open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Collateral Murder
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 : last (10)

Author Topic

Jin Nib
Resplendent Knives
Posted - 2010.04.07 23:55:00 - [151]
 

Originally by: Hadrian Septim

Except it is, you can even see the trigger handguard. And the guy behind him has an AK, FYI.
Also one can't ignore that they had mere moments to try and figure out what it was he was holding. I've had plenty of leisure time to look at it and I still can't tell if its a tripod or an RPG. And I wouldn't have even considered it being a tripod except that I'm told that there were a couple of photographers down there. Given the guy behind him certainly is holding something that looks like a rifle I'd assume it too was a weapon.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:17:00 - [152]
 

Originally by: Hadrian Septim
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing
Edited by: TheLordofAllandNothing on 07/04/2010 22:54:17
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: TheLordofAllandNothing
They make it sound like they were hanging out with armed insurgents(no one was armed, get that through your heads).



http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg
Image is now a link. Please don't put images directly into your posts. Shadow.

Look at dat camera lens.


It is a camera tripod, it is shaped nothing like an RPG tube. Also i wouldn't be holding a 15lb tube right up in the air like that... They also reported "4-5 guys with aks!" , there is nothing remotely looking like an AK there.




Except it is, you can even see the trigger handguard. And the guy behind him has an AK, FYI.


+1 for RPG.

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:19:00 - [153]
 

Edited by: Astenion on 08/04/2010 00:23:37
Have any of you ever heard of ROE? They followed proper ROE, got clearance to fire, and fired. Whoever says, "But they weren't in any danger OMGWTFBBQ!!!!" has obviously never been in a warzone and never in Iraq. By the time you realize you're in danger, you're either dead or lucky that they missed...especially in an urban situation.

Whether or not they were civilians remains to be seen, and if they were then it's a horrible tragedy. But if they were civilians, then it was an ACCIDENT...albeit a terrible one. CAS missions aren't about shooting people loitering on a corner. It involves intel on movements, times, and other mitigating factors. They're not just a bunch of roving motorcycle gangs. Here's another clue: embedded journalists don't go around with a camera stand in the middle of a warzone. The pilot and gunner did their job...if the ROE was too lax, then the commanders need to be held accountable.

It looked like an RPG in the video, and the optics on that aircraft are much more hi-res than the recording. If they made a mistake, then it's a terrible mistake, but don't start calling them baby killers because a van FULL OF CHILDREN pulled up onto the scene IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT and started moving bodies. Who the hell brings their children to the middle of a hotzone where a dozen people just got mowed down by a friggin' Apache? Did you overlook THAT fact? Did you also know that a common tactic in Iraq is to load up vehicles full of women and children and send them headlong into checkpoints, so when they're fired upon and killed without knowing it's women and children, everyone can point the finger at the big, bad, evil Americans?

Come on. It's easy to sit there in your chair a million miles away when you don't even know how to take the safety off an AR-15 and spout holier-than-thou speeches about how horrible these people are in an EDITED video.

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:23:00 - [154]
 

Originally by: Astenion

Come on. It's easy to sit there in your chair a million miles away when you don't even know how to take the safety off an AR-15 and spout holier-than-thou speeches about how horrible these people are in an EDITED video.


I don't know you can say this all you want and these arm chair Call of Duty players still won't get it unfortunately.

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:24:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Kitimortoa
Originally by: Astenion

Come on. It's easy to sit there in your chair a million miles away when you don't even know how to take the safety off an AR-15 and spout holier-than-thou speeches about how horrible these people are in an EDITED video.


I don't know you can say this all you want and these arm chair Call of Duty players still won't get it unfortunately.


I'm gonna sig this. Winnar!!!

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:36:00 - [156]
 

I really wanted to chime back in on this one because I think there's a point here that has been somewhat overlooked.

Looking at that gif, I'll admit as much as the next guy that it looks somewhat like it could be an RPG and the guy behind looks like he might have an AK. But I can't be absolutely sure and I would ask anyone if they could tell me with 100% certainty that that's what they are. Perhaps someone with the training to recognise these things could be more sure than me but based on these pictures I don't see how anyone could be absolutely sure. This is only getting onto my point...

...my point is the lack of transparency into government and military operations. Looking at that video, I would have said that if those pictures are what the gun operator was looking at, those pictures are not clear enough for him to do his job properly. However, we don't get to look at this kind of thing most of the time (unless it's government sanctioned declassified material) because of the cloak of secrecy over this type of material. If enough of a fuss was made by the general public having seen this (or worse), the military would be forced to consider their options. I'm sure one of those options would be upgrading the video cameras in the Apaches, I do not believe for a second that the technology does not exist for that picture to be a lot clearer than it actually is (what are they still using the original 1980's cameras?) Then there would be no question as to whether the soldiers had acted properly or not in the first instance.

Wikileaks went to tremendous effort to ensure that video got out into the public, you can bet it wasn't going to be available under the freedom of information act any time soon. If they've got other stuff that is more incriminating (as they suggest), I think it's good that it gets out in the open because it prompts debate. If the American military or any other military are not taking enough responsibility to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to an absolute minimum, and this type of thing or worse is common practice, then they do not deserve to keep their cloak of secrecy. Balancing that with not releasing information that endangers military personal is something I couldn't deny would be an immensely difficult job. And perhaps for this reason it's better that we be glad Wikileaks exists, for this purpose, because for one thing the US government certainly don't want it around.

I see Wikileaks as the Internet in miniature form: it's beneficial to everyone most of the time (including the US government I should imagine) and really bad for some people some of the time; at the end of the day, it's simply disseminating information that otherwise we wouldn't know about. I honestly think we should thank our lucky stars that this kind of organization exists and give it our full support.

For those aiming this squarely at the American military, I really doubt this is endemic of just the Americans, I'm absolutely sure other countries have got their skeletons too. I also totally agree that these situations need to be avoided wherever possible, or your just building up problems for the future, the very thing given as the (bullsh*t) reason for the coalition being there to begin with.

And I still have not heard what I consider to be a valid reason for why the rescuers were fired upon and that alone should warrant an investigation and/or change of situational policy.

- Wuffles

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:42:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: Astenion
Have any of you ever heard of ROE? etc.


And for what it's worth I agree with almost everything you've said, apart from to say if it was an accident, steps should be taken to make sure it's avoidable in the future.

- Wuffles

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:45:00 - [158]
 

Edited by: Kitimortoa on 08/04/2010 00:54:16
Originally by: Wuff Wuff
I really wanted to chime back in on this one because I think there's a point here that has been somewhat overlooked.

Looking at that gif, I'll admit as much as the next guy that it looks somewhat like it could be an RPG and the guy behind looks like he might have an AK. But I can't be absolutely sure and I would ask anyone if they could tell me with 100% certainty that that's what they are. Perhaps someone with the training to recognise these things could be more sure than me but based on these pictures I don't see how anyone could be absolutely sure. This is only getting onto my point...



Problem is, they were called in to support ground troops that had been taking fire for the last 4 hours, well they found what they thought were the hostiles...Everyone hopping up and down about how wrong it was seem to be overlooking that fact, and the fact that press are supposed to be wearing something that identifies them as press, which those guys decided for whatever reason, not to wear it that day.

I don't think this needs to be in the public domain what so ever, and I think it was rather irresponsible of wikileaks to put it out there. Not to say they don't provide something that is worth while, but it's counter productive to getting this war **** under controll. There are just some things you don't throw out there like that, reporting on it is one thing, putting this video out is another.

Another thing people seem to overlook, we've come a long way in the last 60 or 70 years in reducing civilian casualties. Imagine if this was WWII combat, or even Vietnam...do any of you really think that we would have the amount civilian casualties if that was how we were fighting today? We would have a huge number of civilian casualties with carpet bombings and napalming everything into smithereens...something to think about...

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:50:00 - [159]
 

Edited by: Astenion on 08/04/2010 00:55:46
Great post. I, too, am all for more transparency as long as it doesn't hinder or compromise military operations and/or classified material.

Another thing to note: just because the cameras are old doesn't mean the optics are outdated as well. What you're looking at is the equivalent of a security camera and what the pilot and gunner see is something completely different.

The government didn't want this in the open because they knew that people would do exactly what they're doing now: jumping to conclusions based on what they THINK they see from shoddy footage. I think an investigation is in order as well, but we must be pragmatic about this. There are TONS of fratricide and civilians being shot footage from the war on the internet...why was this one so important to keep secret? I dunno, but my personal opinion is that it just looks bad. What's more, you're not seeing any of the intel or other information on this operation or why they were there in the first place. Pilots don't hover at that altitude just for fun because that puts them in easy range of small arms/RPG fire. They were that low and there for a specific reason.

I hope more light can be shed on this in the future.

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:54:00 - [160]
 

Originally by: Kitimortoa
Problem is, they were called in to support ground troops...


Context is of course everything, you're right, and I totally agree that the journalists weren't exactly doing everything within their power to avoid trouble. I also fully appreciate that there will be far too many media induced morons who don't look see past a few seconds of footage. But I see it as questionable act particularly where they fired on the rescuers, that should prompt debate (and I'm really glad to have had others peoples' point of view on this through this thread), and given that I think this gives minimal information away to people who might make use of it against coalition troops, I for one am glad it is public domain.

- Wuffles

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:55:00 - [161]
 

Originally by: Kitimortoa

I don't think this needs to be in the public domain what so ever, and I think it was rather irresponsible of wikileaks to put it out there.



I wouldn't say it was irresponsible so much. The footage was likely kept classified exactly because it would have provoked this sort of one sided faux emotional outrage from so many. However it was downright criminal to release the video edited in such a way with portions highlighted to evoke the maximum response without making any mention of the context/situation, the actual/'suspected' weapons in the clip and details of the Americans own internal investigation.

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.04.08 00:56:00 - [162]
 

If it has to be in the public domain I wish it was used responsibly and not a little sound bite taken out of context like everything else in our modern day media.

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 01:00:00 - [163]
 

Originally by: Astenion
Another thing to note: just because the cameras are old doesn't mean the optics are outdated as well. What you're looking at is the equivalent of a security camera and what the pilot and gunner see is something completely different.

...

I hope more light can be shed on this in the future.


Thanks, I thought this might be the case and I agree, I too hope that the Americans decide to release more information on this incident.

- Wuffles

Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.04.08 01:03:00 - [164]
 

Edited by: Astenion on 08/04/2010 01:07:11
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: Kitimortoa

I don't think this needs to be in the public domain what so ever, and I think it was rather irresponsible of wikileaks to put it out there.



I wouldn't say it was irresponsible so much. The footage was likely kept classified exactly because it would have provoked this sort of one sided faux emotional outrage from so many. However it was downright criminal to release the video edited in such a way with portions highlighted to evoke the maximum response without making any mention of the context/situation, the actual/'suspected' weapons in the clip and details of the Americans own internal investigation.


THIS. HOLY CRAP. That was what outraged me the most. This video is leading people around like a dog on a leash. When they point out the children in the car, can you tell they're children? Did they do anything to explain any of the context or even who the callsigns were and what the situation was there an hour prior? No, but they made damn sure that you noticed who the journalists and children were.

Again, I can't stress this enough: WHO THE HELL BRINGS CHILDREN TO A FIREFIGHT? Does this not register with people? If it were an ambulance, then you would've seen the markings. But there were none and it wasn't an ambulance. In Iraq, NO ONE MOVES after an attack, at least until American forces can get there and clear the area and determine it's safe again. But right there, plain as day, is an unmarked van moving suspected terrorists' bodies. Am I alone here?

What makes me so frustrated about it is that they're not trying to show you, "Look...this is a scene in Iraq...this is what the daily life is like sometimes...it's been reported that these were civilians but we can't be sure just yet." Nope. None of that. This was, "Look at the evil empire baby killers on a shooting spree and laughing about it."

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 01:17:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Astenion
Am I alone here?


I totally agree with everything regarding the presentation, though I would actually argue it could have been more one sided than it is. And this thread has done a good job of pointing out things not pointed out in the video.

As to the above point, I think the decision those people took to drive that van to where they did and try and pickup the injured guy was one of the most crazy and foolish things I've ever seen on video in my life. But you tell me at what point they looked like a even a remote threat to anyone and that the repercussion they suffered was in any proportional to what they were doing.

- Wuffles

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.08 01:23:00 - [166]
 

Originally by: Wuff Wuff
Originally by: Astenion
Another thing to note: just because the cameras are old doesn't mean the optics are outdated as well. What you're looking at is the equivalent of a security camera and what the pilot and gunner see is something completely different.

...

I hope more light can be shed on this in the future.


Thanks, I thought this might be the case and I agree, I too hope that the Americans decide to release more information on this incident.

- Wuffles


http://www.scribd.com/doc/2948763/Centcom-FOIA

Apologies if it's already been posted but that's a link to the declassified portions of the inquiry. Among other things:

The Apaches were called out to support a ground callsign which had been out and under sporadic contacts for four hours.
US Forces were 100m away when the camera man kneels down at the corner of the building to take some happy snaps and is mistaken as an RPG gunner.
Weapons were recovered at the scene.
The children were initially evacuated and treated at a US camp before being transfered to an Iraqi hospital (presumably once they had been stabilised).


Astenion
Gallente
Spiritus Draconis
Posted - 2010.04.08 01:23:00 - [167]
 

Edited by: Astenion on 08/04/2010 01:38:22
Edited by: Astenion on 08/04/2010 01:32:29
In wartime ROE, guilt by association is cause for immediate action. If they were perceived as collaborators, they were cleared targets.

What people need to realize is that the Apache pilot and gunner followed the ROE to the letter. Either the ROE was too lax or the driver in the van was just the unluckiest guy in the history of mankind.

What this all boils down to is either they were terrorists or it was a case of mistaken identity. There was no, "Let's go kill a bunch of civilians" at all in any part of this. It's recorded. Every mission is debriefed thoroughly. If you screw something up, it's your ass when you get back to base because it's going to come out in the debrief. If you shot up a bunch of civilians, on purpose or accident, you will be punished. Collateral damage is one thing, but this is something completely different. Something of this magnitude ruins careers and/or puts people in jail if it's discovered that they were in the wrong.

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 02:21:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2948763/Centcom-FOIA


Thank you immensely for posting that, I didn't see anyone else post it. It clears up a hell of a lot for anyone that hasn't read it, including that the cameramen were hanging around guys with RPG's (or vice versa), they weren't wearing anything to identify them as press (as was pretty clear by the video anyway), that there were soldiers within 100m and that they were taking pictures of the humvee (out of shot of the Apache-cam). That is pretty immensely stupid.

There were a couple of notes that were interesting though:

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3051/screenshot20100408at023.jpg
Image is now a link. Shadow.

The pilots see the video on a small monitor. This would seem to suggest going against what was said previously about the pilots seeing a higher quality image than we see on the video. I continue my position that if (a big if admittedly, I have no idea what the monitor output looks like in an apache) the pilots can't see a detailed picture out to operating distance, they are not equipped properly for the job. The long lens was mistaken for an RPG even though one of the guys in the background did in fact have a loaded RPG on him. That's not to say that without a press top on, no-one would know he wasn't taking pictures of the soldiers for the insurgents.

Secondly...

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2790/screenshot20100408at024.png
Image is now a link. Shadow.

The only evidence given with regards the van as to being accomplices is that it 'arrives as if on cue' where the pilots believed it to be 'a means of escape for the wounded insurgents'. I cannot get it out of my head that it just comes across as too circumstantial to warrant the force that was applied in that situation, I can't deny there's no specific medical aid markings, but I still believe it was wrong, maybe I'm alone on that one.

It's been an eye-opener this thread.

- Wuffles

Xen Gin
Silurian Operations
Posted - 2010.04.08 02:28:00 - [169]
 

Edited by: Xen Gin on 08/04/2010 02:29:17
Originally by: Astenion
Again, I can't stress this enough: WHO THE HELL BRINGS CHILDREN TO A FIREFIGHT?


Damn people for living in a residential that gets shot the **** up by Apache helos. Obviously you're absolutely right damn them for having some human compassion, the dirty ****ers got what they deserved!



So sarcasm right?

Kirex
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.08 03:02:00 - [170]
 

Its a shame the video was edited so heavily. Wikileaks shouldn't have made a 2:30+ emotional intro filled with "he as a good man who loved his job" quotes, George Orwell etc quotes, picture of the crying son holding a picture of his father, something that basically said "Two Apaches came out of nowhere and intentionally mowed down a bunch of civilians for fun, then flew away into the sunset.", labeling the camera men while not labeling the men holding AKs and RPGs, labeling the children, and zooming past the gunners magnification to show two pixilated blobs that couldn't be recognized as kids let alone humans. All that really slants the viewers perception of events when something like this should have been released as neutrally as possible.

So they didn't mark themselves as press, went into a battlefield that has been active for four hours, in an area where insurgents were spotted, with a group of non coalition forces armed with AKs and RPGs, then stacked up at a corner right where an American Humvee was, then suspiciously peeked around a corner and aimed a long cylindrical tube at the humvee? It sucks they died, but what they did probably wasn't the smartest thing to do in a warzone.


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:10:00 - [171]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 08/04/2010 06:15:39
It could be a baguette judging by that video. You peopleare trying to see things that aren;t there ><

Quote:

and the fact that press are supposed to be wearing something that identifies them as press, which those guys decided for whatever reason, not to wear it that day.


How would that be done exactly?


I'll just repeat what I said before: If they are so hell-bent on murdering anyone with a weapon, make a few low passes over south central.

Kirex
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:35:00 - [172]
 

Except if you check the link lark posted (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2948763/Centcom-FOIA) You can read some terrible handwriting (page 35 and 36 seems easiest to read) and on page 38 you can see an AK lying on the ground as well as two RPGs, but they have most of it censored because the pictures are a little...messy. Page 41 shows what the reporter was taking a picture of when he was peeking behind the corner.

So with the introduction of the new information, do you still think the Apache was wrong to engage a group of military age males armed with 2 RPGs and an AK stacking up on a corner a few meters away from a Humvee?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.08 06:48:00 - [173]
 

Originally by: Kirex
Except if you check the link lark posted (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2948763/Centcom-FOIA) You can read some terrible handwriting (page 35 and 36 seems easiest to read) and on page 38 you can see an AK lying on the ground as well as two RPGs, but they have most of it censored because the pictures are a little...messy. Page 41 shows what the reporter was taking a picture of when he was peeking behind the corner.

So with the introduction of the new information, do you still think the Apache was wrong to engage a group of military age males armed with 2 RPGs and an AK stacking up on a corner a few meters away from a Humvee?


Maybe.

But shooting up the van afterwards sure as hell wasn't.

rubico1337
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Posted - 2010.04.08 07:32:00 - [174]
 

Edited by: rubico1337 on 08/04/2010 08:00:40
i am ashamed to call myself American today

if i was born an Iraqi, dealing with murder like this from a foreign army. i would not be surprised if i had an AK-47 also

EDIT: i just donated $100 to wikileaks, suck it lark

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.08 08:47:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: rubico1337
Edited by: rubico1337 on 08/04/2010 08:00:40
i am ashamed to call myself American today

if i was born an Iraqi, dealing with murder like this from a foreign army. i would not be surprised if i had an AK-47 also

EDIT: i just donated $100 to wikileaks, suck it lark


U Mad? Because I'm not. I'm merely trying to offer an opposing viewpoint to the seemingly rabid 'herp derp baby killers' view in this thread. Do I agree with everything that happened in that video? No. Do I understand the events that led to everything happening? Yes.

I'm sure you would own an AK if you were an Iraqi citizen. However it would be for 'personal defence' and not leave your home or place of work (a taxi doesn't count as a place of work btw), hint that means not going and milling around on a corner with your mates. You certainly wouldn't be allowed an RPG.

As for donating to wikileaks. Great, they do some good stuff. However I was merely stating that not the release of this video but the manner of it's release was wrong.

Sobach
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:01:00 - [176]
 

I think one of the major issue here is that some people seems to expect the military engaged in open conflict to somehow behave like their local police from back home while fighting a war. That's not what they're there for, esp. since they were not in a peacekeeping mission.

You don't go around asking for IDs from everyone to check who they are, because you can't, even if you want to. In an urban environment against insurgents without uniforms, and who by all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the local populace, a 100% positive identification at all times is impossible. Under the circumstances and situation in which this engagement took place, the action of the pilots were by no means outside of the norm. Some of the things they said were less than professional and won't win them any popularity contests, but that's hardly a crime.

Those who have mentioned that they should not have fired since it didn't look like they were under any threats, well guess what, they were. I'd certainly qualify RPG-armed insurgents at 100 meters away from a friendly Humvee a threat. Even if they weren't there, the notion that we shouldn't fire until we're getting shot at in a war is utterly ridiculous. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't think getting shot first before I can defend myself is the best way to go home alive or to win the fight.

rubico1337
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:16:00 - [177]
 

Edited by: rubico1337 on 08/04/2010 09:23:05
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: rubico1337
Edited by: rubico1337 on 08/04/2010 08:00:40
i am ashamed to call myself American today

if i was born an Iraqi, dealing with murder like this from a foreign army. i would not be surprised if i had an AK-47 also

EDIT: i just donated $100 to wikileaks, suck it lark


U Mad? Because I'm not. I'm merely trying to offer an opposing viewpoint to the seemingly rabid 'herp derp baby killers' view in this thread. Do I agree with everything that happened in that video? No. Do I understand the events that led to everything happening? Yes.

I'm sure you would own an AK if you were an Iraqi citizen. However it would be for 'personal defence' and not leave your home or place of work (a taxi doesn't count as a place of work btw), hint that means not going and milling around on a corner with your mates. You certainly wouldn't be allowed an RPG.

As for donating to wikileaks. Great, they do some good stuff. However I was merely stating that not the release of this video but the manner of it's release was wrong.


if i recall they released the unedited video. i watched that too, not any real difference, just alot of waiting for someone else to die

that object in your gif could have been an RPG, it could have been a tripod, the video obvoiusly is to grainy to make a real distinction and im sure the US military probably higher resolution cameras on it (i hope) and i think doing so would be being an armchair general

what is disturbing and obviously going outside the rules of engagement (or a bastardization of)

#1. when the cameraman was kneeling on the corner taking pictures, that was very obviously a camera even with the grainy photos. one of the service men started exclaiming "HES GOT AN RPG!) extremely frantically, after others heard this (including the Humvee's on teh ground that he was taking pictures of) everyone obviously got frantic, professionalism gave way to haste, and the order to open fire was given.

the pictures from that camera were later recovered, and you can see the exact pictures he was taking on that corner of the humvees. you even here the voice of someone on the ground most likely at the humvee location (i saw him around the corner at 1 o'clock, i dont see anything now... something to that effect)

#2. when the van puled up to help the wounded. there were no guns. not agressive actions taken. probably just a person trying to help a human being who was bleeding and crying out for help. they clearly never reached for any weapon on the ground(contrary to what the gunmen said), just the injured person. never made any hostile acts either. the commander who gave the order to fire was not looking at those images, he just had what the helicopter was telling him. that being that men had arrived in the van and that they were grabbing for weapons and wounded (which they were obviously not)

#3. when the wounded man was crawling away bleeding. the helicopter gunmen was saying "just pick up a weapon, all you have to do is pick up a weapon"

this is terrible, he was wanting that person to pick it up so he could be within the rules of engagement and fire. you shoot someone in a warzone to neutralize a threat. you dont shoot someone just for the sake of shooting them while they are wounded, crawling, and pose no threat, thats murder it is obvious that this guy just wanted to shoot someone. he was literally begging for the wounded guy to pick up a weapon so he would be in the clear to do so

seems that all of these events were caused by the one person who was manning the gun (the one in #3) he seems to be the trigger happy rambo, and should be court marshaled

everyone in iraq has AKs(at least in that time)

and yes im ****ing ****ed

Radix Salvilines
legion industries ltd
AAA Citizens
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:17:00 - [178]
 

us army = terrorists... only a mentally ill person would laugh when riding on a dead body.
If us soldiers are like that... taking pleasure in killing... damn... americans open your eyes you pay taxes help sadistic bastards have fun...


this is just sick... to condemn someone to death based on very low quality images... and what about the van? why did they destroyed? it had a rocket launcher mounted on it???

thanks heavens im not american...



Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2010.04.08 09:50:00 - [179]
 

Edited by: Skippermonkey on 08/04/2010 09:51:03
Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but heres a newsflash, nobody cares.

The US military wouldnt put somebody not of sound mind in charge of a $15M aircraft.

The pilot knows what he is doing, and as long as he operates within his rules of engagement what more can you ask of him?

Also an Apache can focus on a mans face from over a mile away with their camera mounts, so to use this poor quality gif as an argument point over what the pilot could have/ couldnt have seen is a moot point. The pilots are trained to assess a threat and they saw one here.

Its one thing to disagree with the cause/reasons for war, but its another to question the troops themselves based from a civilian point of view.

War is hell gentlemen, i hope none of us have to experience it

VanNostrum
Posted - 2010.04.08 10:39:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Skippermonkey
Edited by: Skippermonkey on 08/04/2010 09:51:03
Hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but heres a newsflash, nobody cares.



newsflash
nobody = USA
everybody = rest of the world


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 : last (10)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only