tiny font, this incident is insignificant in comparison. The people who ordered this will probably get a medal or a promotion somewhere down the line. Let's all remember what George W. Bush said when he warned Russia in 2008: "Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century" <---- bullshit
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 07:13 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?
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?
So it's more relevant to let a possible threat live and fire upon you potentially lethally instead of stopping the threat beforehand?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-- 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.
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.
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..
it just seems that the Iraqis are completely powerless in these situations. The us soldiers can assume whatever they want and kill innocent people and still get away with it. If they receive no criticism or penalty from superiors for accidentally killing civilians, next time when they mistaken something else as a weapon, they definitely will not hesitate to shoot.
This must really be one of the worst things I've ever seen. The USA invades Iraq, then decides everyone who's not pleased with that is an "insurgent", and even if you're not and you're simply in the wrong place at the wrong time then well, accidents happen. It's so cowardly, flying around in their helicopter deciding who gets to life and who gets to die as if it's a videogame, seemingly at random. No investigation done at all, just massacring anyone in sight.
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.
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.
It's in the attitudes of the soldiers and the government. I for one got tears when I saw these men (the Reuters employees) getting killed, not really saying they were "murdered" but it sure always is a tragedy.
Circumstances of being in a hot zone doesn't mean it's not a tragedy.
The "hot zone" being a city, four years after the war was ( supposedly ? ) won makes it somewhat special too. 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 )
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.
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...
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.
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.
*around here the RPG guy walks off screen and isn't seen again
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...
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.
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.
-- 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.
Wtf, the helicopter was a mile away. It's almost impossible to notice it unless they were specifically searching for helicopters. For bystanders, the attack could've simply be an isolated incident, why would it be risky to them to help the injured?
About the van being rigged with an IED: Why would the 2 people carry a wounded person to a vehicle carring an IED they want to detonate on enemy soldiers? The Apache was far enough away to remain unnoticed so they didn't think they were live-watched and had to put on a show.
I can't see reasoning behind this. If the van would have been rigged with an IED ... why shoot at it? No allied forces were in proximity, right? No immediate danger to allied troops, right? The van did stop and the driver was outside the van, right?
The guy in the back of the van was planning to blow up the people in the front of van as well as the wounded they stopped to pick up and the journalists. You know, left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing and all that.
On April 07 2010 06:27 Boblion wrote: with this kind of strategy it means that they don't really value the lifes of the Iraqi civilians compared to their own soldiers
Which is probably true for every military commander from every country since the beginning of time.
On April 07 2010 07:28 Mothxal wrote: Nice system of justice you have there, being an insurgent equals kill-on-sight?
I have a hard time believing this is a serious question. Can you reference me to any war movie or documentary in which one side didn't try to kill the other side on sight?
Invade a country -> people fight back -> declare them terrorists or insurgents and kill them on sight -> wonder as to why the population doesn't like you.
Those soldiers have no right to be there in the first place, but if nothing else they could at least decide to exercise some humanity and not kill people just because they are "bad"..
On April 07 2010 06:27 Boblion wrote: with this kind of strategy it means that they don't really value the lifes of the Iraqi civilians compared to their own soldiers
Which is probably true for every military commander from every country since the beginning of time.
You clearly didn't understand my post so you have quoted one sentence out of context.( Or probably just wanted to have an argument but i won't fall for it ). My point is that the US army doesn't want any casualties because of public opinion whereas in the past it wasn't such a big issue, so soldiers are allowed to shoot from a long distance at unidentified people even if the zone is full of civilians. You missed the second part of my post where i tried to explain the "distanciation" between soldiers and their targets and why they are avoiding direct encounters ( drones / planes / helicopters instead of infantry work like in previous conflicts ).
For everyone who claims the helicopter is in danger, it's almost impossible to hit a high flying moving helicopter at a mile range with an AK47, let alone an RPG. Another fact everyone overlooks is how hard it would be to even NOTICE the chopper.
On April 07 2010 08:42 Mothxal wrote: Invade a country -> people fight back -> declare them terrorists or insurgents and kill them on sight -> wonder as to why the population doesn't like you.
Those soldiers have no right to be there in the first place, but if nothing else they could at least decide to exercise some humanity and not kill people just because they are "bad"..
I guess refusing to kill someone that is trying to kill you can be called humanity, but I'd more quickly call it stupidity.
Edit: don't forget that the main way insurgents fight is not through gunfire but with IEDs. I'm sure it makes the soldiers much more eager to kill insurgents when they get the chance because if they let them get away, they aren't going to meet later on a battlefield. Instead it will be a car bomb that blows up taking out some soldiers or civilians. That's probably what people don't realize when they say this insurgent is no "threat" to any of the coallition forces. So let the insurgents live to go make IEDs, that's obviously not a threat to anyone.
My God, I love this forum so much more. I'm on this other forum on the same exact topic, and this bloke is just like "WELL HITLER TOLD GERMANS TO SEND JEWS TO DEATH IN FEAR OF THEM, SO HOW'S THAT ANY DIFFERENT FROM THIS?" -_-
First off, watch the full, unedited one, without the political editorializing:
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.:
Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example:
. Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.: Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
Should be put into the OP so people don't waste time reading through this thread of judgments on biased journalism.
oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? .
If I had 8 family members that were in an area that was actively engaging US forces, were carrying things that might potentially look like weapons, and were obviously pretty fucking close to real insurgents and then were moving around said hostile city suspiciously around US air support I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
I don't agree with the Iraq war, but to be fair most of the Iraqi deaths are Iraqi vs Iraqi violence. It is like blaming police for inter-city gang violence because they killed an innocent guy once. Also to be fair, news hasn't regularly reported casualties in years lol.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? .
If I had 8 family members that were in an area that was actively engaging US forces, were carrying things that might potentially look like weapons, and were obviously pretty fucking close to real insurgents and then were moving around said hostile city suspiciously around US air support I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Did you watch how those 8 people from the beginning? It was in broad daylight, in an very big open courtyard... walking slowly and talking on cell phones with cameras that looked like weapons... if i was an insurgent and had an IQ of a 6 year old i would know not to gather in open court yards and taking my time as if i was enjoying a nice conversation with the locals. at no times were they setting up for combat when the helicopter shot them they were gathered and talking on cell phones and had no idea where they were hit from. If they were insurgents wouldnt they know to discuss things inside a house or something...
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.: Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
On April 07 2010 10:04 Romantic wrote: I don't agree with the Iraq war, but to be fair most of the Iraqi deaths are Iraqi vs Iraqi violence. It is like blaming police for inter-city gang violence because they killed an innocent guy once. Also to be fair, news hasn't regularly reported casualties in years lol.
Yes not all iraqi deaths can be directly attributed to american troops but a majority and the others are certainly indirectly correlated. The americans are supporting one group over the other because they are more pro "democracy" and pro American which leads to those internal conflicts. And its not a war, its an invasion/occupation. It was war for the first week, after those first few weeks/months it became occupation versus resistance from local iraqis.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? .
If I had 8 family members that were in an area that was actively engaging US forces, were carrying things that might potentially look like weapons, and were obviously pretty fucking close to real insurgents and then were moving around said hostile city suspiciously around US air support I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Did you watch how those 8 people from the beginning? It was in broad daylight, in an very big open courtyard... walking slowly and talking on cell phones with cameras that looked like weapons... if i was an insurgent and had an IQ of a 6 year old i would know not to gather in open court yards and taking my time as if i was enjoying a nice conversation with the locals. at no times were they setting up for combat when the helicopter shot them they were gathered and talking on cell phones and had no idea where they were hit from. If they were insurgents wouldnt they know to discuss things inside a house or something...
They WERE insurgents. Otherwise, why did they have an AK-47 and RPG's? No, I'm not talking about the cameras that looked like weapons. I'm talking about the ACTUAL weapons they found with the bodies.
And, no, it's not as if they were just loitering. They were in an area where American troops had been taking small arms fire all day, where there were no noncombatants to the best of anyone's knowledge. And, on top of that, one of these individuals was aiming what ANYONE could mistake for an RPG at a Humvee less than 100 meters down the road.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? .
If I had 8 family members that were in an area that was actively engaging US forces, were carrying things that might potentially look like weapons, and were obviously pretty fucking close to real insurgents and then were moving around said hostile city suspiciously around US air support I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Did you watch how those 8 people from the beginning? It was in broad daylight, in an very big open courtyard... walking slowly and talking on cell phones with cameras that looked like weapons... if i was an insurgent and had an IQ of a 6 year old i would know not to gather in open court yards and taking my time as if i was enjoying a nice conversation with the locals. at no times were they setting up for combat when the helicopter shot them they were gathered and talking on cell phones and had no idea where they were hit from. If they were insurgents wouldnt they know to discuss things inside a house or something...
Considering in the area insurgents had been actively engaging in combat with US forces and insurgents had been firing RPG's as the Apache previously that day. And stop acting like the pilots should have been like "WAAIIIT, THESE MEN ARE TALKING ON CELL PHONES. TERRORISTS ARE TOO STUPID TO TALK ON PHONES IN PUBLIC WITH THEIR GUNS, SO WE SHOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT SHOOT."
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
stupid is as stupid dies. a couple thousands? and here we have a grand total of 129 journalists. so what are you crying about? if my family died in a nononcoms zone and this was video of it i'd be sad, but i'd also feel like they were kinda asking for it. i don't care what nationality these lives were either. do you not see what i said about over 20,000 people starving to death everyday? the fact that 8 reporters died is not an outrage. especially when they died the way they did: doing something they knew was life-threatening.
uhh... that the iraqi death toll has been over a million and that the us death toll is nearing 4.5k is the ONLY THING THE NEWS REPORTS. do you actually watch, or read the news? it's looks like a footnote on A8 or on the cnn ticker. they've been reporting that for over a year. 'these kinds of incidents'? really? because 1 reporter has died for every 45 americans?
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? .
If I had 8 family members that were in an area that was actively engaging US forces, were carrying things that might potentially look like weapons, and were obviously pretty fucking close to real insurgents and then were moving around said hostile city suspiciously around US air support I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Did you watch how those 8 people from the beginning? It was in broad daylight, in an very big open courtyard... walking slowly and talking on cell phones with cameras that looked like weapons... if i was an insurgent and had an IQ of a 6 year old i would know not to gather in open court yards and taking my time as if i was enjoying a nice conversation with the locals. at no times were they setting up for combat when the helicopter shot them they were gathered and talking on cell phones and had no idea where they were hit from. If they were insurgents wouldnt they know to discuss things inside a house or something...
have you watched other apache gun footage? it looks really similar. confusingly similar some might say...
On April 07 2010 10:33 Pellucidity wrote: So it would appear innocent people die in wars.. who knew?
Ya, lol. I just watched the video and the soldiers clearly did nothing wrong. I didnt read the thread, but I have trouble believing people are outraged about this.
A little background is given in this one that is absent from the edited one. First off, the Apache's mission was to support that infantry platoon. A few minutes before the video starts, that platoon takes RPG and small arms fire in that vicinity, so the Apache is called up to find the guys doing it. Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hsNUgILqRcy2oq1uFmVilJ1iQeAAD9ET6UK01 the 12th paragraph.
Our video starts. They see a large group of people, all adult males, several of whom are armed. You can see 2 AK's and at least one actual RPG around 3:30-3:45 . Next, they see a man peeking around the corner and pointing what looks like an RPG at the infantryman about four blocks away. Here is the third to last picture that the photographer took on his camera, believed to have been taken when he peeked around the corner and was identified by the Apache.: Ya guys see why the pilots were so nervous? Armed men? Check. Immediate threat to American lives? Check. They get permission to fire, and as soon as they have a shot, they take it. (For what it's worth, the actions of this group of people are very suspicious looking, especially in a combat zone mere minutes after US forces have been fired on. Including having the RPG firer simply poke around the corner and fire while everyone else hangs back to avoid backblast. See here for a slightly humorous example: . Obviously one example does not a trend make, but I'm just bringing it to your attention) Secondly, I have yet to see anyone say that the group of guys with the reporters were NOT insurgents. For extra emphasis, at 30:45 there is more small arms fire. At 31:10 you see guys with AK's and body armor running away from the area. There was DEFINITELY a battle going on in this area, something that Wikileaks biased editing job carefully omits. It wouldn't be the first time that Reuters stringers were hanging out with insurgents for some good pictures. For instance, this picture: was taken by none other than Namir Noor-Eldeen, one of the photographers killed in this attack. Wonder how he got that? How about THIS one: http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/losses-in-the-family/
Here, Namir is obviously standing about 10 feet away from insurgents as they commit an act of violence. I'm not passing judgement on him, I actually think it's good to have reporters as close as possible to the conflict, but I'm merely pointing out that hanging out with insurgents is something that Noor-Eldeen had been doing for a few years prior to his death. Anyways, back to the video. At 19:20, someone reports finding an RPG round. At 32:54, someone asks if it's been defused yet, and is told "no, it's still live" Even if everyone in Iraq has an AK, only the bad guys have RPG rounds. The discovery of an RPG round among the bodies makes me believe that Namir Noor-Eldeen was yet again hanging out with an insurgent group looking for great shots. He and the other photographer were almost certainly innocent of actual wrongdoing, but the armed men they were with were in all likelihood some of the ACTUAL insurgents who fired on US troops before the video started. As for the van that was attacked, I'll admit that it's slightly sketchier, but I'll clarify that by pointing out that the SAME VAN is seen AT the engagement site at 00:40 of the full video.
The pilots notice it and mention it as a possible target. And then somehow, by some coincidence, the group of adult men in that van magically appear shortly after the airstrike to give aid to insurgents? That's absolutely suspicious enough to make a case for engaging it. I don't know that I personally would have engaged that van, but I find in totally understandable that they did. Although, the video leaves out a lot of context. Yes, this video is disturbing simply for the sheer violence and immediate destruction. But think about it before mindlessly jumping to conclusions regarding what actually happened that day.
Should be put into the OP so people don't waste time reading through this thread of judgments on biased journalism.
I second this. I've been following through this thread but I would have loved to read all this from the start. Absolutely amazing post, thank you much for the information that was severely lacking about the situation.
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
if thats how you see the value of life... there is no hope in arguing with you. a life is priceless and an american life is not worth more than any other human being on this planet. This is the kind of thoughts these soldiers have as well. In the video, after they said identified the 11 iraqi with innocents within them. the soldiers said " oh dam, oh well! they shouldnt have brought their children to combat" thats your mentality as well. The soldiers did not have respect of the iraqis life they just terminated. Thats where most of the outrage comes from. Not from misidentification of cameras and weapons. The attitude and the conversation they had on the transmission were disgusting. Towards the end of the video when they shot 3 hellfire missles into that building. You can clearly see when the first missile struck there were civilians walking by that house. They were definetely dead after the blast. They didnt fire the second missile for a long time (about 10 mins) which is when other civilians and passerbyes where going into the building to check for victims and wounded which is exactly when they fired the third and fourth missile with people trying to help whoever was inside...
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.
One of the best posts arguing against the soldiers' actions so far in my opinion. No wonder no one defending the American soldiers has replied to this after two pages. Simply because there is no defense to the facts proven by this post.
My main issue isn't in the fact that the firing mission was conducted as I can see why it was conducted in terms of safety etc; but rather, the attitude of the people conducting it. They seem completely desensitized. To be quite frank, they seem itching just to shoot something and their general attitiude to the whole situation is just...urgh. It makes me kinda depressed thinking these guys were so unprofessional.
Say what you want about the soldiers behaviour, but these people are trained to kill, if they don't have a trigger happy mindset they're probably not going to be of much use in a war and will more than likely be a danger to their own unit.
I don't really see any wrongdoings, the cameras might have been just that cameras, but considering the ongoings in the vicinity and the fact that there was ground troops close by you simply don't take chances. These photographers were just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
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.
i agree with this 100 percent .. how can congress declare war .. and then not treat the combatants by the said rules .. How can anyone in their right mind not see that firing on that van is a clear violation of Geneva code ( originally treaty of Versailles ? think it was adopted earlier but revised in Geneva, if i remember correctly maybe even earlier than Versailles; the concept of wounded given protection and people removing them is very old , alittle afer the turn of the 20th century ? )...they were unarmed and removing wounded from the field how can this be justified ???? even if they were combatants ( which they clearly weren't),, I really want to understand how you fools are missing what is right in front of your face... You can talk all you want about cameras looking like weapons , or weapons found on the scene , or earlier engagements( wouldn't surprise me if they were planted knowing the way this was all handled by the military) however none of this is RELEVANT to nonviolent personal attempting to remove wounded .. so is this a WAR sanctioned by congress or not ? or are we just acting as hit squads that can do whatever we want with no regard to international law ?( which ironically enough is the supposed reason we are there in the first place ..cough cough oil oil , by the way not all of us Americans are so callus , obtuse , and blind to reality ,, but unfortunately i am beginning to think most are ( and sadly he represents the majority imo ,,, after 2 pages no response .. don't hold your breath typically people will compartmentalize a losing argument and focus on things they can defend .. there is no rational defense here so it will be ignored
Mastermind Canada. April 07 2010 11:12. Posts 4330 PM Profile Blog Quote On April 07 2010 10:33 Pellucidity wrote: So it would appear innocent people die in wars.. who knew?
Ya, lol. I just watched the video and the soldiers clearly did nothing wrong. I didnt read the thread, but I have trouble believing people are outraged about this.
clearly did nothing wrong firing on unarmed poeple removing wounded .. posing absolutely no threat ... what planet do you come from ?????? im glad you think this is something funny get your good lols in
stupid is as stupid dies. a couple thousands? and here we have a grand total of 129 journalists. so what are you crying about? if my family died in a nononcoms zone and this was video of it i'd be sad, but i'd also feel like they were kinda asking for it. i don't care what nationality these lives were either. do you not see what i said about over 20,000 people starving to death everyday? the fact that 8 reporters died is not an outrage. especially when they died the way they did: doing something they knew was life-threatening.
uhh... that the iraqi death toll has been over a million and that the us death toll is nearing 4.5k is the ONLY THING THE NEWS REPORTS. do you actually watch, or read the news? it's looks like a footnote on A8 or on the cnn ticker. they've been reporting that for over a year. 'these kinds of incidents'? really? because 1 reporter has died for every 45 americans?
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
if you want to talk $ value of a life: according to syracuse, american children cost about $300,000 each.http://www.syracuse.com/today/index.ssf/2009/08/raising_a_child_in_the_united.html
Let me get this str8 .. you are actually arguing American life is worth more based on monetary reasoning and cost of living statistics ???? i dont even know where to start with you ,, you are in serious need of therapy, please stop embarrassing us Americans with more than half a brain and some semblance of even relative morality
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.
Your bullets are based entirely on hindsight. The fact that an unmarked van approached the site to help people (which is also conjecture, btw. You still don't know who they are or what they're doing, you're just assuming they're good samaritans, which the end of Dreamshake's post contradicts) is a far more rare occurrence than an unmarked van approaching a hot zone as means of an attack. The entire reason the helicopter was there in the first place was because of an engagement, which means that there were additional arms nearby.
What is your definition of unarmed? This is the reason why applying the Geneva Convention is totally bogus to this and any other modern war. It's a product of an old era, shaped only by the winners, that is completely obsolete in nearly every capacity. Bayoneting someone is considered a war crime? I'll keep that in mind when I set off an explosive by making a cell phone call. What about a person standing on a rooftop with a mirror, or even a phone, spotting for a nearby sniper? Are they off limits? The reason we use insurgent is because we cannot describe people as soldiers anymore.
Point 1 is untrue, point 2 is unsubstantiated, point 3 is untrue and point 4 is unsubstantiated.
Ok, this thread has gotten pretty off track and I admit I haven't been helping much either. I'm still quite curious to know what the overall opinion of TL regarding issues that have arisen repeatedly throughout the thread.
I'm going to ask some very (seemingly) obvious questions so that we can all agree on some points. Please tell me if I word the questions incorrectly/inappropriately and feel free to make your own counter-poll. You don't need to provide reasoning for your answer as you'd probably end up repeating what someone else already said in previous posts.
Under given circumstances (the heat of battle, stress, etc.)
Poll: Was shooting the courtyard people the correct course of action? Were they a threat? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Was shooting the van the correct course of action? Were they a threat? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Was demolishing the occupied building correct? Were they a threat? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Under the given circumstances, could the incident have ended better? (With less casualties?) (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Were the soldier's reactions and remarks to their actions appropriate? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Should situations like this be prevented from happening in the future? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Poll: Do you think it is alright that people die in wars? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Not sure / Can't say
Another thing I've been wondering, from looking at other related videos on youtube... is there not an option in RoE for capturing rather than killing disabled targets? How about blockade the van with the armored division? And if supporting troops and 'friendlies' were nearby, why not use the overwhelming firepower to intimidate and force surrender rather than to overkill? (see DreamShake's post if you don't believe American troops were right around the corner)
I thought the whole reasoning for the development of "smart weapons" and advanced aiming/recognition systems was to reduce the amount of unnecessary casualties during battle. It's more like a single burst of gunfire would be enough to disable everyone and any additional firepower would only be to kill.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
World hunger is an issue, yes, but justifying "people get shot everyday" with "people starve everyday" is ridiculous. Just because one is wrong doesn't make the other less wrong. How about
Over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. It's not a tragedy that about 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States.
Is that any less wrong?
From reading DreamShake's post, I agree that the journalists shouldn't be there and it was their fault. Journalists get the best photos from being "right there". But being "right there" means you are gambling with your life. That day they lost the gamble.
My comments aren't impartial but I hope the poll is...
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.
The soldiers, in retrospect, obviously made the wrong choice.
The fact they are "flippant" about it doesn't mean a fucking thing to me. I for one don't want soldiers fighting that feel "sorry" for the enemy. You probably can't even count how many times they have had situations like this where the people WERE in fact the "bad guys."
This is a PR nightmare for the military tho.
Edit: To the person above me... either you are a troll or a fucking idiot.
Well using an edited video makes perfect sense... not sure what are you seeing? Here, let the arrow with text help you. Those pilots are bliiind how could they mistook that?
Even if 1 of 11 that were killed had a weapon, other 3 with 2AKs and 1RPG can be seen.
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers whould 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.
Yeah, like the "war" in the former Yugoslavia where not a single Frenchman, German or Swede took a life.
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers whould 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.
Yeah, like the war in the former Yugoslavia where not a single Frenchman, German or Swede took a life.
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.
AFAIK in former Yogoslavia 10 000 people were slaughtered during just 1 night only because forces that were supposed to bring peace there were ordered to care about their safety only. Maybe troll elsewhere?
I agree that the soldiers were just doing their jobs, they did not break any rules. In other words, these incidents are nothing but unusual, which makes the whole thing more tragic.
On April 08 2010 01:04 Tjuba wrote: In war European soldiers whould 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.
Yeah, like the war in the former Yugoslavia where not a single Frenchman, German or Swede took a life.
He was being sarcastic.
I hope.
I hope that too.
... but it seems like people believe I am trolling.
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.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
stupid is as stupid dies. a couple thousands? and here we have a grand total of 129 journalists. so what are you crying about? if my family died in a nononcoms zone and this was video of it i'd be sad, but i'd also feel like they were kinda asking for it. i don't care what nationality these lives were either. do you not see what i said about over 20,000 people starving to death everyday? the fact that 8 reporters died is not an outrage. especially when they died the way they did: doing something they knew was life-threatening.
uhh... that the iraqi death toll has been over a million and that the us death toll is nearing 4.5k is the ONLY THING THE NEWS REPORTS. do you actually watch, or read the news? it's looks like a footnote on A8 or on the cnn ticker. they've been reporting that for over a year. 'these kinds of incidents'? really? because 1 reporter has died for every 45 americans?
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
.................wow youre banned so you cant reply to me but lol are you serious, talking about the value of life IN FUCKING DOLLARS?! My god you must be the dumbest most pathetic being on this entire planet
edit: Oh, ok turns out that part was the exact reason you got banned, shoulda been longer imo...maybe if manifesto gets to read that
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
stupid is as stupid dies. a couple thousands? and here we have a grand total of 129 journalists. so what are you crying about? if my family died in a nononcoms zone and this was video of it i'd be sad, but i'd also feel like they were kinda asking for it. i don't care what nationality these lives were either. do you not see what i said about over 20,000 people starving to death everyday? the fact that 8 reporters died is not an outrage. especially when they died the way they did: doing something they knew was life-threatening.
uhh... that the iraqi death toll has been over a million and that the us death toll is nearing 4.5k is the ONLY THING THE NEWS REPORTS. do you actually watch, or read the news? it's looks like a footnote on A8 or on the cnn ticker. they've been reporting that for over a year. 'these kinds of incidents'? really? because 1 reporter has died for every 45 americans?
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
.................wow youre banned so you cant reply to me but lol are you serious, talking about the value of life IN FUCKING DOLLARS?! My god you must be the dumbest most pathetic being on this entire planet
edit: Oh, ok turns out that part was the exact reason you got banned, shoulda been longer imo.
This is the kind of people we put behind the most sophisticated weapon on earth. Figure whats gonna happen... This is the mentallity I am disgusted about... Not because of misidentification or just because of this video alone. After the release of this video many condemned the US and the soldiers but what it brought out was also a large number of people defending the soldiers and having that mentality about the worth of american life compared to iraqis. Many people here dont care if they are innocent or not as long as they are dead they cant harm us right? I am very ashamed and disgusted because of this.
My impression from the video was not that the troops did not break any of their rules or orders; they seem to be routinely following their training. Their attitude towards their targets does not strike me as sick or unusual. When you have to kill people in this manner, you become much more likely to feel it is right and enjoy it. That's just how cognitive dissonance works. If you have to torture people you're going to be more likely to believe they were bad guys--the mechanism is the same. So I'm not shocked about that.
But the very fact that I believe this to be routine and by the book is what makes it so unsettling. I would concede that the group of guys looks like they might have RPGs (or cameras) and some of them have AK47s. They are peacefully walking around. As most of you know, every family in Iraq, before the war, would likely have an AK47 in their home. If you were walking around a war zone, would you do it unarmed? So the AK47s make sense to me. Maybe it's a group of terrorists casually walking around--but it could be any other Iraqis as well. Do the Iraqis know that walking outside with anything resembling a gun is going to get them killed? If not, then this is a bit unfair.
Now the RPGs. Journalists go to Iraq. They have cameras. Do they know that having cameras will get them shot? Especially if anyone around them has a rifle or anything resembling it?
Are these two journalists palling around with terrorists? Or are they idiots who don't realize that they are going to get shot by having cameras and people with things that look like weapons (maybe are weapons)? Unless they are ignoring warnings, it seems unfair for them to be killed this way.
It seems unfair that anyone who looks like they might be armed or might have an RPG will be picked off in this way. This is clearly not "battle" or "self defense." At best, it's something like sniping--but if you snipe some guys who are eating breakfast, walking around, or whatever, and it turns out they weren't the enemy, then that's on you. You can't just say "well it was possible they were the enemy." That's no excuse for assassinating the wrong people.
And the van makes no sense. You can't just shoot any vehicle that drives up and wants to carry away wounded. This is a city--not trench warfare. These people live in this city or they're walking around. They aren't necessarily "combatants" and you can't just shoot everyone who isn't on your side--which seems to be the protocol they were so casually following here. The video disturbs me because I imagine this kind of action is routine and attention has only been called to this case because there were two journalists involved.
The moment we decided to screw up every single thing possible and have no real post invasion plan is what caused this. If anyone knows the story, the postwar transition was completely mishandled and screwed up. It took a long time after the initial invasion for the insurgency to pick up. Mainly because of how shoddily the transition was handled by America. Great at invading, terrible at nation building.
On April 07 2010 09:36 dNo_O wrote: oh no some journalists died. that's a risk they chose to take going to iraq. over 20,000 people starve to death everyday. it's not a tragedy that 8 died prematurely from being somewhere they knew it was risky to be.
THIS IS UNWARRANTED OUTRAGE! SOMEONE NEEDS TO PUT A STOP TO OUTRAGING OVER THINGS THAT AREN'T OUTRAGEOUS!
This is the kind of post that makes me disgusted. Some people here in US dont care about peoples lives that arent american! Just 8 innocent people died in this incident OH NO! Big deal what if some of those 8 people were your family members would you make a big deal? What if other people say the same to you when your family members died in an incident? American lives worth more? on what scale are you measuring? By the way over 1 million iraqis have died since the beginning of the invasion how many US soldiers died? a couple thousands... this is the kind of things they dont usually report! These kinds of incidents need to be brought into daylight! The new media in the US make such a fuss about couple US soldiers being killed every so often but they dont even report the millions of iraqis that have died... and people are crying propaganda and brainwashing without knowing that they themselves are bring brainwashed.
stupid is as stupid dies. a couple thousands? and here we have a grand total of 129 journalists. so what are you crying about? if my family died in a nononcoms zone and this was video of it i'd be sad, but i'd also feel like they were kinda asking for it. i don't care what nationality these lives were either. do you not see what i said about over 20,000 people starving to death everyday? the fact that 8 reporters died is not an outrage. especially when they died the way they did: doing something they knew was life-threatening.
uhh... that the iraqi death toll has been over a million and that the us death toll is nearing 4.5k is the ONLY THING THE NEWS REPORTS. do you actually watch, or read the news? it's looks like a footnote on A8 or on the cnn ticker. they've been reporting that for over a year. 'these kinds of incidents'? really? because 1 reporter has died for every 45 americans?
if you want to talk value of life, in the world it'd be impossible for you to win that argument too. the cost of life in most of the world is cheap. it's a lot pricier in america to raise a child and put it through school than any other country. the chances that an american citizen has a much better education than anyone who isn't from a western european country is a pretty safe bet as well. what scale are you measuring?
.................wow youre banned so you cant reply to me but lol are you serious, talking about the value of life IN FUCKING DOLLARS?! My god you must be the dumbest most pathetic being on this entire planet
edit: Oh, ok turns out that part was the exact reason you got banned, shoulda been longer imo.
This is the kind of people we put behind the most sophisticated weapon on earth. Figure whats gonna happen... This is the mentallity I am disgusted about... Not because of misidentification or just because of this video alone. After the release of this video many condemned the US and the soldiers but what it brought out was also a large number of people defending the soldiers and having that mentality about the worth of american life compared to iraqis. Many people here dont care if they are innocent or not as long as they are dead they cant harm us right? I am very ashamed and disgusted because of this.
The thing is, we need this type of person behind the gun. Whoever sits behind that gun is going to be killing a lot of people. And of course the military values the lives of their soldiers far more than the lives of the civilians on the other side, so they want them to shoot even in uncertain cases. Whoever is behind the gun is probably going to kill at least a few innocent people.
It takes a certain type of person to be willing to do that. I know that I, for one, couldn't deal with having their deaths on my hands. I'd even be uncomfortable with shooting enemy soldiers - after all, they're not all that different from civilians, or me; they just happen to be pointing a gun in my direction. You can talk about self-defense, but it's still hard. If we were born in the same country, we could have been friends.
The thing is, I'm fine with killing soldiers and innocents in a video game. Just not in real life. But the military needs people who CAN treat it like a video game, which is why it sounds like they don't respect the lives of those they're killing. They DON'T. That's why the military put them behind the gun.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
The New York Times recently posted an article providing rationalization of the soldiers' behavior: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html?hp. I would summarize it, but I have too much work to read the thread and find out the main issues.
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.
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 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.
regardless of the mitigating circumstances of what happened, the soldiers who made the decision to shoot have to be held responsible for their actions. you go off to be a soldier, you know you are going to have to make hard decisions, but it does not been that you can do something morally wrong like killing an innocent without being held accountable for your actions. in that moment, yes what they did may have been the right course action, yes the protocol may have called for it. but that will never make a wrong action right. the military should not have had to have their actions exposed like this, where the families of the killed are calling them out, seeking justice.
this happened a while ago, and i would have hoped that by now they could make things right.
When a suspect you have just gunned down are receiving aid from an unknown van, it is obvious that someone will conclude that the van is also a suspect. It's same as a high profile target getting away in a van. However in this case the suspects were journalist, and since the army already assumed they were the insurgents, there is nothing they could've avoided. I say whoever was driving the van are the one who made the unrealistic decision to step in, and the journalist for not wearing the vest. Those were the fatal decision in a war zone.
zizou21 United States. April 08 2010 15:11. Posts 3012 PM Profile Quote Wow that video is appalling. its like a bunch of children playing MW2
Honestly I think it's time for all this shit to come back and bite us in the ass.. I have no words for how ashamed I am right now..
at least one more American exists with sympathy for others ( i thought i was the only one) i love how these posters keep ignoring the fact that the van was fired upon while clearly removing wounded , while posing absolutely no threat . The first instance of firing is debatable( although the way the soldiers behave makes one think they are just itching to shoot some people with little regard to whom they shoot) the second instance i cannot see how any rational individual cannot see this as cold blooded murder ,,, on the young turks video that was previously posted he makes a very good point , There is no difference if your standing behind them with a handgun and pulling the trigger while they remove the wounded peacefully .. just because they are in a helicopter it is the same thing .... you all can keep ignoring this all you want ..
and now for a short rant ...... since when were iraqi insurgents terrorists ????? you people keep referring to iraqi combatants as terrorists .. so all Arabs that fight America are terrorists ? .. as a matter of fact terrorists never did come from iraq in a even marginal degree ,but i wouldn't be surprised if a whole new generation gets produced there now , its laughable... war on terror? more like we are making them through our illegal occupation and brutal treatment of another sovereign nations people . WMD were never found there , terrorists camps never existed there , we have no right to be there , and we should leave .some of you poeple actually believe we are there just to bring democracy ? lol what a joke we put Saddam in power in the first place , he was freaking usa/cia(bush senior backed? but coincidentally in the largest USA oil crises in history we decide to liberate a random country that just so happens to have some of the largest oil reserves on the planet , oh and one MINOR detail as well they don't freaking want us there !!!!!! hmmmmmmmm let me think , USA stood by and did nothing about the Rwandan genocide a true disaster of enormous historical proportions , but we really cared so much about Iraqi democracy ( cough cough i mean about iraqs oil )
From the way it was described, I was really expecting worse. I think situations like this are inevitable when you try to fight a war kilometres away from the action. You make as good a decision as you can with the information you have and according to the mission you are on and you go with it. The lack of respect and "trigger-happiness" makes everyone look bad, but I think it's a natural part of the job when you have to kill people. It's hard to kill people if you see them as real people with real lives and feelings. I'm glad there's no war here. That would really suck.
On April 08 2010 12:10 Fruscainte wrote: 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.
Read the timeline, there were 4 minutes between them ceasing fire and the van showing up, the van could have been a kilometer away at the time of the shooting.
I don't know exactly, but he was probably en route somewhere, given that his children where inside the car. He saw an injured man crawling around on the street. His first reaction was to pick him up. Now who are you to judge him for that.
These children survived, but they saw their father die right there.
I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote: I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work.....
They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in.....
Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable.
IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways?
Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though.....
Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter.
There's nothing surprising or shocking about the scene. It's a natural part of military indoctrination to dehumanize the enemy so soldiers can be more effective fighters. The euphemism of collateral damage is even used to minimize the horror of killing the innocents caught as long as it was part of the motion to kill the enemy. It's part of the military culture.
My guess is that it is merely a small sample of a systemic problem in the Iraqi "conflict and in the Afghanistan "conflict." Tactically, this is probably the best a uniformed army has to offer against guerilla tactics and a hostile population. Some other accounts of indiscriminate shooting and collateral "damage" from truthout. As long as the US army is determined to fight an determined insurgency, crimes against civilians will happen on a regular and probably daily basis.
It's terribly sad, terribly tragic. The whole affair is. Everybody involved is. Even the soldiers doing the shooting.
On April 08 2010 22:11 BlackJack wrote: Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter.
Shooting at an insurgent with an AK-47 is definitely something they have to do when there is minimal risk for collateral damage. In this situation, there was a lot of potential collateral (400%, which only increased once the van showed up). You can't see a difference there?
An assassination is a completely different ballgame..... They won't blow up the building while he's buying groceries..... They won't fire indiscriminately into a group just to get him.....
On April 08 2010 22:11 BlackJack wrote: Speaking of "not being a threat".. Obama just called for the assassination of an American living in Yemen. Which probably means that given then chance, soldiers would be authorized to kill him while he is buying groceries. That should be really aggravating if you hold the opinion that we shouldn't shoot insurgents with AK-47s because they can't harm a helicopter.
Shooting at an insurgent with an AK-47 is definitely something they have to do when there is minimal risk for collateral damage. In this situation, there was a lot of potential collateral (400%, which only increased once the van showed up). You can't see a difference there?
An assassination is a completely different ballgame..... They won't blow up the building while he's buying groceries..... They won't fire indiscriminately into a group just to get him.....
Well if you're okay with shooting an insurgent with an AK-47 then my post obviously wasn't referring to you
I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up.
On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote: I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work.....
They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in.....
Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable.
IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways?
Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though.....
About the ROE. Was this not in 2007 during the surge, during a period of extensive violence wherein the ROE were if you saw an armed person, you could shoot? Not defending it or anything, but it seems given the context, the soldiers probably shouldn't be the ones held accountable.
I was listening to KGO, a newstalk show in California; I'm not sure if it reaches some of you, but anyway..... The host brought up this exact topic in his show, and over the course his show that day, he and various callers debated and discussed this event extensively. I was very intrigued by both the host, Gene Burns, and his caller's points, and here's an archive recording. Begin the clip at slightly before 6 minutes. Advertisements and news are included, so you can just skip those.
I hope you guys take the time to at least listen to some part of it. It might not have been about the same things you guys were discussing, but I found it to address most of the issues I had been thinking of, and I think the host avoided anything irrelevant to this tragic event.
On April 08 2010 20:54 Romantic wrote: I'd like to see one of you do all of this analysis while you were in the cockpit of a chopper, somehow omniscient with a large amount of time to debate it before you did something. Realize that humans easily kill others and it is not indicative of mental issues on part of the killer. There is nothing particularly disturbing about the way they acted.
Given the close proximity of ground forces I likely wouldn't have shot the van, even though earlier they had reports a van was picking up and dropping off fighters (Good intel, except they weren't fighter they were cameramen). Hindsight is a good thing to have.
I would re-access the use of air power to combat an insurgency, but given the current policy they got permission based on the discernible information and fired. lol @ the idea they just wanted to shoot cameramen for fun.
Blaming individuals acting completely within policy and reason won't get you anywhere. If you have a problem with engagement and air power VS insurgency rules then write your representatives and be vocal about it. Just don't expect them to listen if your solution is, "omg get rid of choppers make them fight hand2hand maybe they will stop being so cruel!!!" because that is just silly.
Do you think that they would have been given permission to fire indiscriminately like that if they said they could confirm at least 8 people, and only 2 AK's? Seriously, they're impervious to small and medium fire while in that Apache, and likely far enough away that any of the heavier arms that the Iraqis have wouldn't work.....
They could have easily gone in closer for a better look, or they could have fired warning shots instead of killing unarmed people, suppressing them until the ground forces come in.....
Seriously, these guys misled the person who gave them permission to fire. Regardless of whatever else was going on, they lied, and killed innocents as a result. The end result was probably preventable.
IF they followed the proper ROE and they were allowed to fire in that specific situation at that time, without the misleading information, then it would be a serious problem with the ROE. Little threat and a large potential for collateral damage, yet going for it anyways?
Shooting on the van is probably the most understandable decision in this whole video..... Yet again, warning shots may have been more effective though.....
About the ROE. Was this not in 2007 during the surge, during a period of extensive violence wherein the ROE were if you saw an armed person, you could shoot? Not defending it or anything, but it seems given the context, the soldiers probably shouldn't be the ones held accountable.
The only thing that the soldiers would be accountable for would be lying, which caused the unnecessary deaths of innocents. IF the ROE would have allowed them to fire in that situation, with the correct information given, there is something wrong with the ROE and the soldiers wouldn't be accountable for any of the deaths. If that was the case, then there was something seriously wrong with the ROE.
On April 09 2010 04:21 Fruscainte wrote: I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up.
Maybe the reporters wanted a behind-the-scene story?
Regarding the van, I've already explained it. There was a period between the shooting and the van passing by so there's a good chance the driver was NOT aware of a gunship with its sights on him. I don't believe the van was present during the accident, the driver just saw some bodies. The gunship was a mile away, it's not like it was just hovering overhead.
Why do you people automatically assume everyone knows what an Apache gunship is and what armaments it carries. I certainly didn't. Of course you can be a smartass after the incident and criticize the man for not realizing a bunch of trigger happy troops are aiming at him.
The driver's actions are not completely unreasonable given the circumstance... Stop treating him like a nutcase.
On April 09 2010 04:21 Fruscainte wrote: I'm still curious as to why these men were within 100 meters of an active US - Insurgent conflict and were not wearing the blue vests they were supposed to be wearing to show they were reporters. And why the drivers of the van thought it was a good idea to drive their van full of children to try and take the bodies of the men the Apache overhead just shot up.
Maybe the reporters wanted a behind-the-scene story?
Regarding the van, I've already explained it. There was a period between the shooting and the van passing by so there's a good chance the driver was NOT aware of a gunship with its sights on him. I don't believe the van was present during the accident, the driver just saw some bodies. The gunship was a mile away, it's not like it was just hovering overhead.
Why do you people automatically assume everyone knows what an Apache gunship is and what armaments it carries. I certainly didn't. Of course you can be a smartass after the incident and criticize the man for not realizing a bunch of trigger happy troops are aiming at him.
The driver's actions are not completely unreasonable given the circumstance... Stop treating him like a nutcase.
I agree, some people here assume every Iraqi is a war professional, while people there are just busy with their everyday life. And once again there were 4 minutes between the shooting and the arrival of the van, but fruiscante doesn´t seem to read the answers he gets.
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote: 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.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote: 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.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
This is a link to a discussion that was on npr didn't see it skimming though the place.
Personally this is just an issue on how US forces engage and how reliable information coming up to their air attacks. + Show Spoiler +
An investigation into the 2007 killing in Baghdad of 12 civilians -- including two employed by the Reuters news agency -- by soldiers firing from a U.S. Army helicopter revealed that there were some weapons with the group, NPR's Tom Bowman reported today on Morning Edition. Investigators said there was an assault rifle, rocket propelled grenades and an RPG launcher, Tom says.
But a video of the incident, which was leaked yesterday, still shows the "horrific" nature of war and the danger to civilians, Tom adds. At one point, a van that turned out to have at least two children inside was fired on by the helicopter crew.
Here is the discussion Tom had earlier with ME host Renee Montagne:
Update at 12:12 p.m. ET. The New York Times writes that: "Late Monday, the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, released the redacted report on the case, which provided some more detail. "The report showed pictures of what it said were machine guns and grenades found near the bodies of those killed. It also stated that the Reuters employees 'made no effort to visibly display their status as press or media representatives and their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the coalition ground forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them.' "
Update at 4:15 p.m. ET. "Reporter: Hard To See How Tragedy On Leaked Video Could Have Been Avoided."
Our original post -- "Video Of Errant U.S. Shootings Of Iraqis, Newsmen Made Public":
[ their audio discussion] [the shorted video]
Chilling classified video of a 2007 collateral damage incident in which U.S. Army Apache helicopter crews apparently mistook Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists for insurgents was made public by a watchdog group.
According to WikiLeaks, which made the video public on its WikiLeaks.org website, the video shows the mistaken killing of two Reuters journalists, photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. The site has posted the video on YouTube with the title "Collateral Murder."
The video appears to show two men walking along a Baghdad street with what looked to the helicopter crews to be weapons but what are said by WikiLeaks to actually be cameras. On the audio, the U.S. crews discuss targeting, with their 50-caliber machine guns, of what they assume to be a group of insurgents.
After the initial bursts of helicopter gunship fire take down the journalists, WikiLeaks says civilians can be seen coming in a van to the aid of the wounded journalists, only to be targeted themselves.
Among those killed and injured were two children in the van who were seriously wounded.
The video's authenticity was confirmed by a Defense Department official according to Reuters.
WikiLeaks said: Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.
An excerpt of a Reuters report: Major Shawn Turner, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said an investigation of the incident shortly after it occurred found that U.S. forces were not aware of the presence of the news staffers and thought they were engaging armed insurgents. "We regret the loss of innocent life, but this incident was promptly investigated and there was never any attempt to cover up any aspect of this engagement," Turner said. The helicopter gunsight video, with an audio track of conversation between the fliers, made public for the first time a stark view of one bloody incident in the seven-year war in Iraq.
Reuters issued a statement in response to the video: "The deaths of Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh three years ago were tragic and emblematic of the extreme dangers that exist in covering war zones. We continue to work for journalist safety and call on all involved parties to recognise the important work that journalists do and the extreme danger that photographers and video journalists face in particular," said David Schlesinger, editor-in-chief of Reuters news. "The video released today via Wikileaks is graphic evidence of the dangers involved in war journalism and the tragedies that can result."
The video is the rare chance to see a wartime instance of collateral damage, the deaths of non-combatants.
It is truly troubling, riveting and sad. It is some of the hardest video to watch coming out of the Iraq War.
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote: 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.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
Ok, so what is your proposed new system?
I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives. I am not a military general nor a commander in chief, so I suspect that the changes could best be proposed by someone more like that.
However, I can think of two changes that would make an incident like this (in my estimation) much less likely. One would be if all of the facts of incidents like this, including videos, tapes, etc. were released to the public in a timely manner (i.e., as soon as releasing them does not directly reveal vital things like troop movement, etc.). We should not, as a country, need to hide from the public the killing that is done in our name. If letting us see it would undermine it, then maybe we should be allowed to see it anyways, hm? That would be the "free society" approach wouldn't it?
Second, we can stop putting the lives of our military personnel above the lives of civilians. In legal warfare, you are supposed to put your military personnel at risk in order to kill enemy personnel. It seems that we are putting civilians of the country we are occupying--their lives--very low on our list of priorities. It should not be worth it to us to kill one civilian in order to kill one enemy, or to kill one civilian in order to avoid the death of one of our soldiers. Granted, if the enemy puts civilians in harm's way, then we might in some cases be forced to not give in to such tactics. However, a situation where we can easily confuse normal civilians doing normal civilian things with "taking out the enemy" is an unacceptable state of affairs. We should abstain from "taking out the enemy" in such situations unless we have no other choice but to partake in such tactics (no other choice meaning that the war is a matter of survival of civilians and that we can't fight it without such tactics--I do not believe this is the case in Iraq).
Basically in war you have battles, where both sides know they are fighting, and then you have assassinations, where you find the enemy and strike them while they're chillin'. I do not believe that taking people out while they are chillin' needs to be such a staple. Sure, if you come across Bin Laden, then you may go for it. But you don't go around shooting every tall guy with a beard, especially if they're in crowds that might even be unarmed. I think that setting a reasonable standard for this kind of assassination or "sniping" or whatever you want to call it, should be quite possible.
It seems like the U.S. is overusing this method because it means less risk to themselves, and that's not fair to civilians. If you choose to go to war, you should take some of the risk, not pass it on to civilians. Now I know the soldiers are brave. I'm talking about the country's policy. I think the U.S. is too scared that losing troops will hurt the American public's "will to fight"--their approval of the war. They are afraid of having another situation like Vietnam where support for the war falls through before they can "achieve victory." They teach this in their officer schools. This is a big part of how they think about wars. They actively have a strategy for keeping the American public in support of the war, and this seems to involve keeping unfavorable videos from getting out. This is why they have the whole "embedded journalist" thing, for instance. I think this whole enterprise of "hiding the truth so that we can win the war even if we would be against it were we to know (or be able to see and feel) the truth" is inherently unethical. It is precisely the kind of approach that allows things like war crimes to become not only feasible, but over a long enough period of time, expected. Manipulating the public's opinions by obfuscation and omission, especially when it comes to people doing harm in "our name", should be considered a serious crime.
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote: 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.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
Ok, so what is your proposed new system?
I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives.
(edited for length i read all of it)
I'm not being a dick by saying it, I am just try to spark some conversation on what can be done to change the rules. Indiscriminate air power use was one of the reasons Vietnamese people never really liked the United States, and one of the reasons Operation Rolling Thunder failed.
The military sees this high-tech assassination as progress, but I am sure they understand the risk. You become police man, judge, juror, and executioner all in one.
I can see why they use the checks they have in place rather than an alternative. Baghdad is just about as foggy as war gets. Dozens of different groups with different or similar goals with different approaches as to how to achieve them. The "coalition" if you can still call it that, has to weigh potential damage of using weapons in a city where errors can easily happen, versus letting potential combatants live and endangering civilian and coalition troops (by allowing future\present threats to live). You're right, politics is a huge part, both in the United States and in Iraq\Afghanistan. Hell, it is important to win over countries like Iran, Israel, UK, Russia, everyone all at the same time. It isn't a clear balancing act either so I'm not too quick to condemn current rules.
In this specific case I do not see any attempt by the pilots to just shoot journalists for fun. Some of them clearly weren't armed, I can see that. Still, the reason they were there is they were told ground forces were being shot at from that area, perhaps the courtyard itself. They got there, found people with a mix of guns, cameras (mistaken for guns), nothing, and restrained firing until they pointed what looked like a weapon at US troops on the ground. Killed everyone in the courtyard, most of whom were probably innocent aside from hanging around at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Then, acting on previous intelligence that a van had been picking up and dropping off fighters, shot at a van killing more innocent people and injuring kids. To be clear, insurgents regularly try to pick up wounded or retrieve weapons after a fight, sometimes even killing their own survivors so they can't be interrogated. It isn't as if this is the first time the situation has arose.
How would you look at this situation if they WERE all guns and these people ended up killing US\Iraqi troops\civilians because the pilots had to jump through too many hoops before firing? Worth considering.
Since Obama's presidency a lot of policies are changing for the better, like not threatening to nuke every country if they do so much as spit on your shoes. In Afghanistan, at least, NATO has taken to trying to win over the population more than they have in the past. High-tech assassinations play a part in pissing people off, but they also play a part in preventing people from dying by killing people who may or may not kill them. Little confusing, eh? There will always be times where we will get the balance wrong. We could send a cruise missile into a house and kill a nice little family that never would have hurt anyone. Likewise, we decide not to blow the house to pieces and let a Taliban leader who ends up ordering a dozen suicide bombings to live.
I am not pretending to know what the right balance is, but I am quite sure saying there is an absolute right or wrong answer for every situation isn't likely the right way to go. I was particularly pissed off when they shot a Hellfire into a building as a civilian stood right next to the building. Would it have hurt to have waited 10 seconds for him to walk away? Hell, even if they left the building you could use the 30mm which would be less deadly to nearby innocents. THAT is definitely something I think sways too far into the, "I don't give a fuck just fire so that these SOBs don't attack us in the future" side.
I think your post is pretty on the ball. Similarly, because it's just a sensible tame post, it's liable to mostly be washed under many posts that are more provocative than good.
On April 08 2010 13:52 KissBlade wrote: 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.
You seem like a reasonable guy. What did you think of my post around page 29 or so? I tried to read most of the thread, looking mostly for people who would say things different than what I was thinking, to see where the disagreements would lie. Did my post miss much of that?
I think you are worrying too much about what the soldiers were thinking. I think the question of whether to blame the soldiers or not completely misses the point. They were doing their jobs. The problem I have with the incident is precisely that. The U.S. has set up an approach, an attitude, and protocols that make this kind of thing seemingly routine and seemingly justified. But the results are unacceptable. I imagine that there are dozens more incidents, if not hundreds (or thousands?) identical to this one, except two Reuters journalists didn't die in those--only civilians who may or may not have had guns or gun-looking things in their hands. I believe that this is not "battle", and it's not "assassination of the enemy" either. It's the killing of innocent people. If the killing of innocent people comes about from the system that we have set up, then it's not unavoidable, and it's certainly not justified. It means that we need to scrap that system and replace it with one that makes this--the unrestrained killing of groups of civilians who clearly are not in any kind of battle nor any kind of enemy--much less likely to happen and much more impossible to cover up, keep out of the press, etc., which brings me to my second point. The military and government would have kept this evidence under wraps for 50 years were it not for illegal leaking of it. Do you think they share any guilt in keeping facts from the American public so that they can keep the American public in favor of the war? Because this video seems like it is likely only a tip of the proverbial ice berg. That is why the video bothers me.
Ok, so what is your proposed new system?
I suspect that you mean this question as a kind of refutation (a nice one line sarcastic response to my, if I must say so myself, thoughtful and eloquent post), so let me first say that I don't think someone pointing out that the state of affairs is unacceptable has to back up such a claim with proposed alternatives.
(edited for length i read all of it)
I'm not being a dick by saying it, I am just try to spark some conversation on what can be done to change the rules. Indiscriminate air power use was one of the reasons Vietnamese people never really liked the United States, and one of the reasons Operation Rolling Thunder failed.
The military sees this high-tech assassination as progress, but I am sure they understand the risk. You become police man, judge, juror, and executioner all in one.
I can see why they use the checks they have in place rather than an alternative. Baghdad is just about as foggy as war gets. Dozens of different groups with different or similar goals with different approaches as to how to achieve them. The "coalition" if you can still call it that, has to weigh potential damage of using weapons in a city where errors can easily happen, versus letting potential combatants live and endangering civilian and coalition troops (by allowing future\present threats to live). You're right, politics is a huge part, both in the United States and in Iraq\Afghanistan. Hell, it is important to win over countries like Iran, Israel, UK, Russia, everyone all at the same time. It isn't a clear balancing act either so I'm not too quick to condemn current rules.
In this specific case I do not see any attempt by the pilots to just shoot journalists for fun. Some of them clearly weren't armed, I can see that. Still, the reason they were there is they were told ground forces were being shot at from that area, perhaps the courtyard itself. They got there, found people with a mix of guns, cameras (mistaken for guns), nothing, and restrained firing until they pointed what looked like a weapon at US troops on the ground. Killed everyone in the courtyard, most of whom were probably innocent aside from hanging around at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people. Then, acting on previous intelligence that a van had been picking up and dropping off fighters, shot at a van killing more innocent people and injuring kids. To be clear, insurgents regularly try to pick up wounded or retrieve weapons after a fight, sometimes even killing their own survivors so they can't be interrogated. It isn't as if this is the first time the situation has arose.
How would you look at this situation if they WERE all guns and these people ended up killing US\Iraqi troops\civilians because the pilots had to jump through too many hoops before firing? Worth considering.
Since Obama's presidency a lot of policies are changing for the better, like not threatening to nuke every country if they do so much as spit on your shoes. In Afghanistan, at least, NATO has taken to trying to win over the population more than they have in the past. High-tech assassinations play a part in pissing people off, but they also play a part in preventing people from dying by killing people who may or may not kill them. Little confusing, eh? There will always be times where we will get the balance wrong. We could send a cruise missile into a house and kill a nice little family that never would have hurt anyone. Likewise, we decide not to blow the house to pieces and let a Taliban leader who ends up ordering a dozen suicide bombings to live.
I am not pretending to know what the right balance is, but I am quite sure saying there is an absolute right or wrong answer for every situation isn't likely the right way to go. I was particularly pissed off when they shot a Hellfire into a building as a civilian stood right next to the building. Would it have hurt to have waited 10 seconds for him to walk away? Hell, even if they left the building you could use the 30mm which would be less deadly to nearby innocents. THAT is definitely something I think sways too far into the, "I don't give a fuck just fire so that these SOBs don't attack us in the future" side.
Okay, that's a reasonable response. I am pleasantly surprised to read your post. My sense is that if we aren't sure what the right balance should be, we should err towards making the war riskier for the professional soldiers and our equipment rather than putting that risk on civilians. After all it's we who are fighting the war, not the civilians. If we aren't willing to go there on foot, or at least let videos of what we're doing get out, that should be a warning sign that we might not be doing things right. Some "intelligence" shouldn't be a free pass to shoot up any crowd of people (even if some have guns! that doesn't mean they're "enemy combatants", as convenient as it would be were we allowed to make this assumption). It seems to me that innocent people are being murdered to make the war a little easier, and yeah I tend to feel this is wrong. I don't believe that the life of one U.S. soldier is worth 10 Iraqi civilians, as our policies seem to.
Generally speaking, putting your military assets in harm's way when you don't need to is a no-no so far as basic military strategy goes. This is why invading a country under the premise of liberating and protecting its' citizens from themselves is absurd and why this kind of war is unwinnable... We should just pack up our gear and leave. The fact is incidents like this are a regular occurance not because soldiers are evil, but they're in a conflict where the enemy is indistinguishable from the people you are supposedly there to protect. I would like to see someone who doesn't become paranoid with prolonged exposure to that kind of setting. This is not to say this kind of thing is excusable, but rather to say it's understandable and regrettable.
No amount of changes to ROE or policy will fix this because the screwed up part is the situation itself. These guys are stuck in a place where they don't know what they need to shoot.
Yeah, the problem is the military's duty isn't to put its soldiers in harms way. Kinda like how a defense lawyer isn't going to actively try to risk his client's safety, even if he is guilty.
On April 09 2010 10:21 HeartOfTofu wrote: Generally speaking, putting your military assets in harm's way when you don't need to is a no-no so far as basic military strategy goes. This is why invading a country under the premise of liberating and protecting its' citizens from themselves is absurd and why this kind of war is unwinnable... We should just pack up our gear and leave. The fact is incidents like this are a regular occurance not because soldiers are evil, but they're in a conflict where the enemy is indistinguishable from the people you are supposedly there to protect. I would like to see someone who doesn't become paranoid with prolonged exposure to that kind of setting. This is not to say this kind of thing is excusable, but rather to say it's understandable and regrettable.
No amount of changes to ROE or policy will fix this because the screwed up part is the situation itself. These guys are stuck in a place where they don't know what they need to shoot.
Yeah, I wouldn't consider this a war that can be won through military action. It's like using a sledgehammer to drive in a nail. As a side note, I'd like to mention that the US military action actually promotes more civilians to take arms against the foreign intrusion.
Because of the blurring between civilians and insurgents, civilian casualties cannot be avoided. And this in turn, spurs more civilians to fight, creating more collateral damage. It's a vicious cycle, the US is more or less creating and sustaining their own enemies.
For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years?
On April 10 2010 17:29 EmeraldSparks wrote: For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years?
As far as I know, they do not release ANY guncams or combat footage unless it is a specific press release or leaked by military personnel. It would be a misconception to say they actively stopped it from being released; they do not release anything, wrongdoing or not.
That said, the actions of the pilots shows a side of war they don't want people to see. They still hide things from WW2. Initial reactions are always to suppress suspect events. Take the World War 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari. The United States had a cargo ship full of mustard gas in a port called Bari where it was attacked and hit by German bombers trying to disrupt supplies to Allied troops in Italy. It took the UK government in 1987 to finally admit the Allies had brought chemical weapons to Europe in case they were needed.
The soldiers in the video followed the rules, got permission, and fired. Did they mistake cameras for guns? Yes, to a degree. To say this was more than an unfortunate incident is to say that there was a giant conspiracy with cloaks and daggers to kill innocent people for absolutely no reason between 2 helicopters, ground crew, AND military intelligence\command. They did their own investigation when it happened and decided the soldiers did not act incorrectly.
On April 10 2010 17:29 EmeraldSparks wrote: For those of you who are claiming that nothing wrong happened, can you explain why the military lied about the incident and attempted to suppress information about it for three years?
As far as I know, they do not release ANY guncams or combat footage unless it is a specific press release or leaked by military personnel. It would be a misconception to say they actively stopped it from being released; they do not release anything, wrongdoing or not.
That said, the actions of the pilots shows a side of war they don't want people to see. They still hide things from WW2. Initial reactions are always to suppress suspect events. Take the World War 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Raid_on_Bari. The United States had a cargo ship full of mustard gas in a port called Bari where it was attacked and hit by German bombers trying to disrupt supplies to Allied troops in Italy. It took the UK government in 1987 to finally admit the Allies had brought chemical weapons to Europe in case they were needed.
The soldiers in the video followed the rules, got permission, and fired. Did they mistake cameras for guns? Yes, to a degree. To say this was more than an unfortunate incident is to say that there was a giant conspiracy with cloaks and daggers to kill innocent people for absolutely no reason between 2 helicopters, ground crew, AND military intelligence\command. They did their own investigation when it happened and decided the soldiers did not act incorrectly.
The soldiers didn't act correctly, but America is acting incorrectly.
On April 06 2010 02:04 EtherealDeath wrote: I understand that once the firing begins, firing on a van that comes to pick the wounded up may be necessary
wat?
so when innocents get shot and other innocents try to help them its ok to kill em?
wow...
And how do you know that they are innocent. Usually innocent people don't run into a battle, however one sided that one was.
Edit: and as the above poster mentioned, the helicopter trooped lied about the van peoples' actions, such that it portrayed an image which suggested insurgent reinforcements to the people back at command who then gave them clearance to engage.
yes innocent people stand to be shot at to prove their innocence
Julian Assange (co-founder of wikileaks) was on Colbert Report last night and agreed that it appears at least one person in the group has an AK-47 and one person in the group has an RPG. He also admitted that the video was slanted and edited in a way to maximize political impact and that only 1 in 10 people watch the full unedited video.
These soldiers are probably, from their christian believes, opposed to idea that we're related to monkeys through evolution. I'm opposed to the idea that I should be related to the soldiers. How did we come to this? How are we gonna get out of it?
AN OPEN LETTER OF RECONCILIATION & RESPONSIBILITY TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE From Current and Former Members of the U.S. Military
Peace be with you.
To all of those who were injured or lost loved ones during the July 2007 Baghdad shootings depicted in the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video:
We write to you, your family, and your community with awareness that our words and actions can never restore your losses.
We are both soldiers who occupied your neighborhood for 14 months. Ethan McCord pulled your daughter and son from the van, and when doing so, saw the faces of his own children back home. Josh Stieber was in the same company but was not there that day, though he contributed to the your pain, and the pain of your community on many other occasions.
There is no bringing back all that was lost. What we seek is to learn from our mistakes and do everything we can to tell others of our experiences and how the people of the United States need to realize we have done and are doing to you and the people of your country. We humbly ask you what we can do to begin to repair the damage we caused.
We have been speaking to whoever will listen, telling them that what was shown in the Wikileaks video only begins to depict the suffering we have created. From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how U.S.-led wars are carried out in this region.
We acknowledge our part in the deaths and injuries of your loved ones as we tell Americans what we were trained to do and what we carried out in the name of "god and country". The soldier in the video said that your husband shouldn't have brought your children to battle, but we are acknowledging our responsibility for bringing the battle to your neighborhood, and to your family. We did unto you what we would not want done to us.
More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny.
Our government may ignore you, concerned more with its public image. It has also ignored many veterans who have returned physically injured or mentally troubled by what they saw and did in your country. But the time is long overdue that we say that the value of our nation's leaders no longer represent us. Our secretary of defense may say the U.S. won't lose its reputation over this, but we stand and say that our reputation's importance pales in comparison to our common humanity.
We have asked our fellow veterans and service-members, as well as civilians both in the United States and abroad, to sign in support of this letter, and to offer their names as a testimony to our common humanity, to distance ourselves from the destructive policies of our nation's leaders, and to extend our hands to you.
With such pain, friendship might be too much to ask. Please accept our apology, our sorrow, our care, and our dedication to change from the inside out. We are doing what we can to speak out against the wars and military policies responsible for what happened to you and your loved ones. Our hearts are open to hearing how we can take any steps to support you through the pain that we have caused.
Solemnly and Sincerely, Josh Stieber, former specialist, U.S. Army Ethan McCord, former specialist, U.S. Army
One of the men mentioned in the letter above, Ethan McCord was interviewed today on The Current, a CBC Radio current affairs program.
Again, to recap, he is the soldier in the video seen pulling the children out of the destroyed van. It is a very informative, even-handed interview that should serve as required listening for anybody still taking part in this thread:
Pt 3: Ethan McCord - When Wikileaks uploaded the video of an attack on Iraqis by two US Apache helicopters, it included footage of two soldiers rushing injured children toward help. Army specialist Ethan McCord recognized himself caught on grainy video on the very day his view of that war and his definition of patriotism changed forever
Word on the street is Julian Assange has since canceled his interviews for months to come and gone underground. A government manhunt is rumored to be underway.
I don't find the footage to be an outrage. I would ask why they were firing on those targets at all though, and what the reporter was doing there.
A lot of people have criticized the attitude of the soldiers. I agree that you shouldn't have someone just itching to fire controlling a gun like that. It also seems barbaric that when they saw the kids body the first response was "Ah, damn. Oh well" - but what do you expect? They were sent there to kill, and that wasn't the first unnecessary death that they saw. Don't expect them to go all theatrical and cry.
EPT![[image loading]](http://orangejuiceblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/hypocrisy-meter-03-21-07.png)
![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/2vj756p.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i39.tinypic.com/aph1kz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www3.ausa.org/chapweb/tdc/assets/images/US_Army_Logo.gif){kind=logo}
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Afghan_AKS-47.jpg/800px-Afghan_AKS-47.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/ga/ul/777002772041/inlineimg/Y/sheeple.png)
. We have compulsory voting and a fairly decent political system that's given us alot of good leaders and governments. Sorry you feel so jaded and cynical about your own system, but you know, you might be wrong?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NVih0.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_sW65ilskOC8/Spm1fE1ZQJI/AAAAAAAAZ24/4pQIvKW2d1g/s400/FoxNewsWeDeceiveYouBelieve.jpg)
![[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)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://duckbar.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/c7/c76f1e685afea0b6172abd701e69a42d890d2bd5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq318/ChristoffTravel/Insurgent_RPG_Fail-c01.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QtbCj.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SjcDF.png)
