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

rubico1337
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Posted - 2010.04.08 14:18:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Foodpimp
Hey guys...

This is in regards to the "Light hearted" way in which soldiers react to the deaths of their fellow human beings. Believe it or not, most of these guys that say these things are not as callous as you may think. Keeping it light or making jokes about it is a coping mechanism. My mother was a nurse for 35 years before she passed away, and I remember as a kid her and some of the other nurses joking about the death of some old guy. I was a little unnerved by it. Asking her why they were joking about it...she said that if they didn't laugh about the people dying...that they'd break down. It is the only way for a lot of them to cope. My father said the same thing about when he was in Vietnam. I believe that I have the capacity to take another's life in war...but I can guarantee I'd have nightmares about it later.


yeah, i agree. the way people cope with fighting in wars it to de-humanize the other side. your no longer killing another human being, you are eliminating a threat, you bet the other guys are doing the exact same thing.

there is a point where it goes from dehumanization for coping to the point where you dont see the enemy as human beings. thats when perfectly normal people do terribly evil things without realizing it.

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2010.04.08 14:31:00 - [212]
 

Everyone knows if you RR a criminal you get flagged too...

Doesnt take CONCORD long to show up

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.08 14:40:00 - [213]
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36182383/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/#36182090

Quote:
An investigation of the shooting found that the crew of the two Apache helicopters at the scene might have erroneously identified photographer's cameras as weapons, NBC News Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported.

According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived to find a group of men approaching the area of a battle with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.


Let's see what else they come up woth

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.04.08 14:44:00 - [214]
 

Edited by: Kitimortoa on 08/04/2010 14:43:47
Originally by: rubico1337

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler


Thing is though, it was an RPG.


actually... it wasn't
"The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47."




Nice cherry picking, it was referring to the guy at the corner of the building pointing his camera at the humvee, not the big long object in the gif posted in this thread that turned out to infact be an RPG.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.08 15:33:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Kitimortoa

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler


Thing is though, it was an RPG.


actually... it wasn't
"The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47."




So there was no-one taking aim with an RPG (claimed several times above by others)/ And where does it say that they did find an RPG in the end?

Nice cherry picking, it was referring to the guy at the corner of the building pointing his camera at the humvee, not the big long object in the gif posted in this thread that turned out to infact be an RPG.

Kirex
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.08 15:34:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: rubico1337
Edited by: rubico1337 on 08/04/2010 13:47:08
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler


Thing is though, it was an RPG.


actually... it wasn't
"The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47."


Good job ignoring the official report conducted by the Army that has been linked three times in this thread. The quote you posted was in regards to what the gunner thought was an RPG when the camera man was sneaking around the corner and aiming what appeared to be a long cylindrical tube at the Humvee from that angle. However, when the military arrived on the scene they did discover TWO RPGs loaded and ready to fire, a few RPG rounds, and an AK-47. For the fourth time, here is the official report. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA) Read pages 11-15, 35-36, 38, and 41. So, yes, they did have weapons.

Quote:
he said they had fired their weapons (which they clearly did not, maybe because they had nothing to fire with)

If you listen you can here someone say they were taking fire from 1oclock. We don't know who said this but it couldn't have been the helicopter since they were in the air, and not the Humvee since the group of men were 3Oclock from them. For all we know it could have been radio chatter a mile away, but we definitely know the Apache didn't say it. The helicopter did say they were firing when he saw the reporter hiding behind the corner then get up and point the longlense of the camera at the Humvee. The Apache mistook this as a RPG gunner pointing the RPG at the tank and getting ready to fire.

Quote:
there had been no signs of hostile action from the people in the van

If you watched the CNN interview, insurgents were reported to be moving insurgents in and out of the AO with vehicles. The ret. general said in that situation, the vehicles would be classified as instruments of war because they was being used to assist the insurgents. The Apache thought the van also belonged to the insurgents and they were picking up the wounded and getting the weapons. I personally don't think that's a too far fetched assumption.



As for the "bad language", as you said yourself "it is much less emotional to push a button". That true, he is detached from the situation, but is it his fault? Its his JOB to kill people. What do you want him to do? Break down and cry? From his POV, he just killed a group of insurgents armed with AKS and RPGs that were about to fire on a Humvee and kill US soldiers. He probably felt kinda like a mini hero. Insurgents have been killing soldiers in Iraq for over 4 years. When you live in that kind of environment you want your enemy to die, because they sure as hell want you to die. In this case, the helicopter thought the people he killed were the same people that have been killing soldiers in that city for that last few months, and maybe he's half right because normal civilians don't take a walk down the street with loaded RPGs. And as Foodpimp said, many people cope with death and other tragedies by laughing, and these guys have been around a lot of death.

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.08 15:45:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 08/04/2010 15:48:27
Originally by: rubico1337


actually... it wasn't
"The investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47."



Actually it was. I'm not disputing that the cameras were mistaken for weapons, however that particular object in that .gif was later confirmed to be an RPG. Suck it up.
Quote:

he said they had fired their weapons (which they clearly did not, maybe because they had nothing to fire with) he said that they had AKs and RPGs (which they did not)

if it was a mistake. i can understand. fog of war, split second life or death decision. it was a ****ty call anyways and it went down hill from there


Deeeeeeeerrrrrrrppppp. Already disproven. Check the sources.

Quote:

a non-marked vehicle in an urban warzone, does not say enemy-combatant last time i checked

the ROE im sure says "dont shoot people who are not a threat" please tell me how that van driver was a threat to that helicopter or solders on the ground, when there had been no signs of hostile action from the people in the van, no weapons seen... nothing that could be taken as threatening. the gunner LIED to his commander. they clearly did not pick up any weapons


As the truck is arriving it is mentioned that it is there to possibly pick up weapons and wounded, with the crew later saying they are picking up wounded when asking for permission to engage. They certainly don't lie. As I said, it rubs me the wrong way too, but if you read the report it was still within the ROE they were operating under at the time. ROE can change on a day by day, area by area even mission by mission basis, you have no idea what rules the forces in that area, on that day were operating under.

Quote:

the thing is, he never picked up a gun(that didnt exist), he was clearly just crawling. the gunner lit him up with the guys who tried to put him in the van. he lied to get permission to engage. "comon lets shoot!" secondly, id consider a couple 30 cal rounds going though you to be quite "incapacitating"



No, he didn't pick up a weapon, hence why he wasn't 'lit up' immeadiately.
Quote:

it shows his state of mind and complete lack of professionalism, and the detached mindest that people get when they are over a mile away from the person they are killing. it puts his actions into perspective. solders use grim and dark humor to cope, or treat it as something its not(a game) to cope this is a sad reality of war. this goes way beyond this. the fact is that in this situation you probably had a trigger happy 20 something who trained for shooting out of a helicopter and wanted to shoot somethign for the sake of shooting (thus the "all you have to do is pick up the damn gun"), he is detached from the magnitude of his actions, to him(emotionally) its just pushing some buttons and dust flying a mile away and people dropping dead, he lied to a commander to get fire approval. to him it is a game. it is much less emotional to push a button, launch a nuke, and kill millions, than it is to strangle one person with your bear hands. when you take delight in killing someone no matter who they are there is something wrong with you


I imagine I'd have to become pretty detached if my job involved shredding people with a 30mm cannon and watching it through a magnified monitor. I do like your ability to analyse someone's state of mind by listening to a crackly audio track. Given that he thought he was engaging insurgents who were threatening his comrades I think I can maybe forgive him for sounding a bit keen to kill them.

Kitimortoa
Posted - 2010.04.08 15:49:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
So there was no-one taking aim with an RPG (claimed several times above by others)/ And where does it say that they did find an RPG in the end?


See above.

Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
Posted - 2010.04.08 16:23:00 - [219]
 

Fact of the matter is this;

When in a warzone as press, dress accordingly.

Do not dress identically to combatants who have been attacking troops for the past few hours.

Certainly do not stand in the middle of a crowd of combatants in the open with Troops nearby and an Apache in the air.

Being embedded with Coalition troops is one thing, but being embedded with insurgents who are actively attacking Coalition troops in your presence is just plain stupid.

Wuff Wuff
The Oliver Postgate Appreciation Club
Posted - 2010.04.08 16:37:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
That's my political opinion - and I don't much give a damn what anyone else thinks. I'm right and if you disagree with me - you're wrong.


Why do you have to be such an ass? Thank God you didn't come in at the start of this thread and get the thing locked. We've been having a really good discussion thank you that I'm glad to have seen and been a part of it. No-one wants to discuss things with people who are not willing in the slightest to take on board anyone else's opinion or be open to having their point of view challenged because it is an utterly pointless conversation. I'm 99% sure you're just trolling and think for some reason if you get the last word then you're right. I'm sorry, anybody with a modicum of intelligence is now in a position to read the whole thread and make up their own minds, fail troll IMO.

I think this thread probably has run it's course and I want to thank the mods for keeping it open when under the strictness of the rules it probably could have been locked a while ago. This is what good modding is all about.

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men." as my Dad is fond of saying.

- Wuffles


Bodrul
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.08 17:07:00 - [221]
 

why doesnt this shock me?
the the SUN was able to get the video of the american pilots who bombed british forces and was laughing his head off and gloating, then only to go damn after finding out its friendly fire.

This video isnt shocking considering most the world knows the americans are trigger happy.
shoot first think later :/

those people that are saying this is war and this is what we should expect get your heads sorted.

this whole war is jokes

its gone from Imaginari WMDS to removing a dicator which the US goverment happily slept with when they attacked Iran, to Liberating the IRAQi people.

This is a wounderfull way to win the hearts and minds of the IRAQis'

Sobach
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.08 22:52:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
They don't get paid to be rambo, they get paid to be there and help the locals reconstruct society. Especially pilots, carrying so much firepower over densely inhabited areas should be the most reluctant to use it.


bzzzt, while there are certainly reconstruction efforts and missions, that is definitely not the mission that particular unit was assigned to, they were engaged in active fight against the enemy, which part of that do you not understand? And way to go on trying to imply the pilots were firing indiscriminately, they identified a threat near friendly forces, received clearance to fire, and then neutralized the target, simple as that.

Originally by: Sokratesz
Might want to check ROE on that.


I certainly don't need you to tell me what my ROE were, as I actually had one and knows damn well what it was. And just to let you know, no ROE in a warzone will ever have a clause that prevents you from defending yourself until you're shot at, but then you'd already know that if you know what you're talking about.

VanNostrum
Posted - 2010.04.09 13:08:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: Gariuys
But taking it out on soldiers doing their job isn't fair. And it puts the focus on the wrong thing.

The problem is with the circumstances that make it possible for stuff like this to happen. AKA the war itself, not with the soldiers fighting it.



WTF!? The focus IS on the soldiers doing the wrong thing! Did you actually watch the video with sounds on!?

No, the problem is NOT that with the circumstances that make it possible for stuff like this to happen, this thread is here because people believe that stuff like this SHOULDN'T happen. We're not chimps, we don't go around tearing out people's organs or brainlessly killing them and then saying it's normal in war. We're all human beings! We have rules of engagement, crimes against humanity, war crimes, we're living in 2010 ffs. It is only apalling that American war criminals can't be trialed like the rest of the world.

Sobach
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.09 21:10:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: VanNostrum
...We have rules of engagement...


correct, and the pilots followed it, so what's your problem?



Oh yea, I forgot, your problem is that you haven't bothered to look at the facts and decided to talk out of your ass.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.09 22:24:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Sobach
Originally by: VanNostrum
...We have rules of engagement...


correct, and the pilots followed it, so what's your problem?


In case of the first group of men it was questionable, the van, a downright violation.

Cute Joe
Posted - 2010.04.09 23:46:00 - [226]
 

and just to everyone who was shouting "van wasn't marked" or the reporters haven't been wearing something to actually show that they are from the press. you think that would have kept the gunner from going all crazyhorse on them?
i don't think so. he still would have reported 5-6 AK's (please what? was a lie) and RPG. if that's the case, then everyone could be running around with a PRESS printed on their chest and every vehicle could have a red crescent moon to keep the invaders from shooting them

at the end everything that counts is what you achieved through an action. and what do we have here? dead civilians, dead reporters, children who will grow up without daddy because crazyhorse felt trigger happy and i bet they won't feel any friendship towards the USA once they're grown up. besides that this incident, the video and mainly the audio will serve as a very good recruitment tool for the insurgency/terroristic organizations to get some new and young suicide bombers.

all in all, a big fail. but keep defending it

adfadfadfawe
Posted - 2010.04.10 02:06:00 - [227]
 


Sobach
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.10 04:02:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Sobach
Originally by: VanNostrum
...We have rules of engagement...


correct, and the pilots followed it, so what's your problem?


In case of the first group of men it was questionable, the van, a downright violation.



I'd take the word/report of Centcom over a lol-flowchart

Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2010.04.10 08:49:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 10/04/2010 08:58:32

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

-- George Orwell


El Snipo Cool


A Grand Adventure
From where comes consent?




Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.04.10 09:01:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: adfadfadfawe
Edited by: adfadfadfawe on 10/04/2010 02:06:39
Whoopsie:

http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage


I don't know how that changes anything besides making the crew look like less of warmongers and more like actual people. The statements made by them are what I would expect in combat, but that doesn't change anything about the video.


Originally by: Sobach
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Sobach
Originally by: VanNostrum
...We have rules of engagement...


correct, and the pilots followed it, so what's your problem?


In case of the first group of men it was questionable, the van, a downright violation.



I'd take the word/report of Centcom over a lol-flowchart


One official document speaking against what another official document says, so shall we for convenience assume that neither is right?

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.10 10:33:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: adfadfadfawe
Edited by: adfadfadfawe on 10/04/2010 02:06:39
Whoopsie:

http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage


I don't know how that changes anything besides making the crew look like less of warmongers and more like actual people. The statements made by them are what I would expect in combat, but that doesn't change anything about the video.



You're spinning you wheels sok.

Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.10 11:42:00 - [232]
 

The fact that people are defending an Apache gunner opening fire on a van of a man driving his children to school says a lot about this thread.

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2010.04.10 12:00:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Toshiro GreyHawk
...froth, froth, frothitty, froth...


Give it up Tosh; it's largely a civilised discussion of what appears to be an atrocity committed against civilians and reporters.

If there is any name calling in here, it's you that's doing it.

By your own admission you are being an ass (sic) and attacking the moderators won't help your cause any more than your thinly disguised attempts at trolling a serious discussion.

This isn't anti-americanism; it's anti-scumbagism.

Most folk would be just as annoyed if it were British/French/Canadian/Russian/whatever troops that were taking potshots from a distance at civilians and reporters.

I am deeply saddened to hear that you are not enjoying this thread.Crying or Very sad

Perhaps if you stop posting in it you won't feel the need to be annoyed when confronted with an opinion that doesn't match your own exactly?



Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.10 13:03:00 - [234]
 

Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 10/04/2010 13:18:53
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 10/04/2010 13:03:44
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
The fact that people are defending an Apache gunner opening fire on a van of a man driving his children to school says a lot about this thread.


I actually think that brassing up the van was bang out of order, but that's just me. As far as I can make out though he didn't actually do anything 'wrong'. The information revealed in the Gawker article goes a ways to disproving the babby killer theory and if he had been aware there were kids in the van I doubt he'd have opened fire.

My issues with the vid aren't with the individual pilots, it's with the doctrine and general attitude of US forces. For most of the occupation they still had the 'shock and awe' mindset which is great for invasions and stuff and probably even some of the more intense ops carried out during the occupation, but it doesn't cut it for day to day peace support ops. The US were never seen to be willing to risk casualties in order to protect civilians which is where they lost the 'information war'. It doesn't matter a jot if they did or didn't (and I'm sure it did happen on a daily basis) but nobody ever percieved that they were.


Desudes
Posted - 2010.04.10 13:11:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Desudes on 10/04/2010 13:11:59
Wonder what the thread would look like if a US humvee filled with soldiers was lit up by a RPG while an Apache circled around with eyes on the trigger man, eyes on what looked to them like a group of men with AKs and they didn't shoot because they wanted to make sure the men weren't just striding around in a war zone with long lense cameras not in distinguishable clothing.

Just curious.



Clear the f'ing static from the comms and get those choppers better cameras.

Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.10 13:36:00 - [236]
 

Edited by: Irida Mershkov on 10/04/2010 13:47:09
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 10/04/2010 13:03:44
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
The fact that people are defending an Apache gunner opening fire on a van of a man driving his children to school says a lot about this thread.
Lotta Stuff, had to clip it to fit my own post.


You fool! you weren't supposed to serious reply to me! you were supposed to rage post to my trolling attempts.

(Although my post did have a point, whether someone actually did defend that situation in particular is still relevant.) I agree with your view point there Larkonis, but I have to disagree on one thing, the gunner in question was clearly shown to not be fit for combat duty with his attitude to deciding that particular target.

http://i.imgur.com/66zIg.gif
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/572/3d2d0fd05172516e056ed40.png
Images are now links. Shadow.

The 'AK-47' the one guy was carrying was also revealed to be a camera, and the 'RPG' to be the tripod stand, granted, the gunner there was unfortunately wrong in his decision to request permission to engage due to not being able to identify what was infront of him. Unfortunately, tragically, it happens, and has happened, but in that last regard was just an obviously bad decision in that the gunner was simply eager and bloodthirsty enough to squeeze rounds off to finish the job against a final target that was of no perceived threat. He was in the wrong, and needs to be punished/reprimanded appropriately for it. It also carries a bad message internationally, enough for the usual crowd of "durr US kill civilians and Muslims" to continue to parrot on.* For clarity, the 'RPG' fellow was leaning around a corner with a camera to take a photograph, unfortunately this was the notice that led the gunner to decide to blast the poor kid limb from limb.

Originally by: Desudes
Edited by: Desudes on 10/04/2010 13:11:59
Wonder what the thread would look like if a US humvee filled with soldiers was lit up by a RPG while an Apache circled around with eyes on the trigger man, eyes on what looked to them like a group of men with AKs and they didn't shoot because they wanted to make sure the men weren't just striding around in a war zone with long lense cameras not in distinguishable clothing.

Just curious.

Well that has nothing to do with this discussion so it's point is entirely irrelevant.

Quote:
get those choppers better cameras.

That equipment is current the best that can be fitted to a gunship effectively.


I think I covered all angles of my post, may have botched something up though.

Edit: Daaaaamn you Shadow! Evil or Very MadRazz I should have linked those, I admit there.

For clarity: These people were photographers being escorted by armed guards, these weapons were legal, and could be carried freely throughout the location, just because they were armed does not automatically make them insurgents, as as part of the Rules of Engagement by the US, does not make them valid targets unless they open fire. The photographers, as mentioned, were photographers, and the van was a father taking his children to school.

The Apache was in the area responding to small-arms fire from that area of the city, a city, full of civilians remember now, and the Apache gunners decision was to light up the very first armed person he saw after obtaining permission to fire, note that throughout the gif, the pilot has been stressing that these are people are armed with intent to harm others, this was not shown in any circumstance.

Bart Starr
Posted - 2010.04.10 13:49:00 - [237]
 

That video is so much win. Distressing? Come on. 'Journalists' who lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas. (Or in this case, in pieces) Carrying a camera while walking around with insurgents does not make you bullet-proof, dumbas.es!

This thread is even more win. Not political in the slightest. Carry on.


Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2010.04.10 13:59:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Irida Mershkov


For clarity: These people were photographers being escorted by armed guards, these weapons were legal, and could be carried freely throughout the location, just because they were armed does not automatically make them insurgents, as as part of the Rules of Engagement by the US, does not make them valid targets unless they open fire. The photographers, as mentioned, were photographers, and the van was a father taking his children to school.

The Apache was in the area responding to small-arms fire from that area of the city, a city, full of civilians remember now, and the Apache gunners decision was to light up the very first armed person he saw after obtaining permission to fire, note that throughout the gif, the pilot has been stressing that these are people are armed with intent to harm others, this was not shown in any circumstance.


My bold. You might have been able to get away with an AK but an RPG (one was recovered at the scene and is identifiable in the video) for personal defence? Outside of the Iraqi Army or IPF, nowai.

I've had a quick glance at the flowcharts and whatnot and from my memory of my ROE (Brit here though) you don't have to wait until you're being shot at before you can open fire. If someone is displaying hostile intent towards you then you are free to use deadly force if no other method of escalation is available. The gunner believed he saw someone aiming an RPG around a corner at a patrol. Now, while that guy's DSLR didn't look like the traditional RPG-7 it could easily have been mistaken for a disposable LAW type weapon (which have been used). That demonstrates hostile intent and given the circumstances and context of the scenario it's a pretty valid assumption.


Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.10 14:08:00 - [239]
 

Edited by: Irida Mershkov on 10/04/2010 14:09:49
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Originally by: Irida Mershkov


For clarity: These people were photographers being escorted by armed guards, these weapons were legal, and could be carried freely throughout the location, just because they were armed does not automatically make them insurgents, as as part of the Rules of Engagement by the US, does not make them valid targets unless they open fire. The photographers, as mentioned, were photographers, and the van was a father taking his children to school.

The Apache was in the area responding to small-arms fire from that area of the city, a city, full of civilians remember now, and the Apache gunners decision was to light up the very first armed person he saw after obtaining permission to fire, note that throughout the gif, the pilot has been stressing that these are people are armed with intent to harm others, this was not shown in any circumstance.


My bold. You might have been able to get away with an AK but an RPG (one was recovered at the scene and is identifiable in the video) for personal defence? Outside of the Iraqi Army or IPF, nowai.

I've had a quick glance at the flowcharts and whatnot and from my memory of my ROE (Brit here though) you don't have to wait until you're being shot at before you can open fire. If someone is displaying hostile intent towards you then you are free to use deadly force if no other method of escalation is available. The gunner believed he saw someone aiming an RPG around a corner at a patrol. Now, while that guy's DSLR didn't look like the traditional RPG-7 it could easily have been mistaken for a disposable LAW type weapon (which have been used). That demonstrates hostile intent and given the circumstances and context of the scenario it's a pretty valid assumption.



The RPG recovered was not on hand of the reporter, the reporter had a camera, and the RPG was recovered elsewhere, this does not systematically prove that the ten or so pixels on the screen was an RPG as opposed to a tripod camera. Both were recovered, sure, the troops could be lying, or they could be telling the truth.

Unfortunately, such was how it happened, but it doesn't justify the actions of the gunner (which I'm not suggesting you are of course).

Unfortunately, it was a **** up of gross dimensions, and it was the men on the floor that paid the price for it, a horrific mistake to make of the gunners part and it doesn't excuse his behaviour to the situation and doesn't change the fact only innocents were killed in this instance.

Edit: I always miss a part of my post. Let's not miss the fact the gunner requested to fire before any type of 'launcher' object was spotted.

CCP Shadow


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.04.10 14:13:00 - [240]
 

Trolling and off-topic comments removed. The thread can keep going, but please keep your discussion on the incident rather than just focusing on the politics which led up to this. Thank you.


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