# Wikileaks posts Video of US army "killing civilians"



## @lk3mizt (Apr 5, 2010)

> WikiLeaks logo
> WikiLeaks posted the 39-minute long video on its website
> 
> WikiLeaks has posted a video on its website which it claims shows the killing of civilians by the US military in Baghdad in 2007.
> ...



source: 


lol, shit was like a scene from Modern Warfare 2!

Video:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik[/YOUTUBE]

I'm appalled at the way the soldiers gleaned pleasure from killing those men. Civilian or not, you dont go "nice", "good shootin" "look at those bastards" after taking life.


----------



## Mael (Apr 5, 2010)

@lk3mizt said:


> source:
> 
> lol, shit was like a scene from Modern Warfare 2!
> 
> ...



You have a lot to learn about warfare and the psychology of the serviceman.

And Bad Company 2 > Modern Warfare 2.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 5, 2010)

I see nothing wrong with this.Apache beats flesh


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 5, 2010)

in after diceman's unfunny comments


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 5, 2010)

@lk3mizt said:


> I'm appalled at the way the soldiers gleaned pleasure from killing those men. Civilian or not, you dont go "nice", "good shootin" "look at those bastards" after taking life.



It was appalling. This is why a country shouldn't go to war by choice, like the US.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Apr 5, 2010)

Mael said:


> You have a lot to learn about warfare and the psychology of the serviceman.
> 
> And Bad Company 2 > Modern Warfare 2.



well maybe i do lol.

fukken agreed!! I said MW2 cuz there's no scene in BC2 where you kill people with apaches(except online )


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 5, 2010)

Fuck the troops.
Fuck the war.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Fuck the troops.
> Fuck the war.


Now, I feel like that's a _little_ harsh.


----------



## Mael (Apr 5, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Fuck the troops.
> Fuck the war.



And fuck you too.

Should you ever be in danger...don't look to me to bail you out.


----------



## hyakku (Apr 5, 2010)

I don't really see what the fuck is up with the news going crazy here. There's a guy with an rpg and 5 or 6 armed dudes, plus the two journalists who are holding unknown things. Seriously, why the fuck were two journalists with militants in an Iraqi neighborhood?

People swear we aren't at war in Iraq still, yet bombings from this morning (depending on where you are in the world) and yesterday should prove that there are still active militants there. While I don't like the war there, I think its pretty ridiculous that the military is getting so much flak for doing their job.

As for the van after, once again, why the fuck is there a van entering a zone that was just shot up by an apache? I'm not saying they don't have the right to be there, but come on guys, i feel I'm a pretty liberal guy, and even I don't really think the military was in the wrong there. What if that was a key terrorist leader that they drove off in that van? 

I agree that the "enjoyment" of the soldiers might be cause for concern, but I won't pass judgement on men that have been fighting in the fucking desert for years for my country, whether I agree with the mission or not, i know that shit takes a toll on you, and some people are just generally fucked up, theres no axiom about the military to be found in this event.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 5, 2010)

Things like this make me support the Iraq war.Why can't we have more voluntary wars like this?


----------



## g_core18 (Apr 5, 2010)

Found those WMDs yet?


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 5, 2010)

> 07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
> 07:25 Let me engage.
> 07:28 Can I shoot?
> 07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
> ...



WHAT? THEY'RE TENDING TO THE WOUNDED?!? MUST KILL!!!


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 5, 2010)

@lk3mizt said:


> I'm appalled at the way the soldiers gleaned pleasure from killing those men. Civilian or not, you dont go "nice", "good shootin" "look at those bastards" after taking life.



Discussions of the intrinsic values of human life really don't have much of a place in these scenarios. In every war in human history, one side always expresses joy at the elimination of enemy forces. It's a coping mechanism if anything. And while war itself is a bad thing  I've never really heard of a scenario where a soldier goes "BUT WAIT GUYS KILLING IS WRONG" in the middle of combat, it's just not realistic. Of course I would say your ability to judge all this was demonstrated when you compared the video to "Modern Warfare 2"

Anyway, given all the headlines with this they've been making it seem like it was intentional 

Not to mention things such as hindsight exist. If you see a gang of guys with RPG's plus two others with large metal objects, I doubt many are going to think "journalists".


----------



## Inuhanyou (Apr 5, 2010)

It reminds me of Modern Warfare, although that shoulden't really be my initial reaction...i just keep wondering what the influx of these reports is from, withdraw date is next year


----------



## andamaru (Apr 5, 2010)

Events like these are the whole reason we need sites like wikileaks. Information like this needs to be known. I'm glad someone released this video and wish wikileaks the best of luck in their legal battles.


----------



## Mael (Apr 5, 2010)

Inuhanyou said:


> *It reminds me of Modern Warfare, although that shoulden't really be my initial reaction*...i just keep wondering what the influx of these reports is from, withdraw date is next year



Because what you see from the video game is 100% like this.

I guess non-military folks wouldn't know...


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 5, 2010)

Its sad but thats what happens in war.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Its sad but thats what happens in war.


Well, all that does is land us back at square one, aka "war is bad," but I think we had that figured out some time during the Peloponnesian War.


----------



## andamaru (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> Well, all that does is land us back at square one, aka "war is bad," but I think we had that figured out some time during the Peloponnesian War.



I think the bigger argument is if war is necessary


----------



## sadated_peon (Apr 5, 2010)

I only watch for about 25 minutes but I don't see a problem here. 

The title of this post is BS, and so is the article. 

These were not civilians they were militants who had weapons including an RPG. 

After the engagement the forces did their very best to get medical attention for the child wounded prioritizing an medical evac unit, and tasking ground units to meet the medical unit so that they could get her medical aid quicker.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

Erm, it might just be me, but I never saw any of those guys killed fire anything. Unless these "insurgents" were shooting one another, there's no way they were attacking anyone huddled in a circle. I also never saw any weapons. If those guys were holding rpgs, it would have been more noticeable. Those things they were holding didn't even look the size for AKs. And well, there was no visible gun nearby the guy who was crawling so it looks like the army engaged a bunch of non-combatants.

Another article on this leak from the guardian,  

There's only one u.s. outlet reporting on this leak so far. That's the seattle pi. How surprising!




sadated_peon said:


> The title of this post is BS, and so is the article.
> 
> These were not civilians they were militants who had weapons including an RPG.



Considering at least two of those guys who got shot were holding cameras and were news reporters, you're sorely mistaken. There was also no gun near the guy crawling. They also fled rather than engage the helicopters in a last ditch effort. If these guys were really militants, they would have fired on U.S. forces, but you never see that in the video.


----------



## T.D.A (Apr 5, 2010)

guns are for pussies afterall.



sadated_peon said:


> *I only watch for about 25 minutes but I don't see a problem here.
> *
> The title of this post is BS, and so is the article.
> 
> ...



sigh well done.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

It should be noted that the "guns" were a tripod (apparently the soldiers believe tripods to be Aks) and a camera ( those darn cameras with their firing of non-existant rpg rounds).

So, if you don't see anything wrong, you weren't looking close enough.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

Mael said:


> You have a lot to learn about warfare and the psychology of the serviceman.
> 
> And Bad Company 2 > Modern Warfare 2.



I agree with Mael.

The people there arent exactly "your friends" down there.



> Erm, it might just be me, but I never saw any of those guys killed fire anything. Unless these "insurgents" were shooting one another, there's no way they were attacking anyone huddled in a circle. I also never saw any weapons. If those guys were holding rpgs, it would have been more noticeable. Those things they were holding didn't even look the size for AKs. And well, there was no visible gun nearby the guy who was crawling so it looks like the army engaged a bunch of non-combatants.



In warzone you dont really have to wait for them to fire first. While it was a good quality video its still difficult to pick up whos armed or not. Some of the guys definitely had something slinged around their arm as well.


----------



## iander (Apr 5, 2010)

This is disgusting and symptomatic of an army that shows a criminal disregard for human life.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> The people there arent exactly "your friends" down there.


Well, if you explode somebody's country, that should already be bludgeoningly obvious.





Razgriez said:


> In warzone you dont really have to wait for them to fire first. While it was a good quality video its still difficult to pick up whos armed or not. Some of the guys definitely had something slinged around their arm as well.


I'm not really clear on the rules of engagement; are Iraqi civilians allowed to carry firearms? How much confirmation is required before opening fire, etc. etc.? To me, they were carrying materials, but it didn't seem clear enough to identify them as guns _or_ cameras - is that enough?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 5, 2010)

iander said:


> This is disgusting and symptomatic of an army that shows a criminal disregard for human life.



Hi thar,generalisation,I mean,goddamn babykillers!


----------



## Tleilaxu (Apr 5, 2010)

This is NF 90 percent of the people here cant see things logically. If your carrying a weapon in a warzone you become a target by defaulot, end of story.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> This is NF 90 percent of the people here cant see things logically. If your carrying a weapon in a warzone you become a target by defaulot, end of story.



Damn those journalists with their tripods that can take down tanks.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 5, 2010)

The amount of butt hurt liberalism in this thread is literally making me sick. Wait for them to shoot first? Celebrate all human life? This isn't fucking Avatar, its a war. You kill them, crack a joke for good measure and get to the next spot where you're going to kill more. An enemy that dehumanizes itself by using civilians and children as shields don't deserve much more than a joke or two at their expense.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Apr 5, 2010)

Kensei said:


> Damn those journalists with their tripods that can take down tanks.



Damn those journalists in the company of *Iraqi militants*.  Collateral damage people get over it. This is WAR. Civilians will die in every war that will ever be fought and I would also like to gleefully point out that had this been back in the 50s or 60s we would have leveled the whole fucking city. The fact that we are doing our best to minimize civilian casualties should be noted and praised.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The amount of butt hurt liberalism in this thread is literally making me sick. Wait for them to shoot first? Celebrate all human life? This isn't fucking Avatar, its a war. You kill them, crack a joke for good measure and get to the next spot where you're going to kill more. An enemy that dehumanizes itself by using civilians and children as shields don't deserve much more than a joke or two at their expense.


Except...the proof that they were carrying weapons was the pilots saying "Have individuals with weapons." The guys with slings are carrying what looks like cameras. I saw one person with what looks like a gun; again, are Iraqi civilians not allowed to carry firearms?





Tleilaxu said:


> Damn those journalists in the company of *Iraqi militants*.  Collateral damage people get over it. This is WAR. Civilians will die in every war that will ever be fought and I would also like to gleefully point out that had this been back in the 50s or 60s we would have leveled the whole fucking city. The fact that we are doing our best to minimize civilian casualties should be noted and praised.


Yeah, except it's not the 50s or 60s, the Cold War is over, and the US is trying to get the moral high ground by not shooting civilians during an occupation.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> Except...the proof that they were carrying weapons was the pilots saying "Have individuals with weapons." The guys with slings are carrying what looks like cameras. I saw one person with what looks like a gun; again, are Iraqi civilians not allowed to carry firearms?



Not in a WARZONE


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The amount of butt hurt liberalism in this thread is literally making me sick. Wait for them to shoot first? Celebrate all human life? This isn't fucking Avatar, its a war. You kill them, crack a joke for good measure and get to the next spot where you're going to kill more. An enemy that dehumanizes itself by using civilians and children as shields don't deserve much more than a joke or two at their expense.



It was later determined that all the guys shot in that video were civilians. The pentagon then changed the story to the soldiers shot because of an earlier altercation in another area with different people.


----------



## AmigoOne (Apr 5, 2010)

Lol how can you tell they were cameras? I sure as hell couldnt


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Not in a WARZONE


It wasn't a warzone until the Apaches fired into a small crowd; besides, do we have confirmation that they were, in fact, militants who were carrying guns?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 5, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Not in a WARZONE



Pretty much this. It's like I can carry a gun here, I wouldn't carry one everywhere though. 



Kensei said:


> It was later determined that all the guys shot in that video were civilians. The pentagon then changed the story to the soldiers shot because of an earlier altercation in another area with different people.



Basically, in the heat of a battle you don't know this. Nor do you really want them going off to kill others later. 



AmigoOne said:


> Lol how can you tell they were cameras? I sure as hell couldnt


But the military should be 100% correct all of the time.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> It wasn't a warzone until the Apaches fired into a small crowd; besides, do we have confirmation that they were, in fact, militants who were carrying guns?



We have confirmation of the opposite actually.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 5, 2010)

The initial engagement they did could in hindsight be deemed to be justifiable. Allthough, even if these guys did have weapons, it wouldn't necessary prove that they were militants or terrorists. This was in 2007, at the hight of the brutal sectarian civil war then plaguing Iraq, and ordinary people had to arm themself to protect their families. I wouldnt be suprised if most families had a AK lying around. 

But even if the initial strike could be defended (as they clearly believed the group of people consisted a threat and didnt simply plan to "HEY LETS GO SPLATTER THE BRAIN MASS OF CIVILIANS LOLOLOL!!!"). But, what was clearly unacceptable is the way they killed off those people that were lying there wounded or killed the people arriving in that minibus who clearly posed no threat. THAT clearly hovered around the borderline of being a war crime.

Though i think the Americans have revised this policy recently in Afghanistan. If these people had been seen in Herat, Kandahar or Lashgar Gah, i doubt they would have been open up against.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 5, 2010)

Well that's very interesting as a documentary. I don't think the soldiers can be really blamed; sure, it's a bit shocking to hear them talk about it but you can also see that they were scared about the RPGs, and it also explains how they talk.

Either way, it's weird how the iraqis don't seem to care about staying hidden or anything. Can't they see the helicopters? Do they think they're safe for some reason? I'm curious about this.

Same for the guys in the mini van. They don't seem to understand the threat. Do they think the helicopter isn't going to fire if they're just here to tend to the wounded guy?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

After watching the whole video its hard to tell anything. To them the targets looked hostile by carrying weapons. Its easy to make that mistake and given Jin's explanation of the time it makes all the more sense they had such loose ROE which in turn can lead to more civilian casualties.

This definitely did not look deliberate to me. While you can yap about how we are better then this even with our advanced technology and ability to hit close targets from a distance this shit still happens. The chopper did what they thought was best at the time. The van getting hit was something they did because it was picking up the weapons and bodies to take the evidence for whatever reason. Not exactly something you want to do when it just got blown up cause your only making yourself highly suspicious in the end.

While you can spit on the pilot who shot these guys just imagine how this guy feels when he found out he made a mistake. Not to mention he hit 2 kids. Just because he was saying "nice" or "good shot" doesnt mean hes not affected for hitting civilians instead of actual militants.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> After watching the whole video its hard to tell anything. To them the targets looked hostile by carrying weapons. Its easy to make that mistake and given Jin's explanation of the time it makes all the more sense they had such loose ROE which in turn can lead to more civilian casualties.


You're right about this; I couldn't really tell they were cameras either. They looked too blocky to be guns, though.





Razgriez said:


> This definitely did not look deliberate to me. While you can yap about how we are better then this even with our advanced technology and ability to hit close targets from a distance this shit still happens. The chopper did what they thought was best at the time. The van getting hit was something they did because it was picking up the weapons and bodies to take the evidence for whatever reason. Not exactly something you want to do when it just got blown up cause your only making yourself highly suspicious in the end.


It was a makeshift ambulance? Can those be fired upon?





Razgriez said:


> While you can spit on the pilot who shot these guys just imagine how this guy feels when he found out he made a mistake. Not to mention he hit 2 kids. Just because he was saying "nice" or "good shot" doesnt mean hes not affected for hitting civilians instead of actual militants.


"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."
"That's right."


----------



## Havoc (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> You're right about this; I couldn't really tell they were cameras either. They looked too blocky to be guns, though.


Block guns, chump.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Havoc said:


> Block guns, chump.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

> It was a makeshift ambulance?


Thats what I think after monday morning quarter back as well. But then again I wasnt the one there actually calling the shots and I can just review and criticize it all I want to come up with a better solution.



> Can those be fired upon?"Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."
> "That's right."


That is right.


----------



## Bender (Apr 5, 2010)

Wait it's like a scene from Modern warfare 2 

Then I can't watch it 


On another note:


WAR


IS 

HELL































SIEG HEIL! 

*shoots gun into air*



SIEG HEIL! 




Btw our soldiers are bastards!

Thank you for telling me something I already knew.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Thats what I think after monday morning quarter back as well. But then again I wasnt the one there actually calling the shots and I can just review and criticize it all I want to come up with a better solution.


It's hardly Monday Morning Quarterbacking when you're talking about the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that left 12ish people dead. And even if it is, does that mean we shouldn't criticize it?





Razgriez said:


> That is right.


Perhaps the fact that kids were being taken into a "battle" (that was started by the US gunship) should have indicated that the intent wasn't to save hostile militants but perhaps, I don't know, just help out?

Besides, if that _is_ right, doesn't that just take a dump on what you said about the pilot feeling remorse?


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

> It's hardly Monday Morning Quarterbacking when you're talking about the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy that left 12ish people dead. And even if it is, does that mean we shouldn't criticize it?Perhaps the fact that kids were being taken into a "battle" (that was started by the US gunship) should have indicated that the intent wasn't to save hostile militants but perhaps, I don't know, just help out?


I wouldnt say we shouldnt criticize it since Im sure it got A LOT of flak for being a huge mix up. Shooting up civilians and reporters doesnt make you look good at all or feel good either. Since this has happened nearly 3 years ago Im sure policy has been changed since then to avoid more incidents such as this.



> Besides, if that _is_ right, doesn't that just take a dump on what you said about the pilot feeling remorse?


Not really since its sounds like just reassurance to keep him focused on the mission.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> I wouldnt say we shouldnt criticize it since Im sure it got A LOT of flak for being a huge mix up. Shooting up civilians and reporters doesnt make you look good at all or feel good either. Since this has happened nearly 3 years ago Im sure policy has been changed since then to avoid more incidents such as this.


I'm awfully surprised, though, that such a fuck-up wasn't revealed until now, and as a _leak._


Razgriez said:


> Not really since its sounds like just reassurance to keep him focused on the mission.


It sounds more like he's just ignoring the crime. The speculation's pointless, though.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> I'm awfully surprised, though, that such a fuck-up wasn't revealed until now, and as a _leak._



The government and military is far from perfect obviously.



> It sounds more like he's just ignoring the crime. The speculation's pointless, though.


You changed the word to crime from guilt. :/


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> The government and military is far from perfect obviously.


Indeed. 

Thread over?





Razgriez said:


> You changed the word to crime from guilt. :/


Yes, I did - I read over my post and realized the mistake.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Discussions of the intrinsic values of human life really don't have much of a place in these scenarios. In every war in human history, one side always expresses joy at the elimination of enemy forces. It's a coping mechanism if anything. And while war itself is a bad thing  I've never really heard of a scenario where a soldier goes "BUT WAIT GUYS KILLING IS WRONG" in the middle of combat, it's just not realistic. Of course I would say your ability to judge all this was demonstrated when you compared the video to "Modern Warfare 2"
> 
> Anyway, given all the headlines with this they've been making it seem like it was intentional
> 
> Not to mention things such as hindsight exist. If you see a gang of guys with RPG's plus two others with large metal objects, I doubt many are going to think "journalists".



coping mechanism? there's such a thing as being a *professional*, ever heard of it?  That means understanding the gravity of your job and acting appropriately.  Not joking around while you're killing people.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

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



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> coping mechanism? there's such a thing as being a *professional*, ever heard of it?  That means understanding the gravity of your job and acting appropriately.  Not joking around while you're killing people.



This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant posts Ive ever seen.

I can tell you from experience that no matter how much training you go through when you deal with an actual incident for the first time so much runs through your head you can only do so much and sometimes its a mistake. There are certain things that only experience itself can prepare you for and this is definitely one of them.

I dont know about you but this guy sounded pretty fresh since he was a bit lost at one point.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 5, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> This is quite possibly one of the most ignorant posts Ive ever seen.
> 
> I can tell you from experience that no matter how much training you go through when you deal with an actual incident for the first time so much runs through your head you can only do so much and sometimes its a mistake. There are certain things that only experience itself can prepare you for and this is definitely one of them.
> 
> I dont know about you but this guy sounded pretty fresh since he was a bit lost at one point.



i'm so ignorant yet this moron in the video was laughing his ass off while gunning people down, and got caught on video doing it.  It's symptomatic, just like abu graib.  This incident wasn't a one off, the military has little to no respect for life or the locals.

I mean, serious, even if you thought it was funny killing people, they could have just laughed about it later in private amongst themselves.  Think about how it looks to be gunning people down laughing like a maniac.  Reminds me of the comedian from Watchmen.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhKp72c6xCY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Aokiji (Apr 5, 2010)

Mael said:


> And fuck you too.
> 
> Should you ever be in danger...don't look to me to bail you out.



Like that ever happens.

90% of the time, the US military is used to further the agenda of it's government than actual self-defense.



Diceman said:


> Things like this make me support the Iraq war.Why can't we have more voluntary wars like this?



Because one war like this is enough material for your abysmal humour.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> coping mechanism? there's such a thing as being a *professional*, ever heard of it?  That means understanding the gravity of your job and acting appropriately.  Not joking around while you're killing people.



You just contradicted yourself, as being a professional killer mentally requires taking killing lightly. If anything, these people treating all of this as "just another day at the job" demonstrates professional efficiency.

But really I don't particularly care or see the importance of soldiers being glad over the elimination of what they think is the enemy. It's constantly berated around with this story but is easily the least important aspect. I've never really heard of a soldier from anywhere expressing sorrow over inflicting casualties on the enemy.


----------



## TDM (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> You just contradicted yourself, as being a professional killer mentally requires taking killing lightly. If anything, these people treating all of this as "just another day at the job" demonstrates professional efficiency.


I think he meant "professional" as in not joking around while killing, as opposed to only being at ease.


----------



## Aokiji (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> You just contradicted yourself, as being a professional killer mentally requires taking killing lightly. If anything, these people treating all of this as "just another day at the job" demonstrates professional efficiency.
> 
> But really I don't particularly care or see the importance of soldiers being glad over the elimination of what they think is the enemy. It's constantly berated around with this story but is easily the least important aspect. I've never really heard of a soldier from anywhere expressing sorrow over inflicting casualties on the enemy.



Megaharrison: where feeling joy over the death of innocent people is justified.

The "least important aspect" bit has truth in it, I think the dead people getting killed is more important than what the killers did while doing it. But that shouldn't distract from the fact that this war is an excuse for sociopaths acting like /b/-tards except that they actually cause death.

I think that Megaharrison and Mael feel too much sympathy for these guys because of their own military background, much like cops that try to explain false police behaviour with logic, but fail to see that a decent number of people in their job are scumbags that noone should cry a tear after.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

American soldiers kill two pregnant afghan women at a party and cover it up


----------



## Andy Dufresne (Apr 5, 2010)

War is hell. In war nasty shit happens and soldiers have to deal with the most difficult decisions imaginable, usually as quick as possible. Place yourself in their position and you can easily rationalize why they say the things they say. It's a very unreal situation to imagine for most people. 
Even so, I do believe that there was no threat and that they saw things that simply weren't there. At the same time it was suspicious and hard to make out and hard decisions have to be made.


----------



## ez (Apr 5, 2010)

they're trained to kill and they're pretty damn efficient at it. i'm not surprised that some of them enjoy it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 5, 2010)

TDM said:


> I think he meant "professional" as in not joking around while killing, as opposed to only being at ease.



You get de-sensitized in this type of environment. Do you really expect soldiers to proclaim the worth of a human life in this type of guerrilla warfare day in and day out? It's an unrealistic expectation and the best you can do is maintain an efficient ROE system. 

Honestly it's a bit of a problem with an all-volunteer military system I think. It creates a culture within a culture that has values outside of its home societies norms. This is exacerbated with the constant and fairly destructive wars the US military fights. It's actually a reason why conscription would be a good thing (not that I'm advocating it for the US, I think it would still be a disaster overall).



			
				Aokiji said:
			
		

> Megaharrison: where feeling joy over the death of innocent people is justified.
> 
> The "least important aspect" bit has truth in it, I think the dead people getting killed is more important than what the killers did while doing it. But that shouldn't distract from the fact that this war is an excuse for sociopaths acting like /b/-tards except that they actually cause death.
> 
> I think that Megaharrison and Mael feel too much sympathy for these guys because of their own military background, much like cops that try to explain false police behaviour with logic, but fail to see that a decent number of people in their job are scumbags that noone should cry a tear after.



They're not gloating over the deaths of innocents, they're gloating over what they think are dead enemy fighters. It's two entirely different perspectives.

Oh yes and you once neg repped me (on November 5th, 2008) gloating about how you hope Israeli civilians are killed in rocket attacks, so do not try the humanitarian/morality card. You hope for the death of innocents yet criticize me for being indifferent to individuals gloating over the deaths of what they think are enemies?


----------



## Spencer_Gator (Apr 5, 2010)

I wish the troops were home, just like most people do. But I'm not going to complain about things they do, they are serving our country. Its a war, bad things happen.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> coping mechanism? there's such a thing as being a *professional*, ever heard of it?  That means understanding the gravity of your job and acting appropriately.  Not joking around while you're killing people.



Ever hear of gallows humor? Any profession that regularly involves dangerous situations and life-or-death choices will invariably create an atmosphere of practiced indifference and morbid humor.

Doctors call brain-dead patients "GPO," or "Good for Parts Only." When doctors give up on a patient they write "TEETH" on their records, for "Tried Everything Else, Try Homeopathy." When a patient is close to dying but needs a resuscitation, doctors will call for a "Slow Code," meaning that the doctor needs to walk reaaaally slooooowly so that the patient will die and can't be revived before the doctor gets there. Firefighters refer to dead burn victims as "crispy critters." A person having a seizure is called a "fish out of water." A "DRT" means a person is "Dead Right There." Police call their nightsticks "lie detectors."

The proper term is clinical detachment. If you let yourself get connected to every single life and death decision when you're a doctor, cop, firefighter, or soldier, you're no good to anybody because you'll be in the insane asylum after two weeks.


----------



## Baax (Apr 5, 2010)

Only problem i can see in the vid is that the gunners destroying that truck which was trying to remove that wounded man. Clearly the rules of engagement are fucked up.


----------



## Fenix (Apr 5, 2010)

This is what happens when a bunch of old wrinkled glory hogging sick fucks send boys into combat zones.

The politicians. The soldiers. The system. Everything is wrong.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 5, 2010)

Baax said:


> Only problem i can see in the vid is that the gunners destroying that truck which was trying to remove that wounded man. Clearly the rules of engagement are fucked up.




A retired intel. officer stated that the rules of engagement were not followed.


The "weapons" turned out to be cameras and tripods. Ph34R my camera and tripod of dooooom~! 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting

There's a whole lot wrong with what happened. More importantly, the process through which we train soldiers negatively affects their psychology.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Oh yes and you once neg repped me (on November 5th, 2008) gloating about how you hope Israeli civilians are killed in rocket attacks, so do not try the humanitarian/morality card. You hope for the death of innocents yet criticize me for being indifferent to individuals gloating over the deaths of what they think are enemies?



Jesus Christ dude, how can you remember something like that!? 



> Ever hear of gallows humor? Any profession that regularly involves dangerous situations and life-or-death choices will invariably create an atmosphere of practiced indifference and morbid humor.
> 
> Doctors call brain-dead patients "GPO," or "Good for Parts Only." When doctors give up on a patient they write "TEETH" on their records, for "Tried Everything Else, Try Homeopathy." When a patient is close to dying but needs a resuscitation, doctors will call for a "Slow Code," meaning that the doctor needs to walk reaaaally slooooowly so that the patient will die and can't be revived before the doctor gets there. Firefighters refer to dead burn victims as "crispy critters." A person having a seizure is called a "fish out of water." A "DRT" means a person is "Dead Right There." Police call their nightsticks "lie detectors."
> 
> The proper term is clinical detachment. If you let yourself get connected to every single life and death decision when you're a doctor, cop, firefighter, or soldier, you're no good to anybody because you'll be in the insane asylum after two weeks.



wow... I just learned something here.

i totally get where Mega and Darklyre are coming from and i agree with you guys. But that dont change the fact that these guys did something horrible. Especially when they engaged the bus.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> You just contradicted yourself, as being a professional killer mentally requires taking killing lightly. If anything, these people treating all of this as "just another day at the job" demonstrates professional efficiency.
> 
> But really I don't particularly care or see the importance of soldiers being glad over the elimination of what they think is the enemy. It's constantly berated around with this story but is easily the least important aspect. I've never really heard of a soldier from anywhere expressing sorrow over inflicting casualties on the enemy.



Lol at the "professional killer" label.  I don't think that's what american's are supporting when they pay their taxes to defense spending.  And professional does not imply taking your job lightly.  ON the contrary you would perform your job with the utmost care and concern, and a high regard for society.  You are so far off on this one it's hilarious.


----------



## Arishem (Apr 5, 2010)

God, the posts in this thread are giving me an idea for an absolutely horrible movie. A sad tragic tale about a man made for war, but with a heart that loves every living thing, who cries for every soul he's forced to silence. One particularly moving scene involves him building a cemetery after killing all the recruits in a terrorist training camp; a solitary butterfly lands on his work bloodied hands as he wails for the dead. Written and directed by Ang Lee, Lethal Weeper is about the perfect killer whose heart still beats in a callous world devoid of humanity. The Academy would eat it up like pigs given fresh leftovers.  


He weeps for every death.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> Lol at the "professional killer" label.  I don't think that's what american's are supporting when they pay their taxes to defense spending.  And professional does not imply taking your job lightly.  ON the contrary you would perform your job with the utmost care and concern, and a high regard for society.  You are so far off on this one it's hilarious.



They DO take their job seriously. If they didn't they'd be all "nah, we can let those dudes pass, they look legit." They are professional KILLERS. That is what they are TRAINED, PAID, and TOLD to do. Their job is to _kill the enemy_. Regard for society does not enter into this equation. When you say they do their job with the utmost care and concern, it's only for _their guys_, not someone who they perceive is the enemy.

There were soldiers sent into LA during the Rodney King riots to assist the local police in keeping order. When one cop who was going to serve a warrant told the soldiers following him to "cover him," they did not just show "a high regard for society" and go with police procedure, they fucking followed military procedure and blasted the shit out of the house before the cop had the chance to clarify.

In addition, people in this thread are talking of soldiers as if they enjoy killing people. That's more often than not completely wrong. They don't enjoy killing people, they like performing their job well. Their job just happens to involve killing people. Do you think a cop who puts down a crazed gunman and celebrates does so because he just killed someone or because he did his job and did it well?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Oh yes and you once neg repped me (on November 5th, 2008) gloating about how you hope Israeli civilians are killed in rocket attacks, so do not try the humanitarian/morality card. You hope for the death of innocents yet criticize me for being indifferent to individuals gloating over the deaths of what they think are enemies?



That's just fucking creepy


----------



## Talon. (Apr 5, 2010)

this is why i dont wanna be in the army 
fuck the real world, i have MW2


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 5, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> They DO take their job seriously. If they didn't they'd be all "nah, we can let those dudes pass, they look legit." They are professional KILLERS. That is what they are TRAINED, PAID, and TOLD to do. Their job is to _kill the enemy_. Regard for society does not enter into this equation. When you say they do their job with the utmost care and concern, it's only for _their guys_, not someone who they perceive is the enemy.
> 
> There were soldiers sent into LA during the Rodney King riots to assist the local police in keeping order. When one cop who was going to serve a warrant told the soldiers following him to "cover him," they did not just show "a high regard for society" and go with police procedure, they fucking followed military procedure and blasted the shit out of the house before the cop had the chance to clarify.
> 
> In addition, people in this thread are talking of soldiers as if they enjoy killing people. That's more often than not completely wrong. They don't enjoy killing people, they like performing their job well. Their job just happens to involve killing people. Do you think a cop who puts down a crazed gunman and celebrates does so because he just killed someone or because he did his job and did it well?



if they were professional, they wouldn't be on video joking about the people they killed.  You and MH using ass-backwards logic, "hahah, they are so professional it's a joke to them".  That's retarded.  Would it be ok for your doctor to crack jokes about your prognosis in front of you if you had cancer? or if your house was falling apart and the inspector said "at least it's not my house asshole, lol".


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> if they were professional, they wouldn't be on video joking about the people they killed.  You and MH using ass-backwards logic, "hahah, they are so professional it's a joke to them".  That's retarded.  Would it be ok for your doctor to crack jokes about your prognosis in front of you if you had cancer? or if your house was falling apart and the inspector said "at least it's not my house asshole, lol".



Not comparable situations. A doctor is meant to help the subject while a soldier is meant to kill its subject and treat it differently then it would any other human being.

Perhaps it's because you have little idea of what it actually requires for combat, but you can't operate under normal societal values or use this idealistic concepts of the value of a human life. It's an essential contradiction to expect to kill someone and yet at the same time value his existence. Moreover in this time of environment coping mechanisms are required, which give way to black humor.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 5, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> if they were professional, they wouldn't be on video joking about the people they killed.  You and MH using ass-backwards logic, "hahah, they are so professional it's a joke to them".  That's retarded.  Would it be ok for your doctor to crack jokes about your prognosis in front of you if you had cancer? or if your house was falling apart and the inspector said "at least it's not my house asshole, lol".



The doctors don't crack jokes about you in front of you, but they WILL write shit on your medical records and laugh about you with other doctors and nurses. You ever hear a doctor say that someone had a fecal encephalopathy? They're not discussing medical procedures, they're calling that person "shit for brains." They will write "FLK" (Funny Looking Kid) on childrens' medical records. The inspectors don't laugh at you to your face, but you bet your ass they'll be telling stories about how so-and-so's house looked like Detroit or Somalia or whatever back at the office.

You seem to have this conception of professionalism that simply does not hold up in real life. What you're asking is for soldiers to have empathy for the people they kill, _as they kill them_, when that actively obstructs their ability to, you know, _kill them_.


----------



## mystictrunks (Apr 5, 2010)

Pretty sad but that's what soldier do, style on people before they can get styled on.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 5, 2010)

Unfortunate yet all too common and not too surprising.

Hopefully this is dealt with swiftly and not drawn out.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 5, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Not comparable situations. A doctor is meant to help the subject while a soldier is meant to kill its subject and treat it differently then it would any other human being.
> 
> Perhaps it's because you have little idea of what it actually requires for combat, but you can't operate under normal societal values or use this idealistic concepts of the value of a human life. It's an essential contradiction to expect to kill someone and yet at the same time value his existence. Moreover in this time of environment coping mechanisms are required, which give way to black humor.





Darklyre said:


> The doctors don't crack jokes about you in front of you, but they WILL write shit on your medical records and laugh about you with other doctors and nurses. You ever hear a doctor say that someone had a fecal encephalopathy? They're not discussing medical procedures, they're calling that person "shit for brains." They will write "FLK" (Funny Looking Kid) on childrens' medical records. The inspectors don't laugh at you to your face, but you bet your ass they'll be telling stories about how so-and-so's house looked like Detroit or Somalia or whatever back at the office.
> 
> You seem to have this conception of professionalism that simply does not hold up in real life. What you're asking is for soldiers to have empathy for the people they kill, _as they kill them_, when that actively obstructs their ability to, you know, _kill them_.



you guys are clueless.  you don't even get half of what i'm saying.  Maybe someone who can think will explain it.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

there's nothing to say about this actually, the video talks for itself... there's simply no acceptable reason to defend these men


----------



## Bleach (Apr 6, 2010)




----------



## BAD BD (Apr 6, 2010)

Welcome to war. Kill them or they'll kill your friends.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 6, 2010)

And if you looked earlier, the CNN, MSN, and even Fox News websites all had stories on the video front and center.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 6, 2010)

BAD BD said:


> Welcome to war. Kill them or they'll kill your friends.



Some fail ideology.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 6, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> And if you looked earlier, the CNN, MSN, and even Fox News websites all had stories on the video front and center.



i check out the main sites frequently thru the day. i found this story here first, didn't see it anywhere else till mid afternoon.


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 6, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Some fail ideology.



Armed conflict is "fail."


----------



## Bleach (Apr 6, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> And if you looked earlier, the CNN, MSN, and even Fox News websites all had stories on the video front and center.



And yet, it's completely off the front page now. So only people who checked the websites at those times will know of this story.



BAD BD said:


> Armed conflict is "fail."



Yet unstoppable.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 6, 2010)

Bleach said:


> And yet, it's completely off the front page now. So only people who checked the websites at those times will know of this story



It's still on the frontpage of all 3. It's the second story under Latest News on CNN and listed as the most popular under the News Pulse.

It's the third story listed on MSN under the News section.

It's still up on Fox News as well under their Latest News section.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

i'd like to add that those do not look like weapons but i can't blame the soldiers for not taking chances... even though approaching on foot requesting them to drop weapons would be more humane and correct


----------



## Bleach (Apr 6, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> It's still on the frontpage of all 3. It's the second story under Latest News on CNN and listed as the most popular under the News Pulse.
> 
> It's the third story listed on MSN under the News section.
> 
> It's still up on Fox News as well under their Latest News section.



My bad, it's just not as prevalent now as the "champions" or the ipad.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> i'd like to add that those do not look like weapons but i can't blame the soldiers for not taking chances... *even though approaching on foot requesting them to drop weapons would be more humane and correct*



And completely defeats the reason we have gunships in the first place.  

Those were clearly AK-47's, and one guy clearly had an RPG that he was loading and pointing down the street.  It was 2007 in Baghdad.  There was absolutely no reason to think that they were anything but insurgents.  There were forces on the ground that those eight men were moving to engage.  The gunships did their job and saved US lives. 

The van that approached a few minutes later was an unmarked vehicle providing aid to the enemy in a warzone.  The men that exited said vehicle wore no identifiable uniforms denoting they were rescue workers, paramedics, etc.  Rules of engagement, man.  At least the US is still complying by them (as you can hear the gunners asking permission to engage and waiting for orders to do so).  

As for the congrats and what-nots, they were just soldiers doing their jobs.  I'm sorry, but if you man a gun and your primary objective is to kill shit, you should be proud when you kill shit.  I see this as no different than a hunter bagging a moose or something and getting congrats from his pals.  Except more so, as terrorists were killed and US lives were saved.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> And completely defeats the reason we have gunships in the first place.
> 
> Those were clearly AK-47's, and one guy clearly had an RPG that he was loading and pointing down the street.  It was 2007 in Baghdad.  There was absolutely no reason to think that they were anything but insurgents.  There were forces on the ground that those eight men were moving to engage.  The gunships did their job and saved US lives.
> 
> ...



those weren't ak's dude, it was a video camera and a tripod


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Psycho said:


> those weren't ak's dude, it was a video camera and a tripod


That most people here admit they can't tell from guns and weapons.


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> And completely defeats the reason we have gunships in the first place.
> 
> Those were clearly AK-47's, and one guy clearly had an RPG that he was loading and pointing down the street.  It was 2007 in Baghdad.  There was absolutely no reason to think that they were anything but insurgents.  There were forces on the ground that those eight men were moving to engage.  The gunships did their job and saved US lives.
> 
> The van that approached a few minutes later was an unmarked vehicle providing aid to the enemy in a warzone.  The men that exited said vehicle wore no identifiable uniforms denoting they were rescue workers, paramedics, etc.  Rules of engagement, man.  At least the US is still complying by them (as you can hear the gunners asking permission to engage and waiting for orders to do so)  .



1. I too think atleast some of them had AK's, but as earlier stated, it doesnt prove they were militants. They could either have been armed to protect their family or they were armed to protect those journalists from potential kidnapper, because, as you said "It was Baghdad in 2007", a time where it was not uncommon to find 50-100 tortured bodies on the streets daily. I heard the chopper pilot saying there was a RPG, but i certainly didnt see it. But still, i think their initial strike was justifiable with what they then knew.

2. In countries/regions plagued with war and conflict(such as Iraq, Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan etc), it is very common for civilian people to load wounded and dead people onto private vehicles and drive them off to the hospital/cemetary. That is why the terrorists love to use an double strike suicide bomber so they can hit the people that rush to the scene.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That most people here admit they can't tell from guns and weapons.



i said that too, look at my other post, but still, they should've walked up and asked them to drop the gun, the soldiers are far better armed and trained and could easily take them down in a firefight

and i also didn't see the RPG, but i didn't really look again


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> those weren't ak's dude, it was a video camera and a tripod





> That most people here admit they can't tell from guns and weapons.



The RPG sticks out like a sore thumb, and you can't tell me that three or four people were lugging around tripods shaped like AK-47s.  Not to mention that the soldiers down the street visually confirmed fire coming from that direction.  Watch the video in fullscreen, keep your eyes open, and tell me that you can't make out at least two painfully obvious AKs.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Psycho said:


> i said that too, look at my other post, but still, they should've walked up and asked them to drop the gun, the soldiers are far better armed and trained and could easily take them down in a firefight
> 
> and i also didn't see the RPG, but i didn't really look again



Not really something they should be expected to do, putting soldiers on the ground automatically puts them in danger. Blunders like this are expected but putting people on the ground in harm's way isn't really necessary because of a mistake.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> The RPG sticks out like a sore thumb, and you can't tell me that three or four people were lugging around tripods shaped like AK-47s.  Not to mention that the soldiers down the street visually confirmed fire coming from that direction.  Watch the video in fullscreen, keep your eyes open, and tell me that you can't make out at least two painfully obvious AKs.


Looking at the first minutes again, I'm not so certain anymore [that they have any weapons]; but yeah, it's hard to tell the difference. Though the fact that none of them seems to pay much attention to the fact that there are US helicopters circling around them really baffles me.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> but still, they should've walked up and asked them to drop the gun, the soldiers are far better armed and trained and could easily take them down in a firefight



They're not fucking cops, they're soldiers.  Soldiers don't put themselves in harms way like that.  The idea is to minimize or completely prevent casualties (which is one reason we use Apaches).  You don't put yourself in a position to lose troops. 



> and i also didn't see the RPG, but i didn't really look again



At the point where the guy is saying that there are five or six individuals with AK-47s you can clearly see an RPG.  While the angle where the guy is looking around the side of the building is dubious, and you can't tell, it would certainly seem to the guys in the air that an insurgent is scoping out the approaching American troops and is about to fire an RGP into their midst.  It could be a long angled lens, I suppose, but if that's the case, you can't really feel sorry for war photographers who hang out with terrorists so as to get a better story or pictures or whatever.



> Looking at the first minutes again, I'm not so certain anymore [that they have any weapons]; but yeah, it's hard to tell the difference. Though the fact that none of them seems to pay much attention to the fact that there are US helicopters circling around them really baffles me.



Listen to the conversation.  They're talking about an approaching convoy and about a recent engagement in the area.  In the video I watched there were notes telling us who the two reporters are, but looking at the couple of people behind them, you can clearly make out what appear to be some sort of assault rifle.  I guess it could be something with just the size and shape of an assault rifle these grown men are carrying with them into a warzone, accompanied by war photographers who are out shooting pictures of terrorists with weapons, but that's silly.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> The RPG sticks out like a sore thumb, and you can't tell me that three or four people were lugging around tripods shaped like AK-47s.  Not to mention that the soldiers down the street visually confirmed fire coming from that direction.  Watch the video in fullscreen, keep your eyes open, and tell me that you can't make out at least two painfully obvious AKs.



there are no "two painly obvious AKs", there are two guys with something on their backs and straps over their shoulders (which not for a moment you can see) and another guy with something that looks mildly like and RPG, but he isn't holding it correctly (when the supposed RPG is shown for the first time, the man is holding it around the middle and it's just under his shoulder AND almost scraping at the ground, an actual RPG has either one side much shorter then the other OR one side much wider then the other -this applies to the russian RPG-7-; the other type of RPG found in iraq is the m72 LAW, that has a grip your supposed to hold with your arm in a vertical position, so there was no logical reason for him to be holding the launcher like that...it's also too short to be a RPG-29 and not big enough to be an RPG-26 or an RPG-32)... the guy made a hurried judgement and explained it poorly, the correct way to say it would be "6 individuals with what appears to be a RPG"

and he opened up on what was likely a civilian vehicle collecting wounded to take to a hospital or something like that, they were not armed and they did not pose a threat to anyone


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

impersonal said:


> Looking at the first minutes again, I'm not so certain anymore [that they have any weapons]; but yeah, it's hard to tell the difference. Though the fact that none of them seems to pay much attention to the fact that there are US helicopters circling around them really baffles me.


My dad said the first thing Vietcong did when they saw US Helicopters was wave if they were alone and didn't want to engage them. They were smart enough to know that the US might think they were just civilians.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

impersonal said:


> Looking at the first minutes again, I'm not so certain anymore [that they have any weapons]; but yeah, it's hard to tell the difference. Though the fact that none of them seems to pay much attention to the fact that there are US helicopters circling around them really baffles me.



a 20mm round moves at over 1km/s, it takes more then one second and a half for the bullet to hit the target, meaning that the helicopter is pretty far away, and thinking that one of the guys is a journalist, they probably never even considered the chance of an army chopper opening fire atthem


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> My dad said the first thing Vietcong did when they saw US Helicopters was wave if they were alone and didn't want to engage them. They were smart enough to know that the US might think they were just civilians.



vietcongs originally received american funding and training (for more info, see viet minh), they and the FARCs are some of the most dangerous militias that ever plagued modern society


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Psycho said:


> vietcongs originally received american funding and training (for more info, see viet minh), they and the FARCs are some of the most dangerous militias that ever plagued modern society



True, but he said when he first got there, they didn't know that. They adapted. Though you're right. That gun taking that long shows the distance from the target. So anyone that far off wouldn't think to move unless they were enemy combatants. (or really wanted to blend in) Or just flat out didn't see the thing.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> True, but he said when he first got there, they didn't know that. They adapted. Though you're right. That gun taking that long shows the distance from the target. So anyone that far off wouldn't think to move unless they were enemy combatants. (or really wanted to blend in) Or just flat out didn't see the thing.



it's more likely they didn't even see the patrol, and the speed of sound is 1/3 a kilometer per second, once they heard the shots, the bullets had already hit


----------



## Kensei (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> At the point where the guy is saying that there are five or six individuals with AK-47s you can clearly see an RPG.  While the angle where the guy is looking around the side of the building is dubious, and you can't tell, it would certainly seem to the guys in the air that an insurgent is scoping out the approaching American troops and is about to fire an RGP into their midst.  It could be a long angled lens, I suppose, but if that's the case, you can't really feel sorry for war photographers who hang out with terrorists so as to get a better story or pictures or whatever.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting



> A military 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.



Your plainly an rpg was a camera. Moreover, no weapons were ever found when they examined the scene. So, continue believing their were weapons even though there weren't.



impersonal said:


> Looking at the first minutes again, I'm not so certain anymore [that they have any weapons]; but yeah, it's hard to tell the difference. Though the fact that none of them seems to pay much attention to the fact that there are US helicopters circling around them really baffles me.



You'd be correct in leaning towards no weapons.


----------



## mystictrunks (Apr 6, 2010)

Bleach said:


> My bad, it's just not as prevalent now as the "champions" or the ipad.



That's just because the hottest product this week and the worlds biggest athlete are more interesting to people than the news that people die in wars.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

Kensei said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_shooting
> 
> 
> 
> ...



long range camera lens? holy shit man i gotta get me one of those? how long range? 1600mm?


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

Looks like an RPG to me.  Considering that this is a warzone, and that fighting has occurred really fucking close to these men, I'd take my chances and say it's an RPG.  Looks obvious to me.  If it's not, then these men are too stupid to live anyways, as they're walking around like that in a fucking warzone.  



Looks like an AK-47 to me. 



> Your plainly an rpg was a camera. Moreover, no weapons were ever found when they examined the scene. So, continue believing their were weapons even though there weren't.



No where does it say that there weren't weapons on the scene, only that the camera and photography equipment looked like weapons.  So perhaps what your article is saying is that there were three AK-47's present, not four.

In fact, the more I look at the gif I posted, the more I'm convinced they are weapons.  The two journalists were already pointed out as being NOT the ones with the so called "camera" equipment.

EDIT:  And I'm not saying that I'm right, just that you've got to cut the pilots and soldiers some slack here.  Clearly, in the heat of battle, a group of men walking around with what could clearly be mistaken for weapons, near the scene of a recent engagement...  Until I hear some more on this, I'm still not convinced that this isn't all just a media propaganda spin on things (you know, what little the media cares to cover it).


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Apr 6, 2010)

Whether armed or not, you went to some people country and shot them dead though they never attacked your country or declared war on it.


----------



## iander (Apr 6, 2010)

Except there was no rpg, there were no weapons.  There was no endangerment to the soldiers.  They didn't care enough to check.  They assumed that having a gun means being an insurgent and that all the people there who were unarmed were also insurgents.  They fired at unarmed people running away.  They fired at wounded people.  They saw a civilian vehicle full of unarmed people taking bodies and opened fire assuming again they were insurgents. 

They publicly lied and said that most of them were insurgents and that they were responding to fire.  They refused freedom of information requests about the incident and they have tried to discredit anyone who questioned the official version.

A criminal lack of care for the lives of innocents being covered up to avoid blame.

The soldiers are there to protect the lives of Iraqis.  If they do not care enough about civilians to correctly verify who people are before firing, then they are failing their mission.


----------



## Kensei (Apr 6, 2010)

Look at that "terrorist". All unarmed and shit. Aim a hellfire missile at his ass. Yeehaw!


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> Whether armed or not, you went to some people country and shot them dead though they never attacked your country or declared war on it.



You are obviously not an American.  Don't worry, little non-American you, we'll protect you from the terrorists and extremist governments of the world, again, while you live in your small socialist country and hope that the shit never hits the fan. 

Not that the reason for being in Iraq is the topic of this thread, but if for nothing else, trying to bring stability to the region is a good enough reason for war.  Too bad it won't work with so many Muslim extremists.



> Except there was no rpg, there were no weapons. There was no endangerment to the soldiers. They didn't care enough to check. They assumed that having a gun means being an insurgent and that all the people there who were unarmed were also insurgents. They fired at unarmed people running away. They fired at wounded people. They saw a civilian vehicle full of unarmed people taking bodies and opened fire assuming again they were insurgents.



They didn't know all that.  All they knew was that they had troops on the ground, in the area, that had taken fire earlier that afternoon, and that a large group of people were in the area, converging on the troops' position, and had what appears to me in the video weapons.  One of them even looked like he was peeking around a corner with an RPG.  

If these people were civilians, they were really fucking stupid civilians.  I've seen just as many articles stating that they were insurgents that the journalists were following around as I've seen saying that everyone there was a civilian.  

And, I'm sorry, you don't take an unmarked van and drive it into a battlefield and start tampering with bodies and shit.  Rules of Engagement are clearly on the soldiers' side in that regard.  The fact that there were children present only says that if this happened in America, someone would be criminally negligent.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> You are obviously not an American.  Don't worry, little non-American you, we'll protect you from the terrorists and extremist governments of the world, again, while you live in your small socialist country and hope that the shit never hits the fan.



The war in Iraq has fueled terrorism if anything. Revisionism at work.



martryn said:


> Not that the reason for being in Iraq is the topic of this thread, but if for nothing else, *trying to bring stability to the region is a good enough reason for war.*  Too bad it won't work with so many Muslim extremists.


No comment.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> The war in Iraq has fueled terrorism if anything. Revisionism at work.



So the real solution is to just accept the current terrorism levels as acceptable and take our hits when they come?  Great.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> So the real solution is to just accept the current terrorism levels as acceptable and take our hits when they come?  Great.


All I'm saying is that, as far as terrorism goes, Iraq wasn't a problem until the US decided to fix it.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> Looks like an RPG to me.  Considering that this is a warzone, and that fighting has occurred really fucking close to these men, I'd take my chances and say it's an RPG.  Looks obvious to me.  If it's not, then these men are too stupid to live anyways, as they're walking around like that in a fucking warzone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an *RPG was really a long-range photography lens* [means they thought was an RPG was a set of lens for a camera]; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.



and that gif looks nothing like an ak, it's fucking huge, it's scrapping the floor and still going beyond the man's hand (that and he's holding it on an extremely unlikely position to hold a weapon) that is a tripod, and even if you can't properly that it's a tripod, it looks nothing like a weapon

you cannot "take chances" when it comes to this shit, these are not fucking rubber bullets, these are +20mm rounds, they also opened fire at a vehicle with no reason, it was taking away wounded, that is in no way threatening the soldiers... they could've at least sent a scout to snipe out the area and see properly if those were weapons

i'm not cutting them some slack, we can't just excuse shooting at people because they were jumpy and worried, these are lives, they cannot be repaired or replaced


----------



## niyesuH (Apr 6, 2010)

It's about time USA left Iraq


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> and that gif looks nothing like an ak, it's fucking huge, it's scrapping the floor and still going beyond the man's hand (that and he's holding it on an extremely unlikely position to hold a weapon) that is a tripod, and even if you can't properly that it's a tripod, it looks nothing like a weapon



The guy in the striped shirt looks like he has an assault rifle of some kind.  The guy in front of him looks like he might have an RPG.  And if we're having trouble telling now, even knowing that there was camera equipment present, how the fuck did a guy in a helicopter supposed to make that distinction? 



> you cannot "take chances" when it comes to this shit, these are not fucking rubber bullets, these are +20mm rounds, they also opened fire at a vehicle with no reason, it was taking away wounded, that is in no way threatening the soldiers... they could've at least sent a scout to snipe out the area and see properly if those were weapons



The van was unmarked and drove straight into an active military zone.  People hopped out and were pulling bodies away.  Rules of Engagement clearly state that in such a situation, fire the fuck away.  That van has just come to offer backup and support to the insurgents.  

If that van was full of innocents, they're all fucking retarded.  Who the fuck drives into an area like that?  And with children present and shit?  Completely retarded. 



> i'm not cutting them some slack, we can't just excuse shooting at people because they were jumpy and worried, these are lives, they cannot be repaired or replaced



They are lives.  US military lives.  And if you watched that video without the commentary or without knowing what you were watching, that clearly looks like an ambush.  Those clearly look like weapons.  And opening fire is clearly justified.  

I mean, seriously, the Apache helicopters weren't randomly in the area.  A few minutes before this video began, and a few minutes before the Apaches were around to provide support, an infantry platoon in the area took some RPG fire and small arms fire in that vicinity.  There is communication with such from the ground you can hear.  

Just a reminder:



IF you watch the unedited version of the video (I'm not sure if the one posted in this thread is or not), close to the twenty minute mark you'll hear chatter about a live RPG round as they scope out the area.  So yes, that's a fucking RPG, not a tripod.  And I'm pretty certain that they were going to use it against American troops.  Probably had already.  Sorry that the news people got in the way and had to die, but they shouldn't have been consorting with terrorists to get a story.  And the guys in the air didn't know, and wouldn't have known, that there was media twenty feet from terrorists committing terrorist acts.  

The Apache came in, it did what it was called in to do, which was to take fire off of and kill the insurgents attacking American troops.  Don't read and believe propaganda stories.  Read the unedited shit and make up your own mind.


----------



## Distance (Apr 6, 2010)

Ah war, such a messy game. Non of us were there, and the video quality isn't that great so we can't conclude shit. All I can see from this video is that the army took a risk to engage fire on people who they assumed had weapons without going through thorough analysis about the situation, but I can also say that it was better for them to act safe rather than sorry. So...yeah.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

I also like how acts of war are defined as "terrorism" as long as they are against american troops. Firing a rocket at a military helicopter is guerilla, not terrorism. Voluntarily bombing innocent civilians (which wasn't the case here, for the record) is terrorism. 

Martryn, if you want to gain credibility, stop acting like a propaganda machine. I for one think that, even though what they're carrying could or could not be weapons, the whole thing is at worst a tragic but understandable error. But you need to be more honest in your approach.

Also, how come that's the best video they had? The copter is very stable, the video is very clear, yet the resolution is bad enough that you can't zoom in to tell whether they had weapons or photo equipment. Well, whatever, I don't know much about this war stuff.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

niyesuH said:


> It's about time USA left Iraq


Yeah because you can just leave it in shambles .


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> Martryn, if you want to gain credibility, stop acting like a propaganda machine. I for one think that, even though what they're carrying could or could not be weapons, the whole thing is at worst a tragic but understandable error. But you need to be more honest in your approach.



You misspelled my name.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> You misspelled my name.



appealing to grammatical errors is a sign of trolling


----------



## vivEnergy (Apr 6, 2010)

So looks like it was bodyguards+reporters.

Unlucky guy at 34.40 lol, he's like "oh whatever they never shoot twice at the same place ... OOPS"


----------



## da-chunin (Apr 6, 2010)

omg it really was an rpg


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

martryn said:


> You misspelled my name.



Sorry about that.

It's interesting how people react to this, on major websites. Many are shocked to see people kill others so lightly.

Like most people in this thread I've seen quite a number of "shock images" so I've got a (very basic) idea of what this stuff looks like (although I bet it's not the same to be there). But most 'normal people" don't, and I guess their idea of war is Hollywood movies : _the good American soldier kisses a picture of his fiancée back in Ohio. Then, he makes a mental prayer, then rushes in, risking his life to save women and children and perhaps one of his fellow soldiers from a huge group of mean-looking terrorists about to murder them all while laughing hysterically. And then, our soldier starts a deep personal inquiry about what he just did : "damn, I just killed a man "._ 

Reality is more crude than that.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 6, 2010)

Psycho said:


> there are no "two painly obvious AKs", there are two guys with something on their backs and straps over their shoulders (which not for a moment you can see) and another guy with something that looks mildly like and RPG, but he isn't holding it correctly (when the supposed RPG is shown for the first time, the man is holding it around the middle and it's just under his shoulder AND almost scraping at the ground, an actual RPG has either one side much shorter then the other OR one side much wider then the other -this applies to the russian RPG-7-; the other type of RPG found in iraq is the m72 LAW, that has a grip your supposed to hold with your arm in a vertical position, so there was no logical reason for him to be holding the launcher like that...it's also too short to be a RPG-29 and not big enough to be an RPG-26 or an RPG-32)... the guy made a hurried judgement and explained it poorly, the correct way to say it would be "6 individuals with what appears to be a RPG"
> 
> and he opened up on what was likely a civilian vehicle collecting wounded to take to a hospital or something like that, they were not armed and they did not pose a threat to anyone







Take distance, altitude, and lack of hindsight into account and it becomes obvious. There's other possibilities as well such as the RPG-16, RPG-18, French LRAC F1, West German Armburst, even an Israeli Shipon (though that being Iraq insurgent hands is rather unlikely...). I don't think anyone was thinking RPG-29 or the like here, those things are freakin huge.

As for the AK's, I can easily see how those would be considered such. At the very least it could have been seen as a much longer barreled SAW variant of the AK-47, the RPK. 

I don't quite understand though, are you suggesting they knew they didn't have weapons and killed them for the lulz? On the video (that the pilots did not expect to be leaked) they clearly are under the impression that those are enemy fighters. I mean the Germans just killed like 12 times more people in Afghanistan over a similar mistake and I don't think the amount of shitstorm here was nearly as large (perhaps because there's no video of it?).



			
				impersonal said:
			
		

> I for one think that, even though what they're carrying could or could not be weapons, the whole thing is at worst a tragic but understandable error. But you need to be more honest in your approach.



Pretty much this.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 6, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> *I don't quite understand though, are you suggesting they knew they didn't have weapons and killed them for the lulz*? On the video (that the pilots did not expect to be leaked) they clearly are under the impression that those are enemy fighters. I mean the Germans just killed like 12 times more people in Afghanistan over a similar mistake and I don't think the amount of shitstorm here was nearly as large (perhaps because there's no video of it?).



I don't think that was his point, I hardly think any army goes around killing people for the lulz. I think his point was if they were unsure it was weapons they should've just sent a scout or so to confirm whether or not they were weapons or not, and act a little bit in a more calmer manner then just shoot at people and the vehicle that came to help the wounded. Since you can't just go "opps" after killing a human being. 

However, as an Iraqi this fairly surprises or shocks me since the US pretty much has been following this paranoid mentality since the fall of Baghdad till now.


----------



## Crowe (Apr 6, 2010)

> _I for one think that, even though what  they're carrying could or could not be weapons, the whole thing is at  worst a tragic but understandable error. But you need to be more honest  in your approach._


I'd probably feel that way if it wasn't because of how the guys were talking about it. It sounds like they really wanted to do some shooting and the actions that followed up seem to more or less confirm it for me.

The second part with the car is also very tragic, he was picking up wounded, you don't shoot a man carrying away a wounded person. "His fault for bringing the car with the kids to the scene". It was most likely people he cared for that had been shot thus he drove to the place without thinking twice. They could've shot at the ground next to the car if they didn't want him to pick up the bodies or were afraid that he was picking up the weapons.

The fact that the family of the dead was lied to and been living with a lie is also extremely sad. I think this would have far less talk and condemning if they had released it first. "We are sorry to inform you that x was killed in ..."


----------



## Ibox (Apr 6, 2010)

Nobody still hasn't explained the logic in shooting the van and the people treating the wounded. THAT part was definitely not 'understandable' as so many people here think.


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 6, 2010)

Sasori-puppet#99 said:


> Nobody still hasn't explained the logic in shooting the van and the people treating the wounded. THAT part was definitely not 'understandable' as so many people here think.



Didn't you get the memo?
American troops are to be supported at all times.


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Didn't you get the memo?
> American troops are to be supported at all times.



Dude.  Shut...the fuck...up.

You act as if all of us (me and people like aquis45) were all cheering this.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

pek said:


> I'd probably feel that way if it wasn't because of how the guys were talking about it. It sounds like they really wanted to do some shooting and the actions that followed up seem to more or less confirm it for me.
> 
> The second part with the car is also very tragic, he was picking up wounded, you don't shoot a man carrying away a wounded person. "His fault for bringing the car with the kids to the scene". It was most likely people he cared for that had been shot thus he drove to the place without thinking twice. They could've shot at the ground next to the car if they didn't want him to pick up the bodies or were afraid that he was picking up the weapons.


Regarding the talking - I really don't think it's abnormal. Obviously it's trashy, but I don't expect much from people in general. That said, I agree about the part with the van. Why did they shoot at it? What kind of logic makes it forbidden to shoot at an agonizing man while allowing the killing of an obvious rescue team? I mean, these were clearly not military reinforcements.



			
				pek said:
			
		

> The fact that the family of the dead was lied to and been living with a lie is also extremely sad. I think this would have far less talk and condemning if they had released it first. "We are sorry to inform you that x was killed in ..."


I must have missed that part :/ link plz?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 6, 2010)

And this is why gun camera stuff usually remains classified.  Not because of any intrinsic wrongs, but because of message control and because people want to believe in their preconceived notions.


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

Sasori-puppet#99 said:


> Nobody still hasn't explained the logic in shooting the van and the people treating the wounded. THAT part was definitely not 'understandable' as so many people here think.



what? people have explained that countless times.

you are facing some enemy, you wound them, and then backup arrives and starts to pick them up and their weapons etc. are you going to let them? no you neutralize their backup.


also, all those saying they didnt have an rpg, there's a part where they talk to eachother about an rpg asking if it was still live or something. so they did found an rpg down there, unless they lie about rpg's in a combat situation for the lulz


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> And this is why gun camera stuff usually remains classified.  Not because of any intrinsic wrongs, but because of message control and because people want to believe in their preconceived notions.



Live IMINT isn't the greatest thing, especially at the resolution of Apache IMINT.  If only there was a Global Hawk or some other form of picture/video taking that could've revealed what it truly was.  A good protip for outside reporters is to also have some sort of marking on you and your vehicle to show you're of the press.  NATO forces have infrared tape on helmets and uniforms.  Just a thought.

Again though, I'm rather disgusted about this.


----------



## ~rocka (Apr 6, 2010)

Fenix said:


> This is what happens when a bunch of old wrinkled glory hogging sick fucks send boys into combat zones.
> 
> The politicians. The soldiers. The system. Everything is wrong.


This.

And big LOL to the bitches supporting this all.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 6, 2010)

~rocka said:


> This.
> 
> And big LOL to the bitches supporting this all.



See what I mean about people wanting to fulfill their notions?  They've got absolutely nothing to say on the subject at hand.


----------



## ~rocka (Apr 6, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> See what I mean about people wanting to fulfill their notions?  They've got absolutely nothing to say on the subject at hand.


Yeah i know, what do you want me to say? Everything that already has been said? 

The fact that these militants are screaming "Let me shoot god damnit", is for me enough to know that they really lost track of their objective in this war. 

Also killing people who are trying to help the wounded? Gtfo, if ur really supporting this crap. 

To be honest, i find this idea of debating this all on a Naruto forum really funny. As i came to think of it i find the entire idea of debating any serious subject on a Naruto forum really funny. Not that they shouldnt be allowed to be debated, just the way they are debated. 

As ive read alot of things people say here, im really disappointed. People talk here like they have an authority on the truth, and talk like they know it all and have seen it all. I find this very amusing.

So yeah, keep on going with the 20 pages long debates here on NF i know for sure its gonna get u all a good job .


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

~rocka said:


> Yeah i know, what do you want me to say? Everything that already has been said?
> 
> The fact that these militants are screaming "Let me shoot god damnit", is for me enough to know that they really lost track of their objective in this war.
> 
> ...



maybe he wanted to shoot them before they fired an rpg at the american soldiers? maybe they didnt want their enemies who were about to fire an rpg on them to get backup and be saved to come back and fire an rpg some other day? 

maybe next time they should aproach them and invite the dude with the rpg for some biscuits and tea. 

what was the first thing they did when they saw an injured child? they asked for an evac to get her to safety.

yeah what a bunch of lunatics who thrive on killing anyone and anybody they see. 

but hey, lets all hold hand with the iraquis with the rpg's right? peace and love


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Apr 6, 2010)

The initial shooting...  excusable..  They visualy id'd them and they made the mistake that they were a insurgent fire team.....  unfortunate but shit happens...  but the toasting of the van....  I cant find any excuse for that...  if the situation was reversed and one of them fired on a Red Cross evac chopper....  or Ambulance...  that would constitue a war crime.....    So in this instance is it simply legal to shoot what was obviously a improptu med-evac since it was unmarked?


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

eHav said:
			
		

> what? people have explained that countless times.
> 
> you are facing some enemy, you wound them, and then backup arrives and starts to pick them up and their weapons etc. are you going to let them? no you *neutralize their backup*.


You've got a funny way of spelling _"shoot the ambulance"_. 

I mean, the laws of war are such that you're not supposed to "neutralize their backup". Obviously, the insurgents don't respect them, but occidental armies are expected to act better than that. In this case, the soldiers didn't violate war laws strictly speaking, but violated "the spirit of the law": no, you do not "neutralize their backup", if by backup you mean "tending to the wounded".


> The Red Cross, Red Crescent, & the white flag
> 
> Modern laws of war, such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, also include prohibitions on attacking doctors, ambulances or hospital ships displaying a Red Cross, a Red Crescent or other emblem related to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is also prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle bearing a white flag, since that indicates an intent to surrender or a desire to communicate.



Oh well, either way I'm not _that_ shocked. Morally, it makes sense to let the wounded go away, but psychologically, not much has changed for the US soldiers; it's still the enemy he's supposed to kill, so he's still in killing-mode.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> You've got a funny way of spelling "shoot the ambulance".
> 
> I mean, the laws of war are such that you're not supposed to "neutralize their backup". Obviously, the insurgents don't respect them, but occidental armies are expected to act better than that. In this case, the soldiers didn't violate war laws strictly speaking, but violated "the spirit of the law": no, you do not "neutralize their backup", if by backup you mean "tending to the wounded".



That wasn't an ambulance.  You never see or hear of things like that in war zones.  Unmarked vans driving in the middle of combat to pick up bodies and weapons before military personnel are on the scene.  The Apache gunners identified them as a threat and as support to dangerous insurgents (which I'd classify any Iraqi walking around with a live RPG round).  For all they knew, they were going to pick up that RPG and use it against American troops.  The soldiers did their job and prevented them from doing so.


----------



## Seisokumaru (Apr 6, 2010)

I think what disturbed me most about this is how like video-game banter the exchanges between the soldiers was.  I mean really, it sounds like the voice-chat channel in many of the FPSes I play.  A generation of kids raised on violent video games sent to command robots and deal death via screens and buttons.  And my tax money makes this happen.  Great,

I don't blame the soldiers, I blame the politicians.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Apr 6, 2010)

Seisokumaru said:


> I think what disturbed me most about this is how like video-game banter the exchanges between the soldiers was.  I mean really, it sounds like the voice-chat channel in many of the FPSes I play. * A generation of kids raised on violent video games sent to command robots and deal death via screens and buttons.*  And my tax money makes this happen.  Great,
> 
> I don't blame the soldiers, I blame the politicians.



lol, sounds like my TV and xbox controller   

i agree with you. The convo was just shocking


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 6, 2010)

Mael said:


> And fuck you too.
> 
> Should you ever be in danger...don't look to me to bail you out.





martryn said:


> You are obviously not an American.  Don't worry, little non-American you, we'll protect you from the terrorists and extremist governments of the world, again, while you live in your small socialist country and hope that the shit never hits the fan.



Oh lawl. No you won't. In order to "protect" us(the tiny rest of the world), you would first have to ask permission from those old geezers sitting comfortably in their office. And forgive me if I don't trust them to grant you that request. When the day arrives where individual soldiers are allowed to go "Oh my, my justice sense is tingling. Start OPERATION SAVE THE WORLD!(without approval from my superiors)", I'll take back my words.

No offense to both of you, but I'm tired of hearing all these "big bro USA is looking out for all the weaklings in the world" type of comments.

----

On topic: I can definitely see why those things can be misidentified. I can even understand the psychological effect of wars on soldiers that they crack up jokes and stuffs about their perceived enemies. It's sad reality but totally understandable. But the cover up? That's just inexcusable. It shows the ones in power are just trying to cover up their asses.


----------



## AmigoOne (Apr 6, 2010)

HugeGuy said:


> On topic: I can definitely see why those things can be misidentified. I can even understand the psychological effect of wars on soldiers that they crack up jokes and stuffs about their perceived enemies. It's sad reality but totally understandable. But the cover up? That's just inexcusable. It shows the ones in power are just trying to cover up their asses.



But covering it up isnt the issue for most of the people responding to this. Its the actual act, a lot of people dont understand it and see it like you do. Thats basically the debate going on here, it just gets a little derailed but thats the core of it.

PS: lol guys im rocka i hurt peoples feelings cuz i think im that gewd.


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 6, 2010)

AmigoOne said:


> But covering it up isnt the issue for most of the people responding to this. Its the actual act, a lot of people dont understand it and see it like you do. Thats basically the debate going on here, it just gets a little derailed but thats the core of it.
> 
> PS: lol guys im rocka i hurt peoples feelings cuz i think im that gewd.



People see and discuss what's most obvious to them. It's natural.

But I'm glad to find people like Mael(with military background no less) expressing disgust.


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

HugeGuy said:


> People see and discuss what's most obvious to them. It's natural.
> 
> But I'm glad to find people like Mael(with military background no less) expressing disgust.



As stated before, the first shot was understandable...but everything afterwards is highly questionable.  You don't kick a dog while it's down.  That's something the Islamic radicals do.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Apr 6, 2010)

How is shooting backup to a possible insurgent party kicking the dog while its down? Mael?


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> How is shooting backup to a possible insurgent party kicking the dog while its down? Mael?



Seeing the way these people reacted and the poor quality of the IMINT just makes me feel suspicious that these were dyed-in-the-wool insurgents.  Everything is just rather grainy...adding to the report soon after that attack of Reuters journalists dying.


----------



## Shay (Apr 6, 2010)

Regards,

I believe that there is nothing wrong with how the soldiers conducted themselves in this video. As others have stated, this is how soldiers cope with the magnitude of their life and death decisions that they have to make on a daily basis. Dehumanizing the enemy and referring to them as targets, like one would while hunting or playing a FPS is understandable groupthink when you are being paid and trained to actively take human lives. I don't understand how there are people who can judge them for this attitude - if they chose to remain silent or maintain a facade of cold professionalism they just might end up going crazy. When you're among brothers who are going through the same hardening experiences that you are, I can imagine that humor is the best and greatest way to not only preserve camaraderie with your fellow soldier but also keep morale and personal esteem high when otherwise the weight of the situation might just kill them emotionally.

Whether or not you agree with the war or not, I pray you might consider that regarding their attitudes.

Thank you for your time,
~Shay


----------



## Fuzzly (Apr 6, 2010)

I don't see anything wrong with this. I hate war, and I wish we weren't here, but those soldiers acted appropriately. I don't expect soldiers to slit their wrists every time they kill an enemy. They're supposed to be react the way they do in the video for a reason. Soldiers have to be able to distance themselves from the enemy as humans otherwise they couldn't do their jobs.

If I was in their position I'd do the same thing. That's not an ambulance, it's an unmarked van. The idea is to kill your enemy, not wound them so they can come back to fight.

Ideally I would never get into a war to begin with, as I said I hate it. But if you're in the situation you're in it to win it. You've already consigned yourself to killing as many people as it takes to create peace. 

War itself is an atrocity. What did you expect to happen? The chopper pilots land their vehicles and sing and pray for the wounded? If you decide you have the right to kill other people, I don't have much sympathy for you when you get finished off.

Mael, IMO, if that dog was going for your throat right before you beat its ass to the ground, you don't just kick it, you slit its throat. Any dog that attacks humans isn't a dog we want in our society, no?

You go to 4chan knowing you're going to see sick shit. Anyone who goes there and posts about how awful and disgusting the site is, is either a troll or stupid.

I also recognize the important job war journalists have. However, while I recognize that loss of life is tragic, it's not like they didn't know the risks.


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

impersonal said:


> You've got a funny way of spelling _"shoot the ambulance"_.
> 
> I mean, the laws of war are such that you're not supposed to "neutralize their backup". Obviously, the insurgents don't respect them, but occidental armies are expected to act better than that. In this case, the soldiers didn't violate war laws strictly speaking, but violated "the spirit of the law": no, you do not "neutralize their backup", if by backup you mean "tending to the wounded".



the problem is, it wasnt an ambulance. it was a random unmarked van with enemies aiding other enemies. they had their own forces aproaching the zone on the ground, the van could be armed with explosives, there could be weapons inside etc. they are suposed to play it safe not to go in there hoping everything would turn out ok


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Mael, IMO, if that dog was going for your throat right before you beat its ass to the ground, you don't just kick it, you slit its throat. Any dog that attacks humans isn't a dog we want in our society, no?
> 
> You go to 4chan knowing you're going to see sick shit. Anyone who goes there and posts about how awful and disgusting the site is, is either a troll or stupid.
> 
> I also recognize the important job war journalists have. However, while I recognize that loss of life is tragic, it's not like they didn't know the risks.



I understand what you mean completely...I'm just going along with that Geneva Convention stuff just to prevent raging.


----------



## kayanathera (Apr 6, 2010)

How exactly did they identified those people as being enemies btw?or they just saw some weapons and thought look some insurgents?
If I would live in Bagdad I would be a walking arsenal


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

kayanathera said:


> How exactly did they identified those people as being enemies btw?or they just saw some weapons and thought look some insurgents?
> If I would live in Bagdad I would be a walking arsenal


Yeah and you'd get shot. Our soldiers can be identified in a lot of ways, but we pretty much know where people are in situations like that and its why we don't worry about it because no civilian should have an RPG launcher.


----------



## kayanathera (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah and you'd get shot. Our soldiers can be identified in a lot of ways, but we pretty much know where people are in situations like that and its why we don't worry about it *because no civilian should have an RPG launcher*.



have fun with puberty


----------



## Hwon (Apr 6, 2010)

Really, the problem here is no one seems to be taking into consideration whether or not how we fight our "wars" is proper especially given military superiority.  From a military perspective shooting at plausible targets with an Apache is a low risk operation, which is certainly advantageous when fighting.  However, from a humanitarian perspective is this the best way to prevent civilian casualties?  This is certainly not the case as civilian casualties grossly outnumber military casualties even if we exclude insurgent and civilian violence.  If this was ever about freeing and protecting Iraqis then we have utterly lost.  I think we can attribute this to post Vietnam tactics where a soldiers safety comes first and foremost.

In other words...
12 insurgents, 3 civilians, and 0 soldiers killed = acceptable
12 insurgents, 0 civilians, and 3 soldiers killed = unacceptable


----------



## impersonal (Apr 6, 2010)

eHav said:


> the problem is, it wasnt an ambulance. it was a random unmarked van with enemies aiding other enemies. they had their own forces aproaching the zone on the ground, the van could be armed with explosives, there could be weapons inside etc. they are suposed to play it safe not to go in there hoping everything would turn out ok



Try a bit of common sense.


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 6, 2010)

Okay I'm not going to judge soldiers for engaging what they believe to be armed insurgents or for using humour to block out what they're having to do. It sucks that they don't have a way to verify these things so that they wouldn't have to make decisions like whether or not to engage based on limited information.

What I don't get it is why they would feel the need to amongst other things shoot at a van picking up wounded and why they would be desperate for the insurgents to pick up the weapons so that they could continue firing. 

I don't think I got to the bit where children were shot at but if they realized that there were children down there then that's just unbelievable.


----------



## Shay (Apr 6, 2010)

Regards,

Schrodinger's Van 

The soldiers were working in a hostile environment, and were confronted with an unmarked van. That van could have had medical personnel, or hostile insurgents, or even just civilians trying to lend a hand for better or worse. 

However, the soldiers had a responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their brothers and didn't take a chance. Tragic, if indeed they were civilians, but plenty less tragic then a helicopter full of soldiers getting blown out of the sky by a enemy force they could have easily gotten the jump on. By not taking a chance, they did their job - unfortunate as the consequences may have been, it could have been much worse.

Thank you for your time,
~Shay


----------



## Fuzzly (Apr 6, 2010)

Rob` said:


> Okay I'm not going to judge soldiers for engaging what they believe to be armed insurgents or for using humour to block out what they're having to do. It sucks that they don't have a way to verify these things so that they wouldn't have to make decisions like whether or not to engage based on limited information.
> 
> What I don't get it is why they would feel the need to amongst other things shoot at a van picking up wounded and why they would be desperate for the insurgents to pick up the weapons so that they could continue firing.
> 
> I don't think I got to the bit where children were shot at but if they realized that there were children down there then that's just unbelievable.



Because dead insurgents now can save soldier lives tomorrow.

You also seem to be under the impression that children can't fight/be insurgents.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Apr 6, 2010)

Fuck this war.:ho


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

impersonal said:


> Try a bit of common sense.



i bet that will get you far in the urban battlefield they were in.

oh its just a child *bam* get shot in the back


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 6, 2010)

Fuzzly said:


> Because dead insurgents now can save soldier lives tomorrow.
> 
> You also seem to be under the impression that children can't fight/be insurgents.





eHav said:


> i bet that will get you far in the urban battlefield they were in.
> 
> oh its just a child *bam* get shot in the back



And this is the major paradox US is having now. If you're supposed to liberate and protect the civilians but now you realize every civilian down to the last child is a potential insurgent, how can you win the war?


----------



## Shay (Apr 6, 2010)

HugeGuy said:


> And this is the major paradox US is having now. If you're supposed to liberate and protect the civilians but now you realize every civilian down to the last child is a potential insurgent, how can you win the war?



"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Seems a very fitting quote for the scenario. 

Thank you for your time,
~Shay


----------



## Hwon (Apr 6, 2010)

Shaynringan said:


> Regards,
> 
> Schrodinger's Van
> 
> ...



Schrodinger's Van has a value equal to all potentialities.  What you are implying here is that it's O.K. to shoot potential civilians in cases where there is potential threat because soldier lives are valued more then civilian lives...

Unfortunately this is exactly what is wrong with the mentality that our military and ultimately our country has adopted.  Have you honestly looked at the casualty totals of coalition forces and Iraqi civilians?  Do you not see something askew?


----------



## Federer (Apr 6, 2010)

The armed forces of the USA, even with a budget of $692 billion, the most advance weapons and intelligence (Powellpoint ), they can't see the difference between a camera and a gun. 

Nor the difference between a civilian who's trying to help the victims and terrorists (who usually fire back). 

Ah well, apparently no one cares about innocent victims in wars. 

*whoops someday shot me.


----------



## Shay (Apr 6, 2010)

Regards,

I understand what you mean. I wish to clarify my stance that it was better to shoot the potential civilians (or potential insurgents) in order to ensure the safety of the soldiers, not because they are inherently more valuable lives then any other human life, but that from a tactical standpoint it made sense to shoot the "reinforcements" on the scene who were assisting the "insurgents". 

To offer my personal opinion, I don't feel we should be in that country at all, but for that one isolated incident, on its own merits, I feel that the soldiers took a course of action that was best for their survival and their mission, even if it wasn't the most moral or correct on other, better scales.

Thank you for your time,
~Shay


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Juracule Mihawk said:


> The armed forces of the USA, even with a budget of $692 billion, the most advance weapons and intelligence (Powellpoint ), they can't see the difference between a camera and a gun.
> 
> Nor the difference between a civilian who's trying to help the victims and terrorists (who usually fire back).
> 
> ...



Apparently someone doesn't know what they're talking about...


----------



## Federer (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Apparently someone doesn't know what they're talking about...



Could be, are you standing infront of a mirror? 

_joking joking_

What part is wrong?


----------



## Somnus (Apr 6, 2010)

When the pilot says "Just pick the weapons already" to have permission to shoot , IMO says it all.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

People seem to be so bothered by the comments made? Who gives a fuck? I don't see why soldiers talking like soldiers is a fucking issue. Would you rather them be out there crying and blabbering like babies and getting killed because of it?



Juracule Mihawk said:


> Could be, are you standing infront of a mirror?
> 
> _joking joking_
> 
> What part is wrong?



Most of it really, you can't see weapons that far off and getting closer is putting yourself in unnecessary danger. Of course you're totally safe there at your desk so I wouldn't expect you to understand.


----------



## Degelle (Apr 6, 2010)

American troops shooting civilians?! MY GOD!?! IS THIS POSSIBLE!??! NEVER!?!?

This is the typical hypocritical, biased, bullshit arguments. Nothing will be believed if it's charged against USA, however, on the flip side, everything will be accept as truth if it's charged against ARABS. 

You guys have a Hollywood version of the USA. Let's say that Israel is a bad regime, the damage Israel inflicts in a year, USA inflicts in one day.

Read some history, stay away from Hollywood flix.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 6, 2010)

Somnus said:


> When the pilot says "Just pick the weapons already" to have permission to shoot , IMO says it all.



Says what exactly, that he was following ROE at that moment?



> Reuters said at the time that the two men had been working on a report about weightlifting when they heard about a military raid in the neighborhood, and decided to drive there to check it out.
> 
> ?There had been reports of clashes between U.S. forces and insurgents in the area but there was no fighting on the streets in which Namir was moving about with a group of men,? Reuters wrote in 2008. *?It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture at the time.?*
> 
> ...



Even Reuters states that there at least some of the men were carrying weapons.


----------



## Federer (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Most of it really, you can't see weapons that far off and getting closer is putting yourself in unnecessary danger. Of course you're totally safe there at your desk so I wouldn't expect you to understand.



Okay, 

so if you don't know whether people, who appear to be civilians (they don't look like terrorists), carry a weapon or not, you just shoot them, "just in case"?

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## Somnus (Apr 6, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> Says what exactly, that he was following ROE at that moment?



Says that they don't give a shit about who they shoot, they just want to get trigger happy, what would that guy do ? Grab an AK and shoot the Apache down ? The video clearly shows NO RPG, maybe one AK, I don't think insurgents would be strolling down the street with an Apache flying by.

Besides about the van, from the moment they let the people get out to save the wounded IMO is clear that thy were trying to save lives, wouldn't they shoot the Apache right away if they were hostiles ?


----------



## Shay (Apr 6, 2010)

Juracule Mihawk said:


> Okay,
> 
> so if you don't know whether people, who appear to be civilians (they don't look like terrorists), carry a weapon or not, you just shoot them, "just in case"?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



Regards,

Well, I don't know if the "they appear to be civilians" argument can be used per se, considering that terrorists don't exactly have uniforms or anything to my understanding, that's what makes the enemy so terrifying in an environment like that. Anybody could be packing.

Considering that everyone carrying suspicious looking objects that could be mistaken as weapons or carrying actual weapons in a warzone is taking a heavy risk walking into the line of sight of armed soldiers, with no markings, white flags, red crosses on their van or anything, they may have committed no other crime then being at the wrong place, at the wrong time... and, at worst, of stupidity. However, I cannot pass that kind of judgment fairly, nor do the victims any respect by assuming the worst of them like that.

Thank you for your time,
~Shay


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 6, 2010)

Juracule Mihawk said:


> Okay,
> 
> so if you don't know whether people, who appear to be civilians (*they don't look like terrorists*), carry a weapon or not, you just shoot them, "just in case"?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



Actually, you can't say that since that's the strongest advantage of guerilla warfare. Everyone and no one looks like a terrorist. Not that I'm saying it's ok to just fire at will but all the more reason why US should never had played the game.

Actually, why did the Apache engage them again? Was it because they flew pass and saw something that resembles a bazooka and open fire? Or was there a prior confrontation?


----------



## Mael (Apr 6, 2010)

Degelle said:


> American troops shooting civilians?! MY GOD!?! IS THIS POSSIBLE!??! NEVER!?!?
> 
> This is the typical hypocritical, biased, bullshit arguments. Nothing will be believed if it's charged against USA, however, on the flip side, everything will be accept as truth if it's charged against ARABS.
> 
> ...



Couldn't escape Israel, could you?


----------



## Psycho (Apr 6, 2010)

HugeGuy said:


> Actually, you can't say that since that's the strongest advantage of guerilla warfare. Everyone and no one looks like a terrorist. Not that I'm saying it's ok to just fire at will but all the more reason why US should never had played the game.
> 
> Actually, why did the Apache engage them again? Was it because they flew pass and saw something that resembles a bazooka and open fire? Or was there a prior confrontation?



there was a confrontation in a nearby area and those guy happened to be passing nearby, probably thought they'd take some pictures of the soldiers in battle, warzone photos are the most valued journalistic material in the world


----------



## Destroyer of Kittens (Apr 6, 2010)

HugeGuy said:


> Actually, you can't say that since that's the strongest advantage of guerilla warfare. Everyone and no one looks like a terrorist. Not that I'm saying it's ok to just fire at will but all the more reason why US should never had played the game.
> 
> Actually, why did the Apache engage them again? Was it because they flew pass and saw something that resembles a bazooka and open fire? Or was there a prior confrontation?



I think there was a prior confrontation..  " not with that specific heli.....  but with ground forces somewhere......."  Obviously......  they shot the wrong people.....


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

Somnus said:


> Says that they don't give a shit about who they shoot, they just want to get trigger happy, what would that guy do ? Grab an AK and shoot the Apache down ? The video clearly shows NO RPG, maybe one AK, I don't think insurgents would be strolling down the street with an Apache flying by.
> 
> Besides about the van, from the moment they let the people get out to save the wounded IMO is clear that thy were trying to save lives, wouldn't they shoot the Apache right away if they were hostiles ?



They had a convoy nearby, it could easily be an ambush. the air suport was far away, far enough so they were in no danger(wich should be the point of air support anyway), and they talk about a live rpg on the ground when the convoy reaches those guys they shot. so yeah they had an rpg, and civilians dont walk around with those.

RPG + AK's + Waiting around a corner when there was a convoy nearby sure as hell doesnt look like they were hanging around waiting to invite them for tea. they played it safe.. were there civilians with the armed guys? well they should have known better than hanging around them in a battlezone.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> The video clearly shows NO RPG, maybe one AK, I don't think insurgents would be strolling down the street with an Apache flying by.



The video clearly shows at least one RPG.  Live RPG ammo was found on the scene.  Troops in the area had, minutes before, been under RPG fire.  I don't see what there is to discuss here.



> Actually, why did the Apache engage them again? Was it because they flew pass and saw something that resembles a bazooka and open fire? Or was there a prior confrontation?



Just minutes before an infantry platoon had come under fire in the area.  That's why the Apaches were called in: to provide support.  They flew to the area, saw this group of insurgents moving toward the platoon, identified weapons, and engaged.  



> there was a confrontation in a nearby area and those guy happened to be passing nearby, probably thought they'd take some pictures of the soldiers in battle, warzone photos are the most valued journalistic material in the world



The _*two*_ killed journalists (forget how to count?) both had a history of teaming up with insurgents and terrorist cells and snapping pictures of them doing terrorist shit.  It's a shame they died, but honestly, in their line of work, it was only a matter of time. 

Also, because of the nature of the journalists' work, it seems obvious that they were following around a group of insurgents, like they had been doing for months, or even years prior, and hoping to get pictures of them in action.  They wouldn't follow around a group of civilians.  They were war photographers.


----------



## martryn (Apr 6, 2010)

> seriously lets just look at what we see, ok?
> 
> - a group of people(aka human beings) walking towards a building or just to the sidewalk. two people clearly carrying something around there shoulder and one is holding a bottle of water. What it is that they are carrying exactly can not be seen from that distance unless they spend more time analyzing the images.
> 
> ...



You sound like someone who read the opening post, watched two minutes of the video, and decided he was going to jump into a convo on page 10.  The first time I saw the video I saw weapons.  It's not that hard to tell that the one guy has an RPG.


----------



## Degelle (Apr 6, 2010)

Mael said:


> Couldn't escape Israel, could you?



Israel shoots civilians as well, it was a fitting comparison. Also, I was putting it in good light compared to USA, it was compliment.


----------



## niyesuH (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah because you can just leave it in shambles .



USA has been there for 7 years now. The only thing that is destabilizing Iraq now is USA.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 6, 2010)

They shouldn't at least sound like they were having fun... and wouldn't sending troops there secretly have been better...?


----------



## αce (Apr 6, 2010)

That wasn't an rpg. It was a camera. And wtf is this 5-6 ak47's? There was ONE guy with a weapon.


My god. This is sickening.

And they denied the treatment of a child they accidentally  shot. Fuck .


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 6, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> That wasn't an rpg. It was a camera. And wtf is this 5-6 ak47's? There was ONE guy with a weapon.
> 
> 
> My god. This is sickening.
> ...



Spreading democracy


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Degelle said:


> American troops shooting civilians?! MY GOD!?! IS THIS POSSIBLE!??! NEVER!?!?
> 
> This is the typical hypocritical, biased, bullshit arguments. Nothing will be believed if it's charged against USA, however, on the flip side, everything will be accept as truth if it's charged against ARABS.
> 
> ...



There's a difference between shooting people intentionally and accidentally. That's why no one sides with the arabs in these conflicts because they hide in the population and use them as shields which is why they get shot. 

If they had the balls to come get obliterated in open war, which is what would happen, this shit would be over by now. 

And if we really didn't care about the people there, we could wipe them off the map. The fact that Iraq still exists is a sign someone cares. 



Juracule Mihawk said:


> Okay,
> 
> so if you don't know whether people, who appear to be civilians (they don't look like terrorists), carry a weapon or not, you just shoot them, "just in case"?
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



They don't appear to be civilians, you can't tell what they are and they sure as Hell looked armed. Going out armed, hanging around armed people in a warzone and things like that are a good enough reason to get gunned down. 



niyesuH said:


> USA has been there for 7 years now. The only thing that is destabilizing Iraq now is USA.



Sounds like you also don't know what you're talking about. The insurgency is destabilizing it. But thanks for throwing your biased opinion out there.


----------



## eHav (Apr 6, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> That wasn't an rpg. It was a camera. And wtf is this 5-6 ak47's? There was ONE guy with a weapon.
> 
> 
> My god. This is sickening.
> ...



they had a talk about live rpg ammo on the ground there. even the source states there were several armed men. and we clearly see them asking for an evac for a child shot in the belly. didn't you watch the video?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

♠Ace♠ said:


> That wasn't an rpg. It was a camera. And wtf is this 5-6 ak47's? There was ONE guy with a weapon.
> 
> 
> My god. This is sickening.
> ...


The most sickening thing here is the _lack of reading... _


----------



## Zabuzalives (Apr 6, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People seem to be so bothered by the comments made? Who gives a fuck? I don't see why soldiers talking like soldiers is a fucking issue. Would you rather them be out there crying and blabbering like babies and getting killed because of it?




This. 

Its war...you need to see the other side as enemies in need of killing to be effective and cope. 



Tragic case in that they hit some civilians and camera guys by mistake...but there were clearly insurgents around as well. (some have ak's) and with previous engagement in that area and a convoy moving in, the mistake is understandable.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 6, 2010)

it's just boys being boys,  lol!!


----------



## mystictrunks (Apr 6, 2010)

Bleach said:


> They shouldn't at least sound like they were having fun... and wouldn't sending troops there secretly have been better...?



Like send some covert troops down to an area where some soldiers might get ambushed in a few minutes?

I don't think that's how things work in the army.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

mystictrunks said:


> Like send some covert troops down to an area where some soldiers might get ambushed in a few minutes?
> 
> I don't think that's how things work in the army.



Not only that, but ambushes in these places are worse because women and children sometimes help the fight.


----------



## Proxy05 (Apr 6, 2010)

Worse things happen to innocent civillians whose lives are suddenly affected by war and to soldiers that go through a strong psychological torture when are trained to attend the same. Sensationalists of the media just use this so they can get a good 'first page' story [??].


----------



## mystictrunks (Apr 6, 2010)

Sekh said:


> Worse things happen to innocent civillians whose lives are suddenly affected by war and to soldiers that go through a strong psychological torture when are trained to attend the same. Sensationalists of the media just use this so they can get a good 'first page' story [??].



It's not really sensationalized though.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 6, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> This.
> 
> Its war...you need to see the other side as enemies in need of killing to be effective and cope.
> 
> ...



Shooting anything that moves is not a good policy, one guy had a gun that is not clearly an insurgent. I mean, I know they are trained to spot things but I didn't even see any RPG's. The AK had a strap and it was behind him, so you really couldn't confirm it was an AK. 

I can understand killing an RPG/Camera guy by mistake, in a helicopter it is important. However, what threat could the others pose while we made sure they were actually insurgents? None.

If this is Americas policy of war, then I have another reason to add to the list that we shouldn't be in one.


----------



## Mikaveli (Apr 6, 2010)

This was in 2007. This was the most heated time of the war. No one here can relate what its like to be over there for months and months at a time. Its a fucking warzone.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 6, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Shooting anything that moves is not a good policy, one guy had a gun that is not clearly an insurgent. I mean, I know they are trained to spot things but I didn't even see any RPG's. The AK had a strap and it was behind him, so you really couldn't confirm it was an AK.
> 
> I can understand killing an RPG/Camera guy by mistake, in a helicopter it is important. However, what threat could the others pose while we made sure they were actually insurgents? None.
> 
> If this is Americas policy of war, then I have another reason to add to the list that we shouldn't be in one.



More than one guy had a gun and these other people were mixed in nearby them. And this is every country's policy in war.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

while rereading the story, i was vaguely reminded that a central problem with the murder of these journalists was that it was very hard to get good information out iraq in 2007.  The righties were all saying the war was peaches and cream, while lefties were clamoring to gtfo.

Seems we forgot that angle, which actually would be points for the left.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 7, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> while rereading the story, i was vaguely reminded that a central problem with the murder of these journalists was that it was very hard to get good information out iraq in 2007.  The righties were all saying the war was peaches and cream, while lefties were clamoring to gtfo.
> 
> Seems we forgot that angle, which actually would be points for the left.



So you're more concerned about political points than the substance of the video, which is that the US Army at one point in time, fucked up?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> So you're more concerned about political points than the substance of the video, which is that the US Army at one point in time, fucked up?



no, i'm recalling an argument from the left ,which is that the administration was killing journalists in iraq while selling us bullshit on how well the war was going.  This seems to be lost in the current arguments though, probably because of the passage of time and a new administration.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> More than one guy had a gun and these other people were mixed in nearby them. And this is every country's policy in war.



I don't agree killing possible innocent people when the the people who had guns posed no risk to the people in the chopper or around them. And even then, it would have to be a huge threat to warrant innocent lives and it had to be a last resort, which it wasn't. We could have waited to see if any more intel was there.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> I don't agree killing possible innocent people when the the people who had guns posed no risk to the people in the chopper or around them. And even then, it would have to be a huge threat to warrant innocent lives and it had to be a last resort, which it wasn't. We could have waited to see if any more intel was there.



it's like those cops that "mistake" peoples wallets for guns.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> I don't agree killing possible innocent people when the the people who had guns posed no risk to the people in the chopper or around them. And even then, it would have to be a huge threat to warrant innocent lives and it had to be a last resort, which it wasn't. We could have waited to see if any more intel was there.



A bow and arrow can bring a chopper down, so I think they pose a risk. And there was a convoy nearby, they pose a risk to that. But I guess this is why you're not in charge of a military.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 7, 2010)

The camera -does- look similar to an RPG in the video.  RPGs do really bad things to helicopters.  Therefore in that instant, firing was justified to the only people who mattered in accordance with their best judgment.


Can we change what happened?  No.  
Should we do it again?  Probably not.
Do I find this to be a sad happening?  Yes. 
Should we take steps to stop it from happening again?  Probably
Will this result in the systematic deletion of gun camera footage in the future?  Likely.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A bow and arrow can bring a chopper down, so I think they pose a risk. And there was a convoy nearby, they pose a risk to that. But I guess this is why you're not in charge of a military.



good thing ur not in charge, u'd be carpet bombing everyone, everywhere, friend foe alike.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A bow and arrow can bring a chopper down, so I think they pose a risk. And there was a convoy nearby, they pose a risk to that. But I guess this is why you're not in charge of a military.



A bow and arrow can take down a helicopter, as well as an AK, but you would have to be a marksman. And I highly doubt, watching the video, that they wouldn't see him aiming. He did no such thing. This is similar to the idea that policeman should be able to shoot people because they think they have guns. And as narutosimpson said, sounds like you would just blow everything up. The best type of war is not one of dominance it is one of precision. Imagine a chess game where you are winning, you could get a checkmate in the next move but instead you take all there pieces and in the process lose a couple of yours. Except, in the case of this war, you can't win because we don't even have any viable win conditions anyways.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> A bow and arrow can take down a helicopter, as well as an AK, but you would have to be a marksman. And I highly doubt, watching the video, that they wouldn't see him aiming. He did no such thing. This is similar to the idea that policeman should be able to shoot people because they think they have guns. And as narutosimpson said, sounds like you would just blow everything up. The best type of war is not one of dominance it is one of precision. Imagine a chess game where you are winning, you could get a checkmate in the next move but instead you take all there pieces and in the process lose a couple of yours. Except, in the case of this war, you can't win because we don't even have any viable win conditions anyways.



Narutosimpson isn't the best person to base assumptions about others on, there's a reason why I don't respond to him, namely him being on ignore. 

And you would have to be a marksman to hit a tail on the helicopter with a bow and arrow, but the AK and the RPG just need to hit, helicopters aren't heavily armored because they have to do that one thing...you know fly? 

And what Space Cowboy said is right, the threat posed is what made these people get shot coupled with the fact that even though some of them weren't armed, some were.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Narutosimpson isn't the best person to base assumptions about others on, there's a reason why I don't respond to him, namely him being on ignore.
> 
> And you would have to be a marksman to hit a tail on the helicopter with a bow and arrow, but the AK and the RPG just need to hit, helicopters aren't heavily armored because they have to do that one thing...you know fly?
> 
> And what Space Cowboy said is right, the threat posed is what made these people get shot coupled with the fact that even though some of them weren't armed, some were.



ad hominem, but that's a tried and true tactic of yours to slander those you don't agree with in lieu of arguing ideas, right?


----------



## Degelle (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's a difference between shooting people intentionally and accidentally. That's why no one sides with the arabs in these conflicts because they hide in the population and use them as shields which is why they get shot.
> 
> If they had the balls to come get obliterated in open war, which is what would happen, this shit would be over by now.


USA have fought guerrilla style in many wars as well. Your thoughts of USA being some happy-go-getting nation, is disturbing as it is.

I understand that you feel the need to defend USA, but your head of state has no compassion for Arabs, that I can assure you.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And if we really didn't care about the people there, we could wipe them off the map. The fact that Iraq still exists is a sign someone cares.


Cares about what? The political and financial goals of USA, nothing else.

You're one of those that believe USA went into war against Iraq because of Saddam? 

And hey, just because you have a racist opinion of Arabs and do not care about them, does not mean that you have to "wipe them off the map."

Either way you put it, this was a disturbing act that was not even justified. The soldiers in quest were both childish and cruel about it. They deserve no defenders, but instead you should distance yourself from their action and criticize them, not defend it, because you'll only look more like a MH, and none wants that, right?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Degelle said:


> USA have fought guerrilla style in many wars as well. Your thoughts of USA being some happy-go-getting nation, is disturbing as it is.
> 
> I understand that you feel the need to defend USA, but your head of state has no compassion for Arabs, that I can assure you.



Fighting guerilla style and hiding behind people purposefully is totally different. Especially in modern times, but you seem to be unable to either prove your points or defend them. 




Degelle said:


> Cares about what? The political and financial goals of USA, nothing else.
> 
> You're one of those that believe USA went into war against Iraq because of Saddam?
> 
> ...



Racist opinion of arabs? That's comical. 

And no, you seem to have completely missed anything I have ever said about the Iraq war, you can't make up facts to win arguments and you seem to spend more time attacking the person you argue with than actually saying anything, remind me again why I should bother to respond to your baiting? 

I cut you more leeway than I would most people, but you in turn fly in here call me a racist and act as if this is anything but a simple mistake. Chances are, the people holding the camera weren't even Arabs, first off. 

And second, they're standing near people who actually do have guns, in a warzone. People seem to miss the fact that war isn't a place to play around and run about trying to get journalism awards. Journalists who go into warzones pretty much put themselves in constant danger and one of the worst ways to deal with that, would be standing near enemy soldiers in the open.


----------



## ~rocka (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Narutosimpson isn't the best person to base assumptions about others on, there's a reason why I don't respond to him, namely him being on ignore.
> 
> And you would have to be a marksman to hit a tail on the helicopter with a bow and arrow, but the AK and the RPG just need to hit, helicopters aren't heavily armored because they have to do that one thing...you know fly?
> 
> And what Space Cowboy said is right, the threat posed is what made these people get shot coupled with the fact that even though some of them weren't armed, some were.



If they saw the helicopter wouldnt they atleast be looking at it? They didnt show a SINGLE sign that they knew there was an Apache flying over. 

Also you DONT see an RPG and no AK at all! Have you even watched the video? You see 8-9 people walking, 2 holding something suspicious, we later know that these are the 2 journalists holding their camera standards. Also why are you all acknowledging that there were AK's? I didnt see anything that looked like an AK, you might only guess it were AK's yet it could be alot of things. 

When they start engaging you see 7 people HOLDING NOTHING, that would mean 2-3 people MIGHT form a threat (which they didnt as they didnt even see the helicopter). 

The point is they didnt have to engage AT ALL, if they couldnt tell for certain that they were Terrorists and not civilians. They couldve fly over the entire time to check some more on the "Ak's and RPG's" for some real certainty. 

Ground troops were 8 minutes away from their location, you see them arriving after the shootings. They even had 2 tanks! So dont give me the bullshit that they couldve been trapped, they had a big advantage both in men and firepower. 

The really really sad thing about this all is that you see 2 children SITTING IN THE VAN, when it arrived. Its funny that these soldiers didnt see that, as they sure as hell identified an AK and RPG on the spot. You might say, they couldnt see if it were children or not, same could be said about the AK's and RPG's. 

Point is these soldiers have a shoot on sight mentality which is really wrong imo. 

And whats the point in all this combat training when everything is gonna be shot from the air anyway right? Wasted money, let them play COD or something if this is modern warfare...

Also a funny and sad fact is that when the children arrived at a US hospital, they were immediately sent away to an Iraqi hospital as they were Iraqi's, really how can you do such a thing? Sending children out of ur hospital just because they are Iraqi's? 

Really what is the need here for all the Americans on this board to defend this so much? Cant you see through the bubble ur government is making, and think for urself?


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And if we really didn't care about the people there, we could wipe them off the map. The fact that Iraq still exists is a sign someone cares.



Wiping Iraq off the map also won't get you the oil or whatever little support left the government have back in America.


----------



## R00t_Decision (Apr 7, 2010)

It's good to see blood lust is well in American soldiers. Here I thought chivalry and savage killings were dead.



martryn said:


> You are obviously not an American.
> 
> but if for nothing else, trying to bring stability to the region is a  good enough reason for war.


And this is why you're arguing on a cartoon forum and not in congress.


----------



## Saf (Apr 7, 2010)

Megaharrison said:


> Perhaps it's because you have little idea of what it actually requires for combat, but you can't operate under normal societal values or use this idealistic concepts of the value of a human life..


It's more like you have little idea of how great your sociopathy runs, or that most people have emotions outside of hypermasculine fantasies.

"idealistic concepts of the value of a human life". Jesus Christ, you need a therapist. This is not a healthy or normal phrase to articulate. At the very least, you should recognize this and try not to be such an active voice on the forum. You're having an effect on a lot of undeveloped minds, and it's frightening that you don't understand the overall effect you're having on countless lives. But hey, they're just people, and their emotional pain is a small sacrifice to make for the great state of Israel/your own personal philosophy, right?


----------



## Outlandish (Apr 7, 2010)

I'm sure we can paint the soldiers as monsters but this is what war does your friends die and u just want to kill anyone on the other side. 

Well i guess you know why most vets end up homeless after they are used for this useless war, not many job prospects for murderers.


----------



## Snowblind (Apr 7, 2010)

Yeah, just watched the entire 45 minute video.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I'm really not seeing any cause for controversy. That "camera" _really_ looked like an RPG from a distance, those men were certainly carrying weapons or devices that could be easily mistaken for weapons, and, judging by the military traffic, the military men had great reason to think that they had been previously fired on by those men.

Regarding that van. It was an unmarked vehicle that drove into a war zone to offer aid to insurgents. The military was totally right to fire on it. There was zero way of knowing whether or not it was a hospital transport, if it even was that. As for the kids, again, tough luck.

Regarding the attitude of the solders, it was quite obvious that these were young men (18-24), but the rules of engagement were generally followed quite well. They got prior approval for every shot taken, watched out for obvious civilians, and evacuated the wounded.

Regarding the journalists: there was no obvious way of knowing who they were. They were collateral damage. There are risks associated with working on the front lines.


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 7, 2010)

Thats the whole problem with this war

Soldiers are meant to act like that- true
Soldiers are meant and even trained to have a bloodlust and be trigger happy- also true

But thats even the more reason why you do not go for war unless you have to

You do not unleash such a force on a local population unless it is absolutely necessary and for the good of the country

What good was the Iraq war for the USA??
It was based on a lie
It was build up with hysteria and the media painting mushroom clouds above newyork
4500+ american soldiers died and 35,000 + permenantly injured

I remember years ago how people kept saying that scores of iraqi civillians are dying from trigger happy american soldiers and troops
No one believed them, the media labelled them as liars and pessimists

Now it turns out to be true... Look what the Iraq war has done to the american armed forces
AbuGhraiab, Haditha and others- these werent exceptions or rotten apples... this is now turning out to be the rule...
I have a feeling more of these stories will emerge
And they will slowly show the picture of what really happened in Iraq- Blood thirsty trigger happy soldiers with no morales gunning down civillians, abusing prisoners and going on revenge killing sprees in villages

No wonder many in iraq started joining the insurgents and even allowed alqaida in 

Funny and sad thing- this could have all been prevented with not going to a war based on a lie and misleading the whole population just to make profits for a few companies and proper post war planning- not this mess that the americans made... which allowed the population to resent them and alqaida to enter

Iraq today is still as more unsafe than under saddam, The population still recieve less drinkable water and electricity than under saddam and still export less oil

I really hope to one day see Bush and Blair in the Hague... unfortunately something like this will never happen


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 7, 2010)

Right.  Stay on the subject folks, refrain from personal attacks & whatnot.


----------



## niyesuH (Apr 7, 2010)

> Sounds like you also don't know what you're talking about. The insurgency is destabilizing it. But thanks for throwing your biased opinion out there.



The insurgency is against USA and what feuls it is that USA is still occupying their country. It would be better if you gave yourself that stupid speach instead of me


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 7, 2010)

niyesuH said:


> The insurgency is against USA and what feuls it is that USA is still occupying their country. It would be better if you gave yourself that stupid speach instead of me



The funny part about this is, that if the insurgents simply bought into the new Iraqi government--they'd have a shot at kicking the US out without a single bullet or truck bombing any crowded markets.  Heck, form a political party.

A peaceful Iraq would mean the United States could no longer justify having the same number of troops, or level of commitment, or spending the same amount of money on it.  It would be easier for us to leave.  Sure it might take a few years, but that's how peace works.  You don't justify the other side's escalation of commitment.  

Anyhow, seems to me we've got a lot of good discussion about what actually is in the video itself.  I see there's a lot of health disagreement about the call a reasonable person should have made based on the camera.  

Sad that the call made, turned out to be the wrong one.


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 7, 2010)

> The Space Cowboy Quote:
> 
> The funny part about this is, that if the insurgents simply bought into the new Iraqi government--they'd have a shot at kicking the US out without a single bullet or truck bombing any crowded markets. Heck, form a political party.
> 
> A peaceful Iraq would mean the United States could no longer justify having the same number of troops, or level of commitment, or spending the same amount of money on it. It would be easier for us to leave. Sure it might take a few years, but that's how peace works. You don't justify the other side's escalation of commitment



Your missing big facts that gave rise to the insurgency....

Initially the iraqis were happy that saddam was gone
They did not like to be occupied- but were happy to give the americans a chance

What then followed was complete mismanagement by the americans and a total botch up to running the country- This lead to severe discomfort increasing to rage and ultimately an insurgency

Examples includes Fallujah- Initailly the residents welcomed the americans with conditions- they were happy for their presence but wished for there mayor and officials to remain.
The americans agreed- then sacked all the officials, installed there own person and went against all the agreements with the locals
The people in Fallujah then protested- Peacefully
They were shot at by the americans- 17 were killed

This was the start to the insurgency in iraq... similar things happened in other places

The whole american strategy was based on arrogance and mismanagement- they had a golden opportunity and they ruined it

Best example was suddenly and in one day dissolving the iraqi army and the police force

In one day you put millions of angry unemployed poor men with weapons in the streets- and at the same time took away the only barrier against crime... unsurprisingly crime rates soared, murder became common and everyday tens of people went missing (increasing to hundreds at the worse phase)

The list goes on and on...abughraib, haditha and others certainly didnt help... but it only paints a picture of americans not knowing how to run the country and not caring.. which was a direct cause to the insurgency and to alqaida entering into iraq

Funny thing- The insurgency only began to die when the american gave in to the demands

A clear timetable to withdrawal, withdrawal of americans from iraqi cities,  intergration into the political system and allowing to keep weapons as part of a militia (the sahwa movement) among others- this was all in the insurgents demands from the first day...and what the americans were refusing (we dont negotate with terrorists etc) and they got it in the end

This is what ultimately led to the attacks against the americans dying down- not the "surge" as they like to advertise (and what i think is just a ruse to save face)


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 7, 2010)

Snowblind said:


> Yeah, just watched the entire 45 minute video.
> 
> Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I'm really not seeing any cause for controversy. That "camera" _really_ looked like an RPG from a distance, those men were certainly carrying weapons or devices that could be easily mistaken for weapons, and, judging by the military traffic, the military men had great reason to think that they had been previously fired on by those men.



As far as I know it is difficult, if not impossilbe for someone to shoot an rpg, aimed, with one hand safely. At the time, he only had one hand on that object AND it was nowhere near the size of an RPG. Secondly, that is exactly the point. If you are not 100% sure they are weapons, unless there is some huge threat then you shouldn't be able to fire. We aren't monsters here, however, apparently these soldiers didn't get the memo. Great reason and Proof are not the same the thing either.



> Regarding that van. It was an unmarked vehicle that drove into a war zone to offer aid to insurgents. The military was totally right to fire on it. There was zero way of knowing whether or not it was a hospital transport, if it even was that. As for the kids, again, tough luck.



The truck didn't harm anyone, that is the point. It posed no danger. Sorry, the point of war is to win, not to kill every troop you find regardless of if they are unarmed or dangerous. 



> Regarding the attitude of the solders, it was quite obvious that these were young men (18-24), but the rules of engagement were generally followed quite well. They got prior approval for every shot taken, watched out for obvious civilians, and evacuated the wounded.



Yeah, but most of the information they gave to approve was not true. They didn't say, he may have an rpg, he said they DID have an rpg, which they did not know. So, they stretched the truth.



> Regarding the journalists: there was no obvious way of knowing who they were. They were collateral damage. There are risks associated with working on the front lines.



Thats true. However, should we just go around shooting everyone who looks like an insurgent because they could possibly at one point be dangerous? This isn't minority report.

 I know that I am not a soldier, and I am not trained in spotting weapons so this is purely IMO, but seriously, someone would have to go through intense training to spot weapons from that distance with even the slightest accuracy. I could barely see anything that would warrant such immediate action.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 7, 2010)

The US Military, Reuters, and even a WikiLeaks editor state that some of the men had weapons.

Of course, in the final video they released WikiLeaks made no mention or reference to the weapons but instead emphasized the journalists (pointing them out, slowing the video, etc).


----------



## hcheng02 (Apr 7, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> As far as I know it is difficult, if not impossilbe for someone to shoot an rpg, aimed, with one hand safely. At the time, he only had one hand on that object AND it was nowhere near the size of an RPG. Secondly, that is exactly the point. If you are not 100% sure they are weapons, unless there is some huge threat then you shouldn't be able to fire. We aren't monsters here, however, apparently these soldiers didn't get the memo. Great reason and Proof are not the same the thing either.



Read Megaharrison's post and his pic on an RPG. Not all RPGs are the same, and some can be small enough to be mistaken for a tripod, especially when viewed far away and in a brief moment of time. Secondly, the team had been under attack, and the journalist were seen next to armed people while carrying something that looks suspiciously like a weapon. Its not 100% positive, but war is never 100% certain. 



> The truck didn't harm anyone, that is the point. It posed no danger. Sorry, the point of war is to win, not to kill every troop you find regardless of if they are unarmed or dangerous.
> 
> Yeah, but most of the information they gave to approve was not true. They didn't say, he may have an rpg, he said they DID have an rpg, which they did not know. So, they stretched the truth.



You only know it wasn't a threat in hindsight. At the time there was no way to be certain. It had no markings, and thus could very reasonable by an insurgent vehicle, especially when its close to a firing zone. Same with the RPG. If you wait until you are 100% certain before firing in a warzone, you will never fire at all and you will be killed. 



> Thats true. However, should we just go around shooting everyone who looks like an insurgent because they could possibly at one point be dangerous? This isn't minority report.
> 
> I know that I am not a soldier, and I am not trained in spotting weapons so this is purely IMO, but seriously, someone would have to go through intense training to spot weapons from that distance with even the slightest accuracy. I could barely see anything that would warrant such immediate action.



That's right, you are not a soldier so you have absolutely no idea what its like to make split second life and death decisions under pressure. The soldiers did not shoot anyone who could be an insurgent because if that is the case they would gun down every Iraqi they see. That shot people who had a very reasonable chance of being insurgents as in they were standing next to armed men carrying a suspicious package in a general area that had underwent heavy fighting.


----------



## soulnova (Apr 7, 2010)

Ok, onto the video then. Having no previous military experience at all, I believed too the guy in the corner might had an RPG. The others had the straps and guys were holding something long and black on their hand. I understand they were AKs. Then there's shooting.  Following rules or engagement or whatever, truly sad and horrible, but OK so far. Then comes out the Van.....

Now then... I didn't see any weapons on them. They were picking up ONE wounded guy as the others seemed really dead. "Picking up bodies"? Really? I might not know what kind of rules do they have for that but I felt that was overkill.  



> The really really sad thing about this all is that you see 2 children SITTING IN THE VAN, when it arrived. Its funny that these soldiers didnt see that, as they sure as hell identified an AK and RPG on the spot. You might say, they couldnt see if it were children or not, same could be said about the AK's and RPG's.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Also a funny and sad fact is that when the children arrived at a US hospital, they were immediately sent away to an Iraqi hospital as they were Iraqi's, really how can you do such a thing? Sending children out of ur hospital just because they are Iraqi's?



I watched the whole thing and I was sure as hell concerned about that. I'm out there with the guy requesting the evac of the two kids and I just don't understand why they wouldn't allow them to take them to the hospital as soon as possible. I understand you can make mistakes and not realizing there were kids inside. When they report the little girl first you can hear the shooter going "Oh damn", and that's fine. That's really the reaction you hope for from *-anyone-* after shooting accidentally a kid. But then he goes "They shouldn't have brought kids into a warzone" trying to justify himself. I find this to be a lame excuse to not feel bad about it. No matter what's the circumstance, children getting shot by you is *NOT* acceptable. Forgivable, maybe.

I know kids there can carry weapons and help the grown ups to fight... but did you actually saw those soldiers carrying them in their arms?? They were five years tops. Maybe I missed some reference of why they denied to take the children to the hospital (being Iraqis, really?), but I just hope they made it out alive. Any info on them?

Now, when they used the missiles on the building... Wow, passerby fail. That guy walking in front of the building just went *poof*. I don't remember clearly, but did they regard him as a civ?


----------



## Vanity (Apr 7, 2010)

My dad was telling me about this at the dinner table last night.

It's sad how stuff like this happens in war and brutalizes people.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 7, 2010)

That's nice, but you've got the wrong van there Sparky. The van in the video was black, and quite intact afterward (images may take a bit to load properly):



Weapons:


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 7, 2010)

About the van:

It is a known insurgent tactic to recover bodies and weaponry by driving into the warzone with unmarked vehicles. One reason is to remove the evidence that they were there to make it look as if US forces killed only civilians. Another reason is to create corpse bombs, where they shove an IED under the bodies in order to kill after-action inspection teams who have to document the casualties. Yet another reason is to grab the heavy weaponry that fell in order to retain their supplies.

You simply cannot drive an unmarked vehicle into an area that is under fire and not have at least a reasonable expectation that bad shit is going to go down. While the Geneva Convention allows for the protection of aid workers, it requires that they be marked (like the Red Cross or Red Crescent or something). Civilians who wish to aid a fallen fighter can do so and will be protected by the GC, but that protection does not apply while the area is still under fire and no positive identification of insurgent/civilian status can be made. If I was a soldier and I just shot somebody who I thought was an enemy and an unmarked vehicle suddenly pulls up next to that body while the zone is still hot, you can be damned sure I'm going to view that van as a threat.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

About the insurgency, we can't allow them to take over the government, they're not there to push the US out. They're there to take over the region and there was signs they came from Iran. Blaming the US for all of Iraq's problems really isn't the answer, we're just seeing why Saddam had to be so ruthless to keep these people in check. Because he had a country that is comprised of regular people and a minority of dogs that wanted to prey on the other people. 

Had my dad take a look at the tape, he watched the duration. Said that those cameras weren't cameras from what he could see. Remember, this is the person who did this shit for a living for a while. Until some official source like the UN or the DOD says that exactly what these people are assessing is what happened, I'm not going to really trust it. Pretty much everyone who I think to be a truthful person on this site saw the same thing, something that looked like an RPG launcher. 

And the people who say it doesn't don't have knowledge of them going beyond video games. Who should I trust a bunch of kids who think the US military never does anything right? Or Mega Harrison, who owns a RPG launcher, my father who's fired some, and my own eye that has studied weapons to at least a moderate degree. 

Any of you would have done the same thing, because you're not just in charge of soldiers. You're in charge of someone's son, and someone's father, and someone's husband and someone's friend, perhaps your own. The saddest part is that if that helicopter had been shot down by and RPG launcher, no one would post that story, no one would give a flying fuck and some might openly mock the military for the losses. 

I prefer a few mistakes like this, than a bunch of stories about choppers lost and death tolls.


----------



## soulnova (Apr 7, 2010)

> Any of you would have done the same thing, because you're not just in charge of soldiers. You're in charge of someone's son, and someone's father, and someone's husband and someone's friend, perhaps your own. The saddest part is that if that helicopter had been shot down by and RPG launcher, no one would post that story, no one would give a flying fuck and some might openly mock the military for the losses.



Yes, I mostly agree. Although I still stand on my point that the medical care for the kids was unnecessary delayed. I don't know about others, but that's my main problem with this incident in general. I don't really like _anyone_ shooting civs, soldiers, rebels... mistakes happen and it was their job, but to forgive people negating medical care of two wounded children from a war zone? Not. At. All.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Yes, I mostly agree. Although I still stand on my point that the medical care for the kids was unnecessary delayed. I don't know about others, but that's my main problem with this incident in general. I don't really like _anyone_ shooting civs, soldiers, rebels... mistakes happen and it was their job, but to forgive people negating medical care of two wounded children from a war zone? Not. At. All.



Sometimes you can't evac someone easily or safely, for various reasons. That van being unmarked (no red crosses and the like) kind of adds to the issue here, no one seems to notice that.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 7, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Yes, I mostly agree. Although I still stand on my point that the medical care for the kids was unnecessary delayed. I don't know about others, but that's my main problem with this incident in general. I don't really like _anyone_ shooting civs, soldiers, rebels... mistakes happen and it was their job, but to forgive people negating medical care of two wounded children from a war zone? Not. At. All.



Eh, that actually happens a lot. Like CTK said, sometimes casevac is simply not an option, whether it's because it's still a firezone or because there's no room in the transport or whatever. In addition, even in the US, if your wound isn't fatal and you can be stabilized at the scene, the ambulance will usually take you to the private hospital your insurance covers, rather than simply the nearest one. If I had to guess, the US hospital there denied admittance because the wounds weren't fatal and Iraqi casualties are usually sent to Iraqi hospitals, if only for familiarity's sake. Plus, it's much easier for an Iraqi casualty's family to both go to and communicate with an Iraqi hospital's staff. If this was a dire emergency where the kid was in danger of bleeding out, then yes, I'd agree with you.


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> About the insurgency, we can't allow them to take over the government, they're not there to push the US out. They're there to take over the region and there was signs they came from Iran. Blaming the US for all of Iraq's problems really isn't the answer, we're just seeing why Saddam had to be so ruthless to keep these people in check. Because he had a country that is comprised of regular people and a minority of dogs that wanted to prey on the other people.



Are you saying removing Saddam was a mistake?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> Eh, that actually happens a lot. Like CTK said, sometimes casevac is simply not an option, whether it's because it's still a firezone or because there's no room in the transport or whatever. In addition, even in the US, if your wound isn't fatal and you can be stabilized at the scene, the ambulance will usually take you to the private hospital your insurance covers, rather than simply the nearest one. If I had to guess, the US hospital there denied admittance because the wounds weren't fatal and Iraqi casualties are usually sent to Iraqi hospitals, if only for familiarity's sake. Plus, it's much easier for an Iraqi casualty's family to both go to and communicate with an Iraqi hospital's staff. If this was a dire emergency where the kid was in danger of bleeding out, then yes, I'd agree with you.



That and allowing Iraqi civilians in and out of the US hospital adds new dangers. Medical evacuation could just be tied up because there's too many of them out at the time too.


----------



## soulnova (Apr 7, 2010)

The guy who found the kids clearly says the girl had a gun shot in the belly and he couldn't do much in there so they had to evac. You did see what those bullets did to the grown ups. Now think what would that do to a 5 year old... Fatal wound? Yes. That's why the guy kept asking for transportation over the radio. 

Again, I just hope the kids made it. No further info about them?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

soulnova said:


> The guy who found the kids clearly says the girl had a gun shot in the belly and he couldn't do much in there so they had to evac. You did see what those bullets did to the grown ups. Now think what would that do to a 5 year old... Fatal wound? Yes. That's why the guy kept asking for transportation over the radio.
> 
> Again, I just hope the kids made it. No further info about them?


This was a while ago, so its hard to say. Stomach shots, while painful aren't usually fatally right away like the are in the chest. Depending on what shot the person. If it was the helicopter cannon, they probably would have bled out anyway.


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 7, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Again, I just hope the kids made it. No further info about them?



Everything I've read refers them as wounded so I assume they made it.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 7, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This was a while ago, so its hard to say. Stomach shots, while painful aren't usually fatally right away like the are in the chest. Depending on what shot the person. If it was the helicopter cannon, they probably would have bled out anyway.



Shit, if you got hit by an Apache's M230 you wouldn't bleed out, you'd be missing most of whatever part of your body that got hit. Gut shot? You'd literally be severed in half. Even if it just winged you in the arm it'd take the entire limb off. This makes me think that it was a shrapnel wound, rather than a gunshot wound.


----------



## ameterasu_41 (Apr 7, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> WHAT? THEY'RE TENDING TO THE WOUNDED?!? MUST KILL!!!



That is kind of the idea. You don't shoot at people just to cause pain and make them more determined to kill you in the future.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> Shit, if you got hit by an Apache's M230 you wouldn't bleed out, you'd be missing most of whatever part of your body that got hit. Gut shot? You'd literally be severed in half. Even if it just winged you in the arm it'd take the entire limb off. This makes me think that it was a shrapnel wound, rather than a gunshot wound.



People severed in half can bleed out  

And I think it might have been a wound he had before he got to the scene, which is another reason I don't really think the video has the whole story.


----------



## Hwon (Apr 7, 2010)

People continue to try and justify the actions of the soldiers based on prior events, what they could see, and basically what steps they were accustomed to taking.  I agree that the soldiers are not to blame because this is how they have been trained and shown to fight this war.  

The problem is that the way our forces fight this war and the steps taken to protect from direct or indirect threats isn't justifiable under humanitarian law.  It's already bad enough that insurgents have no respect for human life and are willing to kill innocent people to attack coalition forces, but our military's methods of attack and rules of engagement do nearly the same damage.  When more civilians are dying then troops something is horribly wrong.  

It's the war in Iraq not war with Iraq.  We are obligated to protect their citizens as if they were our own.  You think they would have thought twice about firing on an unmarked van had there been the potential of Americans inside?  I'd like to think so.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 7, 2010)

Hwon said:


> People continue to try and justify the actions of the soldiers based on prior events, what they could see, and basically what steps they were accustomed to taking.  I agree that the soldiers are not to blame because this is how they have been trained and shown to fight this war.
> 
> The problem is that the way our forces fight this war and the steps taken to protect from direct or indirect threats isn't justifiable under humanitarian law.  It's already bad enough that insurgents have no respect for human life and are willing to kill innocent people to attack coalition forces, but our military's methods of attack and rules of engagement do nearly the same damage.  When more civilians are dying then troops something is horribly wrong.
> 
> It's the war in Iraq not war with Iraq.  We are obligated to protect their citizens as if they were our own.  You think they would have thought twice about firing on an unmarked van had their been the potential of Americans inside?  I'd like to think so.



The soldiers are better protected that's why they die less?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Saf said:


> Next time somebody runs their mouth at me then, I expect immediate action taken then. I'm sick and tired of this inane bullshit.


He didn't call you by name. Calm down.


----------



## Degelle (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Fighting guerilla style and hiding behind people purposefully is totally different. Especially in modern times, but you seem to be unable to either prove your points or defend them.


First of all, do not make me going into how USA act in times of war.

Secondly, there are plenty of reports of USA using human shields as well. See? You should not defend it, but totally distance yourself from it.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Racist opinion of arabs? That's comical.
> 
> And no, you seem to have completely missed anything I have ever said about the Iraq war, you can't make up facts to win arguments and you seem to spend more time attacking the person you argue with than actually saying anything, *remind me again why I should bother to respond to your baiting? *


Cuz you wanna see my legs. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I cut you more leeway than I would most people, but you in turn fly in here call me a racist and act as if this is anything but a simple mistake. Chances are, the people holding the camera weren't even Arabs, first off.


I didnt call you a racist, I called the USA state biased and partially racist against arabs. Their little double games and playing with peoples lives needs to stop.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And second, they're standing near people who actually do have guns, in a warzone. People seem to miss the fact that war isn't a place to play around and run about trying to get journalism awards. Journalists who go into warzones pretty much put themselves in constant danger and one of the worst ways to deal with that, would be standing near enemy soldiers in the open.


You're talking about combat, engaged combat.

These were civilians, walking around, minding their own business. I didn't know USA practiced the ancient Israeli law: SHOOT FIRST, LAUGH ABOUT IT, MAYBE ASK SOME QUESTIONS LATER. 

Really, sweetie, any rational and decent individual would judge this utterly disgusting, wrong and totally uncalled for.

If you think you're not being biased, put it on the flipside.


----------



## Saf (Apr 8, 2010)

Degelle said:


> Really, sweetie, any rational and decent individual would judge this utterly disgusting, wrong and totally uncalled for.


Calling CBK irrational and indecent = me calling MH sociopathic and mentally unhealthy

Guess who won't be bothered about it, though?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Degelle said:


> First of all, do not make me going into how USA act in times of war.
> 
> Secondly, there are plenty of reports of USA using human shields as well. See? You should not defend it, but totally distance yourself from it.
> 
> ...



Actually the video site admits there were guns present, why would civilians be around guns in a war zone? Plus the site never actually highlights those guns for you, but they admit to it, so it would seem the site is biased itself. 

And you need to find a report of the US using human shields, I am guessing it includes stuff like them being led around by locals. That's not a human shield, that's getting help from a local. Laying a mortar launcher in a group of children or on the roof of a hospital is what I'm talking about.



Saf said:


> Calling CBK irrational and indecent = me calling MH  sociopathic and mentally unhealthy
> 
> Guess who won't be bothered about it, though?



I'll keep my rationality. I can look at that video and put aside childish Disney sentiments, tell Wikileaks is full of shit and has spread anti government shit about other governments and that there still were guns in the video which is reason enough to put a 20mm round in every inch of that area. 

And black unmarked vans aren't ambulances, if the people there want to pick up injured, paint a red cross on it.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Okay, so you rationale is that if people have guns we should shoot them, just go through the war shooting every enemy we can find, without seeing what we need to do to win. I said this before, we want to win the war. Killing enemies is usually a direct result of our efforts to do so, however doing so is not a means to end any war. Why were they flying over head? What was the mission? Why did we shoot before knowing anything about the situation? These are the details I need before I can have any justification of shooting people. 

I mean really, modern warfare has turned into a joke. There isn't any strategy these days. Its just go in, and kill as many enemy troops as you can find and hopefully they will give up. Its wasteful and silly.


----------



## Saf (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'll keep my rationality. I can look at that video and put aside childish Disney sentiments, tell Wikileaks is full of shit and has spread anti government shit about other governments and that there still were guns in the video which is reason enough to put a 20mm round in every inch of that area.
> 
> And black unmarked vans aren't ambulances, if the people there want to pick up injured, paint a red cross on it.


"Childish Disney Sentiments" = "Hey, maybe human life is kind of precious and we shouldn't put people through that kind of loss?"

How old are you? Because (And if the moderation staff wants, I can post countless sources backing up this objective viewpoints) that is not a healthy adult point of view at all. I had this kind of point of view when I was 16, too, but you know, I grew up and stopped trying to be some sort of nihilistic emo reveling in atrocity. I mean, holy cow, "there still were guns in the video which is reason enough to put a 20mm round in every inch of that area". This is literally saying people deserve to die for being in proximity to guns. I'm just going to bold that. *This is literally saying people deserve to die for being in proximity to guns.*


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Okay, so you rationale is that if people have guns we should shoot them, just go through the war shooting every enemy we can find, without seeing what we need to do to win. I said this before, we want to win the war. Killing enemies is usually a direct result of our efforts to do so, however doing so is not a means to end any war. Why were they flying over head? What was the mission? Why did we shoot before knowing anything about the situation? These are the details I need before I can have any justification of shooting people.
> 
> I mean really, modern warfare has turned into a joke. There isn't any strategy these days. Its just go in, and kill as many enemy troops as you can find and hopefully they will give up. Its wasteful and silly.



What are you talking about? Eliminating targets from an area, securing and area, protecting a convoy or other location, stopping the flow of a supply line....etc. 

There are real missions they go on, and even in video games there's practically always some mission background. If you had played one of these games you'd know that, and I can ask anyone who is in these wars what they did at a certain time, and if their security clearance allows they can tell you. 

This tape was illegally acquired which is why we don't know the ins and outs of the mission like we should. Either that, or the mission ins and outs would further exonerate the behavior. If the mission was "find out who's been shooting down our helicopters," that would make sense.



Saf said:


> "Childish Disney Sentiments" = "Hey, maybe human  life is kind of precious and we shouldn't put people through that kind  of loss?"
> 
> How old are you? Because (And if the moderation staff wants, I can post  countless sources backing up this objective viewpoints) that is not a  healthy adult point of view at all. I had this kind of point of view  when I was 16, too, but you know, I grew up and stopped trying to be  some sort of nihilistic emo reveling in atrocity. I mean, holy cow,  "there still were guns in the video which is reason enough to put a 20mm  round in every inch of that area". This is literally saying people  deserve to die for being in proximity to guns. I'm just going to bold  that. *This is literally saying people deserve to die for being in  proximity to guns.*



I'm the age it says in my profile. 

And in a war zone, if you're not identified as being part of the one army that finds you. You will be shot for having guns. Especially when the side that finds you has to worry about Guerrilla Warfare.


----------



## Degelle (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually the video site admits there were guns present, why would civilians be around guns in a war zone? Plus the site never actually highlights those guns for you, but they admit to it, so it would seem the site is biased itself.


The video site doesn't need to admit anything. I can see for myself. I can see one AK? If that's even a weapon, I don't know. You could help me out be pointing out where the weapons are and in what way the individuals are acting aggressively towards the helicopter.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And you need to find a report of the US using human shields, I am guessing it includes stuff like them being led around by locals. That's not a human shield, that's getting help from a local. Laying a mortar launcher in a group of children or on the roof of a hospital is what I'm talking about.
> 
> I'll keep my rationality. Any rational person who's not driven by childish Disney sentiments can look at that video, tell Wikileaks is full of shit and has spread anti government shit about other governments and that *there still were guns in the video which is reason enough to put a 20mm round in every inch of that area. *


I guess some value life differently. From a rational and a moral point of view, I'd probably wait until I saw some sort of hostility before I killed 12 people. I wonder what your opinion would have been if that was the other way around. 

And really, what kind of freaks laugh as they brutally kill 12 defenseless people? That's sick.

Interviews by Iraq-vets;


Enjoy!


----------



## Saf (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And in a war zone, if you're not identified as being part of the one army that finds you. You will be shot for having guns. Especially when the side that finds you has to worry about Guerrilla Warfare.


I'm not saying "That's not how it is and this tape is some aberration", I'm saying that's hellaciously fucked up, and most people who have some understanding of human interconnection would recognize it as fucked up, too.

I know there's great draw to build a morality around how the world actually is, but trust me, if you live by those principles in your personal life, it does nothing but harm. Of course, you'd say you should just turn off those feelings when it comes to war, but it's not like there's any particular reason to accept life as always being in some sort of war/not war dichotomy.





Degelle said:


> And really, what kind of freaks laugh as they brutally kill 12 defenseless people? That's sick.


When your job is to kill people, you get desensitized to it. I really didn't find any qualms with the banter on the video - it helps them cope with the realization of what they're doing.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Degelle said:


> The video site doesn't need to admit anything. I can see for myself. I can see one AK? If that's even a weapon, I don't know. You could help me out be pointing out where the weapons are and in what way the individuals are acting aggressively towards the helicopter.



Degelle, you don't wait for them to act aggressively, an RPG destroys a helicopter. Waiting for them to fire means getting possibly blown out of the sky. 




Degelle said:


> I guess some value life differently. From a rational and a moral point of view, I'd probably wait until I saw some sort of hostility before I killed 12 people.
> 
> And really, what kind of freaks laugh as they brutally kill 12 defenseless people? That's sick.
> 
> ...



They weren't defenseless, if you admit there was one AK (which I am sure there were others I just need to find the documentation) they had a defense. An AK or a hand gun even can shoot a helicopter down, I wouldn't recommend it against an gunship, but that's why we use gunships, to kill people on the ground with a lower amount of risk. 

I did find pictures of the child, there's no way that helicopter shot him. He'd have been in two pieces.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 8, 2010)

NanoHaxial said:


> That's nice, but you've got the wrong van there Sparky. The van in the video was black, and quite intact afterward (images may take a bit to load properly):
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons:



Cause the video was in color, right?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Cause the video was in color, right?



Eh, the video seems to show that the van was Dark colored, not white. Unless they're using some kind of thermal.


----------



## Degelle (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Degelle, you don't wait for them to act aggressively, an RPG destroys a helicopter. Waiting for them to fire means getting possibly blown out of the sky.


I'm saying... That I expect an overwhelming powerful gunship to wait until there's a LITTLE sign of hostility, activity, or anything that would jepordize their lives.

Did you even watch the whole video? They were even eager to start kililng them, it's in the first 10 minutes. They even said that: Yes, they're picking up the wounded, as they say: shoot them, fuck, cmon, shoot. What the fuck is that?

And they have the nerve to laugh about it? Disgusting.

Where's the RPG? I've seen an RPG in real life, I can't see anyone.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They weren't defenseless, if you admit there was one AK (which I am sure there were others I just need to find the documentation) they had a defense. An AK or a hand gun even can shoot a helicopter down, I wouldn't recommend it against an gunship, but that's why we use gunships, to kill people on the ground with a lower amount of risk.
> 
> I did find pictures of the child, there's no way that helicopter shot him. He'd have been in two pieces.


If there was an AK, is that a defense against an apache? They were as defenseless as they can get. They were fucking lying on the ground, bleeding to death as they laughed as they kept mawing them down???? 

You're starting to sound more and more like MH, be careful CTK, people like that usually don't end up happily.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Apr 8, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Cause the video was in color, right?



Because I read the military report which stated it was black and the van's front end is clearly intact in the video after the attack.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Degelle said:


> I'm saying... That I expect an overwhelming powerful gunship to wait until there's a LITTLE sign of hostility, activity, or anything that would jepordize their lives.
> 
> Did you even watch the whole video? They were even eager to start kililng them, it's in the first 10 minutes. They even said that: Yes, they're picking up the wounded, as they say: shoot them, fuck, cmon, shoot. What the fuck is that?
> 
> ...



The camera looked like an RPG, several people here thought it did. And the gun does jeopardize their lives. And they didn't know who was picking up the wounded, it could have been other insurgents. You know because legitimate ambulances usually say something on the outside. 



Degelle said:


> If there was an AK, is that a defense against an apache? They were as defenseless as they can get. They were fucking lying on the ground, bleeding to death as they laughed as they kept mawing them down????
> 
> You're starting to sound more and more like MH, be careful CTK, people like that usually don't end up happily.



I don't know how much you've been around the military, but they laugh at this kind of thing because their job is partially killing people. 

And no, an AK still isn't defenseless against a helicopter. My father was in three helicopter crashes, all of them small arms fire, so I doubt that you could consider that defenselessness.

Mega Harrison seems pretty happy to me.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 8, 2010)

Maybe I didn't post the van to show that it was part of the attack but for other reasons.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Bleach said:


> Maybe I didn't post the van to show that it was part of the attack but for other reasons.



Hmm that people can post the wrong image if no one is looking close?


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Shooting first and asking questions later in the end causes more harm than good. These tactics enforce my belief that we are not there to do anything and the war in iraq is a gigantic waste of money.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Shooting first and asking questions later in the end causes more harm than good. These tactics enforce my belief that we are not there to do anything and the war in iraq is a gigantic waste of money.



This was three years ago at the height of the war, or did you not notice its gotten much better?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Apr 8, 2010)

> I'm saying... That I expect an overwhelming powerful gunship to wait until there's a LITTLE sign of hostility, activity, or anything that would jepordize their lives.



You must play too many video games its fairly easy to down a helicopter with LITTLE sign of hostility. This is not MW2 where it takes two stinger missiles to down a single helo.

And people seem to forget that carrying weapons in a potential/actual WARZONE goes against all common sense.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Shooting first and asking questions later in the end causes more harm than good. These tactics enforce my belief that we are not there to do anything and the war in iraq is a gigantic waste of money.



This isnt a police scene. Law enforcement and actual war are 2 different worlds.

LE is full of gray and requires quick decision making.

Warzones is mostly black and white and your given ROEs. You follow those rules and you fire when your given the opportunity. You dont wait for the guy to pull his gun out and start shooting. No, you tell him to stop whatever hes doing and the twice then the 3rd warning is you blast is fucking head off.



> You must play too many video games its fairly easy to down a helicopter with LITTLE sign of hostility. This is not MW2 where it takes two stinger missiles to down a single helo.



Aim for the rotary or the propellers and I think you'll have yourself a helicopter kill in no time.

You go down there and do a days work with what these guys have to deal with and then say that you can make such precise decisions that can save every life in every situation and you know what is friend and what is foe.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> This was three years ago at the height of the war, or did you not notice its gotten much better?



As long as we are wasting time, money, and resources in a war(if you can even call it that) that we should have won years ago then I see nothing changing. This incident could be used prime example of what we are doing over there, which is to say nothing. If killing all of the insurgents there is our goal, we are going to be there for the rest of our lives. 

I am not attacking the soldiers for this incident, I am attacking the way the US treats combat. Cops think the same way as these soldiers did, and It makes me feel very unsafe that we live in a society that condones this mentality. 

Even if it was an RPG and a AK, why were they just standing around in a group doing nothing? Why were they there? Where were they going? Who are they? Why did they look so surprised when we hit them? Oh wait, we would never know because we shoot at the first sign of trouble instead of thinking things through. The US reminds me of Young Ichigo and Naruto. Being in war does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want.

And as a last note, they were watching the people who were supposedly dangerous the whole time. If the one who had the RPG aimed, they would have plenty of time to shoot him. This would also apply to the person who has the AK. You can't tell me we would send vehicles out that were so susceptible to bullet fire that a couple would bring it down. If that is indeed true, then it would be idiotic to ever send it into a war zone accept for menial non combat tasks.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> As long as we are wasting time, money, and resources in a war(if you can even call it that) that we should have won years ago then I see nothing changing. This incident could be used prime example of what we are doing over there, which is to say nothing. If killing all of the insurgents there is our goal, we are going to be there for the rest of our lives.
> 
> I am not attacking the soldiers for this incident, I am attacking the way the US treats combat. Cops think the same way as these soldiers did, and It makes me feel very unsafe that we live in a society that condones this mentality.
> 
> ...



Dealing with resistances or occupational wars arent exactly won in a few years. It took us 14 to quell Germany after WW2. So keep that in mind.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> Dealing with resistances or occupational wars arent exactly won in a few years. It took us 14 to quell Germany after WW2. So keep that in mind.



But we had a definitive goal there, its been so long and people have morphed the real reason we are there far too many times.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> But we had a definitive goal there, its been so long and people have morphed the real reason we are there far too many times.



So we leave Iraq. Make them even more pissed off at us since we simply abandoned them and more terrorist groups begin to form and grow and potentially become domestic threats in the future. Which may lead us having to go back in again.

What do you possibly suggest other then keeping the course and trying to help these guys out to the point where they can run their country independently again.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> So we leave Iraq. Make them even more pissed off at us since we simply abandoned them and more terrorist groups begin to form and grow and potentially become domestic threats in the future. Which may lead us having to go back in again.
> 
> What do you possibly suggest other then keeping the course and trying to help these guys out to the point where they can run their country independently again.



First of all, the way we have treated them, often blowing up and killing civilians I highly doubt they would be angry. They do indeed want stability, but it is clear we can't offer that in any reasonable amount of time. Secondly, Thats not our job. I am sick of the US thinking that we can handle every single thing that comes its way. We have our own problems to worry about on our own soil. Most the domestic threats could have been prevented if we were paying attention, but we weren't. I am tired of imperialistic ideals.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> First of all, the way we have treated them, often blowing up and killing civilians I highly doubt they would be angry. They do indeed want stability, but it is clear we can't offer that in any reasonable amount of time. Secondly, Thats not our job. I am sick of the US thinking that we can handle every single thing that comes its way. We have our own problems to worry about on our own soil. Most the domestic threats could have been prevented if we were paying attention, but we weren't. I am tired of imperialistic ideals.


Iraq's stability is up tremendously since the last surge, so your point is pretty null. 

Then you ignore the part about them basically becoming a rogue state and us having to go back, leaving benefits no one.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 8, 2010)

How do we even know the US was even shooting first?  

We have one leaked gun camera video that shows people being killed.  There are technical limitations on the camera resolution itself.  The article about the video itself is pretty shoddy and amounts to narration and a description of the video.  

"In the video you can see..."

There's no interviews with the soldiers involved, their commanders, no analysis of anything--except for a vague statement about the dangers journalists face by a Reuters guy.  

There are so many context dependent issues here that it's probably best for all concerned to simply chill out and call for an independent investigation into the incident rather than acting silly and running to grab your torch & pitchfork.   

The video + article are only slightly more informative than a random gun camera video clip off Youtube.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> First of all, the way we have treated them, often blowing up and killing civilians I highly doubt they would be angry. They do indeed want stability, but it is clear we can't offer that in any reasonable amount of time. Secondly, Thats not our job. I am sick of the US thinking that we can handle every single thing that comes its way. We have our own problems to worry about on our own soil. Most the domestic threats could have been prevented if we were paying attention, but we weren't.



You dont understand these people's thought process do you? They are really fucking stupid for the most part. Take the extremists in the tea party and you got these guys times 10. We leave, they are going to be PISSED! These guys think they are the shit and anyone that isnt muslim should be serving them. They want us cause they dont want to do the work themselves. Then you can tell them some stupid bullshit and they will believe it. Especially if you put religion behind it.

Not our job? What is our job in Iraq? to find WMDs? Well that failed so we just leave the place a wreck and go to the next pissy little country.

Believe it or not Iraq has 2 things that we could benefit from.
1. Oil
2. A potential democracy. If we could put another democratic nation in the middle east it would boost a lot of PR for us in the region. That and leaving just makes us look like pussies in their eyes.

History is going to repeat itself. Once we leave and stop caring about whats happening in the world we will begin to grow even more ignorant of whats going on around us and BAM we will be hit again by some vengeful mother fuckers.



> We have one leaked gun camera video that shows people being killed. There are technical limitations on the camera resolution itself. The article about the video itself is pretty shoddy and amounts to narration and a description of the video.



I believe some guys on the ground were receiving fire from the direction of where this gunship was keeping their eyes on. They then spotted what looked like armed people and so they got authorization and fucked up the place.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 8, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *Iraq's stability is up tremendously since the last surge, so your point is pretty null. *
> 
> Then you ignore the part about them basically becoming a rogue state and us having to go back, leaving benefits no one.



And? Unless we stay there its going to fall back down. We can't help a broken nation, when we ourselves are broken.

Leaving benefits a ton of people. We went there for our own selfish gains, and used the secondary benefit as the real cause. Now, we have caused to much uproar to leave and we have ourself in a corner. The damage from leaving would be much smaller than us staying, waiting years and years for a "Victory" and then subsequently that "victory" falling apart in the near future.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 8, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> And? Unless we stay there its going to fall back down. We can't help a broken nation, when we ourselves are broken.
> 
> Leaving benefits a ton of people. We went there for our own selfish gains, and used the secondary benefit as the real cause. Now, we have caused to much uproar to leave and we have ourself in a corner. The damage from leaving would be much smaller than us staying, waiting years and years for a "Victory" and then subsequently that "victory" falling apart in the near future.



Wrong. You stabilize the government so it can stand on its own, help them with their infrastructure, which creates jobs for them and US contractors and then you leave when they can keep the insurgents and other radicals from taking over. We don't want an Iraq where one group bullies the other because of a slight religious difference or where people are gassed and buried in mass graves cause the government can.


----------



## zabuza666 (Apr 8, 2010)

Kensei said:


> Considering at least two of those guys who got shot were holding cameras and were news reporters, you're sorely mistaken. There was also no gun near the guy crawling. They also fled rather than engage the helicopters in a last ditch effort. If these guys were really militants, they would have fired on U.S. forces, but you never see that in the video.



I'm sorry but this has to be brought up.

You're saying you'd try fire back on a fucking apache gunship which has the jump on you?

Are you insane


----------



## dummy plug (Apr 8, 2010)

the thing is, its hard to differentiate a Taliban from a civilian if both of them aint holding a weapon


----------



## Xion (Apr 9, 2010)

That's quite the "graphic" video. 

I mean holy shit they freaking mowed them down with bullets. 

Then the guy is all bleeding out and they're like, "FINISH HIM!"


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 9, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> You dont understand these people's thought process do you? *They are really fucking stupid for the most part*. Take the extremists in the tea party and you got these guys times 10. We leave, they are going to be PISSED! These guys think they are the shit and anyone that isnt muslim should be serving them. They want us cause they dont want to do the work themselves. Then you can tell them some stupid bullshit and they will believe it. Especially if you put religion behind it.
> 
> Not our job? What is our job in Iraq? to find WMDs? Well that failed so we just leave the place a wreck and go to the next pissy little country.
> 
> ...


Firstly, I really hope that this statement wasn't directed at the people of Iraq, which I think it isn't. 

Secondly, no offense, but you don't go around destabilize a country, destroy its leadership (even though many disliked Saddam the majority still prefer his days over the days with the Americans), destroy its infra-structure (my Uncle in baghdad tells me that electricity is just something they had in the past, now they only get it 1 hour a day, meanwhile I remember when I was there in 2001-2002 everything was okay . Same thing for water supply and gas supply). 

In-addition to all of these, because of the US, and them letting go of the army and the police which is retarded, you get loads of unemployed angry people, and to add insult to injury thanks to you guys the borders are open to everyone, the Iranian extremists enjoy going in and out as they want, people from mother countries come in as well so that they can fight the "Americans" whilst they go and blow themselves up in markets. 

I probably forgot to mention many more.

After all of this, you don't expect someone to be pissed... or to take up arms and fight you guys, especially in a country where the majority are armed since it had already fought against Iran for 8 years. If you actually do then you're giving the human race too much credit. 

By the way, your 2nd statement makes no sense, they want non-muslims to do it for them ? And they do it by fighting them. Makes sense.


----------



## Uzumaki Karin (Apr 9, 2010)

Nodonn said:


> Fuck the troops.
> Fuck the war.



If you can't stand behind the troops, try standing in front of them.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Apr 9, 2010)

Sorry, I think I've missed a lot, but weren't those 'cameras' confirmed as weapons? Or am I mistaken?


----------



## soulnova (Apr 9, 2010)

> Wrong. You stabilize the government so it can stand on its own, help them with their infrastructure, which creates jobs for them and US contractors and then you leave when they can keep the insurgents and other radicals from taking over. We don't want an Iraq where one group bullies the other because of a slight religious difference or where people are gassed and buried in mass graves cause the government can.



Now, I don't know all the military history of the US... but is there a country where the US Army had invaded and successfully implemented a new working government since...the late 50? Really? (besides the old half of Mexico that is xD).


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 9, 2010)

Phancy Pants said:


> Sorry, I think I've missed a lot, but weren't those 'cameras' confirmed as weapons? Or am I mistaken?



The cameras were actual cameras. The guys that the journalists were with, however, were carrying AKMs and RPGs. Plus, the pictures that were taken from the Reuters guy's camera show the US convoy only a block away, meaning those insurgents with the weapons were a definite threat.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 9, 2010)

soulnova said:


> Now, I don't know all the military history of the US... but is there a country where the US Army had invaded and successfully implemented a new working government since...the late 50? Really? (besides the old half of Mexico that is xD).



We've only really had one major one since then besides this and that was Vietnam. But look at South Korea, which we did have some stuff in helping as opposed to the North.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Apr 9, 2010)

we didn't invade south korea guy, so your just babbling.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 9, 2010)

narutosimpson said:


> we didn't invade south korea guy, so your just babbling.



I didn't say we invaded them, I said we had a hand in helping them as opposed to North Korea.


----------



## Zabuzalives (Apr 10, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> And? Unless we stay there its going to fall back down. We can't help a broken nation, when we ourselves are broken.



defaitist shit mentality rearing its ugly head again.....


Once you think like that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy yeah. People like you should be ignored. 

I bet you were also one crying that the surge would ""not work"" ""2nd vietnam"" and more.


government needs to be strong enough to fill in the void a US military would leave. And unlike Afghanistan, Iraqi's still have quite some nationalism.


----------



## Psycho (Apr 10, 2010)

the iraq war might help public relations with the middle east, but it ruined your appearance to south america and many other parts of the world

it was a loose-loose situation, everyone was gonna get fucked at the end, the only difference was who was gonna get less fucked


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 10, 2010)

Psycho said:


> the iraq war might help public relations with the middle east, but it ruined your appearance to south america and many other parts of the world
> 
> it was a loose-loose situation, everyone was gonna get fucked at the end, the only difference was who was gonna get less fucked



Why would South America care what we do in the Middle East?


----------



## Keile (Apr 10, 2010)

The conclusions I derived from this video were threefold:

(1) The men in this video were initially unsure of the status of these men; it was later mistakenly confirmed that the reporters were, in fact, terrorists.

(2) They assumed the men to have weapons and obeyed protocol in eliminating them.

---

The soldiers make an honest mistake.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 10, 2010)

Keile said:


> The conclusions I derived from this video were threefold:
> 
> (1) The men in this video were initially unsure of the status of these men; it was later mistakenly confirmed that the reporters were, in fact, terrorists.
> 
> ...



Don't you know, hindsight doesn't allow for honest mistakes.


----------



## Keile (Apr 10, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Don't you know, hindsight doesn't allow for honest mistakes.




Quite. Anyway, anyone who thinks these soldiers fired on the reporters out of pure racist spite is likely off their rocker.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 10, 2010)

Keile said:


> Quite. Anyway, anyone who thinks these soldiers fired on the reporters out of pure racist spite is likely off their rocker.


Some people think they were just riding around shooting, some seem to think that they shouldn't talk so mean while shooting people (like they need to stop and do avatar like ceremonies after every kill) and some just seem to think soldiers should put the safety of everyone else and every variable before their own.


----------



## Keile (Apr 10, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Some people think they were just riding around shooting, some seem to think that they shouldn't talk so mean while shooting people (like they need to stop and do avatar like ceremonies after every kill) and some just seem to think soldiers should put the safety of everyone else and every variable before their own.



All should reserve judgement until they're given all the facts and video. And since, haha, no one has those facts or video--no one can come to definite conclusion.

*burns it all*


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 11, 2010)

Keile said:


> All should reserve judgement until they're given all the facts and video. And since, haha, no one has those facts or video--no one can come to definite conclusion.
> 
> *burns it all*



You need to realise... that when the US published its report regarding this incident... It stated clearly that the helicopter and US troops came under fire with small arms and an RPG attack- and that it responded against this aggression... and that the Reuters journalists and the children were killed in the crossfire- making it the fault of the journalists and the kids for being there

This video shows that there was no firing of weapons. At best you had a group on unidentified men standing around with items in there hands that no one knew what they were

In this situation a group of trigger happy mentally ill US soldiers decided to mow them down, then fire on people who tried to help them

The US military lied in the report it released... how many more lies are there?? they were never fired upon in the first place

It was the same in Haditha.... a group of US soldiers went on a killing spree in a village and raped the local girls... then burned it all and blamed it on insurgents... and it took years for the story to emerge

Who many more coverups is really hiding in iraq and even worse afghanistan??? A lot of times the dead children were blame on insurgents for "using them as a shield"- it seems more and more that that isnt the case... and that it is the americans who was slaughtering civillians and children and then blaming it on insurgents to cover themselves up


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> You need to realise... that when the US published its report regarding this incident... It stated clearly that the helicopter and US troops came under fire with small arms and an RPG attack- and that it responded against this aggression... and that the Reuters journalists and the children were killed in the crossfire- making it the fault of the journalists and the kids for being there
> 
> This video shows that there was no firing of weapons. At best you had a group on unidentified men standing around with items in there hands that no one knew what they were
> 
> ...



That could have happened before the tape started, did you ever think of that.


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That could have happened before the tape started, did you ever think of that.



It is more logical and probable that the american soldiers open fire on a group of unarmed people

There conversation in the video showed that they were trigger happy and mentally disturbed and just wanted to let loss some ammo

Also it is very very unlikely that a group of insurgents will fire on an american helicopter then just mill around and stay on scene with their weapons

What happened was that the american pilots mowed down a group of civillians and the another group that went to help them

They tried to justify it by "maybe they were carrying weapons"

The military tried to cover it up by saying "they were fired on first"

None of this happened. The military lied and the american forced in iraq are emerging as a trigger happy bunch of lunatics that go on revenge killing sprees in villages, abuses prisoners to an extent that even shocked nondemocratic backward nations and mows down civillians gleefully while laughing

Its disturbing that your trying to justify what has happened and continually try to blind people from the truth


----------



## vivEnergy (Apr 11, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> It is more logical and probable that the american soldiers open fire on a group of unarmed people
> 
> There conversation in the video showed that they were trigger happy and mentally disturbed and just wanted to let loss some ammo
> 
> ...



Just fyi, it actually was two Reuters reporters and some armed AIF.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That could have happened before the tape started, did you ever think of that.



At the beginning of the video, the group is just walking down the street, paying little attention to the US unit... And there was no radio chatter indicating that they were engaged. If they _had_ been engaged, they would not have had to confirm opening fire on the enemy with their superiors.


----------



## Phancy Pants (Apr 11, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> The cameras were actual cameras. The guys that the journalists were with, however, were carrying AKMs and RPGs. Plus, the pictures that were taken from the Reuters guy's camera show the US convoy only a block away, meaning those insurgents with the weapons were a definite threat.



Well, see since I made that post, I've been doing my research, and that doesn't really make sense. The helio was over 1.5km away from the target. But the range of the RPG they were using is less than 600m. 

They also were not being fired on at the time. And in a 'hotbed of insurgent activity', why would a US chopper be attacking like that? They really spent their time firing at a van (which is against the rules of engagement), only to give their position away to an actual enemy threat?


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 11, 2010)

Phancy Pants said:


> Well, see since I made that post, I've been doing my research, and that doesn't really make sense. The helio was over 1.5km away from the target. But the range of the RPG they were using is less than 600m.
> 
> They also were not being fired on at the time. And in a 'hotbed of insurgent activity', why would a US chopper be attacking like that? They really spent their time firing at a van (which is against the rules of engagement), only to give their position away to an actual enemy threat?



The helo was covering the convoy. It wasn't just out there hunting for targets of opportunity. The insurgents on the ground may not have been a threat to the helo, but they were definitely a threat to the convoy that the helo was providing air support for, considering that the convoy was one block away from where the Reuters guy shot the pics.

As for firing at the van, that is fully within the rules of engagement. That van was unmarked, meaning it was not covered by the Geneva Convention. It's a known insurgent tactic to drive into firezones in unmarked vehicles in order to pull PR stunts, grab weapons, provide reinforcements, etc. There was no way for the helo operators to know whether that van was civilian or insurgent, and considering the van driver displayed behavior consistent with previous insurgent operations (unmarked vehicle, driving into an active firezone, collecting bodies, etc.), the helo gunner erred on the side of caution and opened fire. Bad mistake? Yes, but it's not like the helo operators had any other info to go on.

It's the same problem that soldiers have when cars approach roadblocks. You have maybe five seconds to go through an extensive list of methods to try and deter the driver before they get to the roadblock. At that last second, you're pretty much stuck with simply opening fire, even if it turns out to be a civilian who didn't know any better, because the risk of NOT firing could well be an insurgent carbomb.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> It is more logical and probable that the american soldiers open fire on a group of unarmed people
> 
> There conversation in the video showed that they were trigger happy and mentally disturbed and just wanted to let loss some ammo
> 
> ...



A post full of bullshit baseless claims, but okay. It doesn't prove anything for your side because you're jumping to conclusions and and misstating the fact. I doubt asking for permission to fire on a threat counts as gleeful for one. 

And its less likely they shot at civilians intentionally but thanks for allowing us to effectively disregard any further comment you make. 



Phancy Pants said:


> At the beginning of the video, the group is just walking down the street, paying little attention to the US unit... And there was no radio chatter indicating that they were engaged. If they _had_ been engaged, they would not have had to confirm opening fire on the enemy with their superiors.



And...they couldn't have been fired on before by another group that was mistaken for this one? They couldn't have been fired on before by another group that they couldn't find or see? You didn't see the helicopter take off...so how does anything your saying disprove what I said? 

Because a clearly biased site told you so?


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> A post full of bullshit baseless claims, but okay. It doesn't prove anything for your side because you're jumping to conclusions and and misstating the fact. I doubt asking for permission to fire on a threat counts as gleeful for one.
> 
> And its less likely they shot at civilians intentionally but thanks for allowing us to effectively disregard any further comment you make.




Bullshit baseless claims???

Was haditha bullshit??
Was abughraib??
Were any weapons actually found in iraq???
Just how bad is the history of lying by the americans when it comes to iraq and afghanistan???
Was this video really any surprise to anyone given the picture that is emerging from these places??

Its clear that its your comments that are to be disregarded. You completely ignore facts and make up your own scenarios to try and justify what happened... even if theyre far fetched and make no sense

When the american military first released reports on this they were clearly stating that their forces were fired upon and they responded with force. They also blamed the insurgents for killing the children and the reporters implying that they died from their weapons rather than the american weapons

This video disproves all that
There was no shooting
There was no firing on americans
Even after there was no firing and they slaughtered these people they prevented their evacuation to hospitals and treatment- firing on a van that came to help them and that clearly didnt in anyway threaten the american forces
The reporters and the children all died because the helicoptor pilots were itching to let loose some ammo and were making up any excuse for it- they didnt die from insurgents weapons... american weapons killed them

No matter how else you try to justify it or paint it it really wont stick...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> Bullshit baseless claims???
> 
> Was haditha bullshit??
> Was abughraib??
> ...



The video disproves nothing, you're just posting hysterics now. This video proves that in a forty minute space of time there was no shooting, it doesn't say anything about the other time before that. 

And I would say the Americans have no more a history of lying than the people they face, plus the people they face have a history of hiding in hospitals and firing from roofs of schools.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Zabuzalives said:


> defaitist shit mentality rearing its ugly head again.....
> 
> 
> Once you think like that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy yeah. People like you should be ignored.
> ...



We can't win a war that has no win condition. We are in war for selfish purposes and we are going to stay there as long as it breeds fear in the eyes of the american public. If people would stop rallying in fear of terrorists because we think they are around every corner then we would be out of there in no time. 
And No, I was the one crying who the hell's idea was it to waste all our resources trying to turn every country into a democracy. Oh wait, silly me I forgot a lo of people in america view everyone else as savage nations that need to be "Taught" the right way to live. Its a waste of time, money, and energy and we could be doing much better things than sacrificing our young citizens for a war that means absolutely nothing. Though, the longer we waste our time there the more chances something more important will take precedence and we will have to leave iraq anyways. On the US threat list, Iraq should be last.


----------



## Razgriez (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> We can't win a war that has no win condition. We are in war for selfish purposes and we are going to stay there as long as it breeds fear in the eyes of the american public. If people would stop rallying in fear of terrorists because we think they are around every corner then we would be out of there in no time.
> And No, I was the one crying who the hell's idea was it to waste all our resources trying to turn every country into a democracy. Oh wait, silly me I forgot a lo of people in america view everyone else as savage nations that need to be "Taught" the right way to live. Its a waste of time, money, and energy and we could be doing much better things than sacrificing our young citizens for a war that means absolutely nothing. Though, the longer we waste our time there the more chances something more important will take precedence and we will have to leave iraq anyways. On the US threat list, Iraq should be last.



The winning condition for Iraq is build a strong stable government so the place doesnt go ape shit when we leave.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Razgriez said:


> The winning condition for Iraq is build a strong stable government so the place doesnt go ape shit when we leave.



If that were true, we wouldn't be so careless of our actions. The longer were there, the more chances more people will realize the US isn't there to help anyone but themselves. Sorry, but our job as americans is not to change the government of every thing we deem dangerous. Obviously if that were true we wouldn't start with iraq.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If that were true, we wouldn't be so careless of our actions. The longer were there, the more chances more people will realize the US isn't there to help anyone but themselves.


This is hardly careless, its a fucking war. Civilians are going to die. If you can't understand that, you're kidding yourself. There's never been a full scale country wide war where there was no civilian death.


----------



## ChocoMello (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> If that were true, we wouldn't be so careless of our actions. The longer were there, the more chances more people will realize the US isn't there to help anyone but themselves. Sorry, but our job as americans is not to change the government of every thing we deem dangerous. Obviously if that were true we wouldn't start with iraq.



Hmmmm, even as an opponent of the whole Iraq mess I think you are wrong, helping the people there is definitely a point of the agenda of the troops (US or else) there.
Though I would guess that it is probably not on the first spot of the priority list, but hey, name one state that doesn't primarily think of it's own benefits.


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 11, 2010)

Gee, I wonder why that helo thought that the group of guys with long objects standing a block away from a moving convoy was suspicious.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

But you know that all of this won't matter to the die hard nay sayers, they whine when the US is doing anything in the middle east.


----------



## id_1948 (Apr 12, 2010)

Darklyre said:


> Gee, I wonder why that helo thought that the group of guys with long objects standing a block away from a moving convoy was suspicious.



Out of curiosity is it possible to source were you got this info from?


----------



## Darklyre (Apr 12, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> Out of curiosity is it possible to source were you got this info from?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 12, 2010)

id_1948 said:


> Out of curiosity is it possible to source were you got this info from?



And you can't act like its any less trustworthy than wikileaks. They didn't even fully acknowledge all of the weapons. Nor will they quote their sources or how they acquired the information. 

Plus wikileaks steps past the journalism bound when they add opinions


----------



## On and On (Apr 12, 2010)

Killtacular

:ho


----------

