[KEEP IT CIVIL] Wikileaks release Video of the murder of Iraqi civilians

karma_

Overheal wrote: »

Cos everyone knows you can win every argument by relating something to the Nazis.

Some of you lads don't win an argument by reasoned debate, you just hang around long enough after everyone else gets fed up and then think you have won some morally righteous victory.

funkyjebus

its a war. someguy pops his head around the corner of the building with a RPG. I would have shot them there and then. kill or be killed. what are these guys doing holding aks and rpg with us chopper gunner not far above. they where looking at it. stupid. although the american attitude towards killing another human as if it was a game is chilling. for more check out the great show generation kill.

karma_

funkyjebus wrote: »

its a war. someguy pops his head around the corner of the building with a RPG. I would have shot them there and then. kill or be killed. what are these guys doing holding aks and rpg with us chopper gunner not far above. they where looking at it. stupid. although the american attitude towards killing another human as if it was a game is chilling. for more check out the great show generation kill.

Typical, pointless to continue even trying in all honesty, the whole thread is like a dog chasing his own tail.

speedboatchase

I dunno what's the problem, the graphics look class

funkyjebus

karma_ wrote: »

Typical, pointless to continue even trying in all honesty, the whole thread is like a dog chasing his own tail.

What do you mean typical?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Terrorist bastards, boycott their produce, kickout their ambassador & his diplomatic staff - oh no, that was the AH knee jerk reaction to a passport scandal... Right well were were we...

This might sound cold hearted, but war is a nasty business and this only reaffirms my belief that civilian media (including embedded journo's) should be kept right out of the conflict until the dirty work is finished.

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

speedboatchase

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush Dick Cheney will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

Fixed that for you

karma_

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

Terrorist bastards, boycott their produce, kickout their ambassador & his diplomatic staff - oh no, that was the AH knee jerk reaction to a passport scandal... Right well were were we...

This might sound cold hearted, but war is a nasty business and this only reaffirms my belief that civilian media (including embedded journo's) should be kept right out of the conflict until the dirty work is finished.

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

I think its also disgusting that one of the most evil men since WWII, ex-President Bush will never be held accountable on this earth for his crimes.

I agree with you for the most part. I do think Journalists should be able to travel to war zones, I think they have broken important stories from past conflicts, they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides. I'm not however keen on teh idea of embedded journalists.

prinz

karma_ wrote: »

...they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides.

There's a massive difference between respecting their welfare, and guaranteeing it.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Some of you lads don't win an argument by reasoned debate, you just hang around long enough after everyone else gets fed up and then think you have won some morally righteous victory.

Please tell me what hasn't been Reasoned about my responses here?

I have a view that differs from yours. I think I've established it quite rationally. Just because I disagree with you does not make me a quack.

Or if you think I was being Genuine when I said "everyone knows you can win every argument by relating something to the Nazis" please note that was Sarcasm in response to a few arguments flying around that are trying to equate the United States to a race of Blood-Thirsty-Nazis.

the_syco

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

But since this clip has been released and is in the public domain I sincerely hope a clear and transparent investigation is carried out into the circumstances and those who might be held responsible feel the full weight of the law brough upon their shoulders.

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

karma_ wrote: »

I do think Journalists should be able to travel to war zones, I think they have broken important stories from past conflicts, they should be independant but their welfare should also be respected by all sides.

Journalists seem to like going to some dangerous spots for a good story. I wonder who okayed for them to go where they wanted to? I wonder did they ask, or tell anyone in the US military where they were going? I wonder did anyone in the US military know that there was reporters there? If they did, they have a lot to answer for. If not, I wonder will change how the reporters go about their businesses? Will they tell the US military that they are in zone, and more importantly, will the US military give a damn?

=-=

IMO, if someone said that they are going to be in X area interviewing my enemy, my advice would be: better hope they don't become a threat to me. If they didn't tell me, I would know they were there, and would see them pick up something.

In a photoshoot, I would see a tool of photography, maybe a tripod, or a camera.

In a war zone, I would see a tool of war, maybe a RPG, or a gun.

karma_

the_syco wrote: »

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

Journalists seem to like going to some dangerous spots for a good story. I wonder who okayed for them to go where they wanted to? I wonder did they ask, or tell anyone in the US military where they were going? I wonder did anyone in the US military know that there was reporters there? If they did, they have a lot to answer for. If not, I wonder will change how the reporters go about their businesses? Will they tell the US military that they are in zone, and more importantly, will the US military give a damn?

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

I'm sure a lot of them don't like it but they know there are important stories that must be reported, and they know the risks. They are extremely brave and deserve respect for disseminating the truth. Many conflicts have been covered and covered well. Just how differently would we look at the Vietnam war or the conflicts in central America, or even the Spanish civil war had there been no war correspondents?

Frankly I find the attitude of not allowing reporters into these zones without express permission worrying and certainly not befitting the actions of a free society.

Overheal

karma_ wrote: »

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

I'm sure a lot of them don't like it but they know there are important stories that must be reported, and they know the risks. They are extremely brave and deserve respect for disseminating the truth. Many conflicts have been covered and covered well. Just how differently would we look at the Vietnam war or the conflicts in central America, or even the Spanish civil war had there been no war correspondents?

Frankly I find the attitude of not allowing reporters into these zones without express permission worrying and certainly not befitting the actions of a free society.

True. But not so much asking for clearance but phoning the lads at Camp Victory (:rolleyes:) And saying "Yeah lads we got a couple journalists in with one of the crowds Between Wednesday and Friday for an Interview with the Insurgency - So please be on the lookout for us and our Equipment."

Its much the same reason we as a Society of Nations established many, many eclipses ago, that it was a good idea to clearly distinguish a Field Medic from a Soldier on the battlefield. We need to implement a similarly upheld system for Journalists, imo.

arybvtcw0eolkf

the_syco wrote: »

Who is responsible? The person who okayed them in their request to go to that zone?

We'll have to wait until the next episode of JAG for this one.

ArphaRima

There is something far more fundamental than an argument about who had what slung over their shoulders.

My question is this:
What the hell is an Apache Gunship doing on patrol over a populated city!?

It is a helicopter designed for assault on mass formations of soviet tanks. Not policing a city!


Identifying the subtle differences between a gun, a camera, a bag or a tennis racket is not possible from a few miles away from a moving helicopter through an infra red scope.
I have little sympathy for the gunners involved though. Especially when they opened fire on the van. I know I would have been the driver of that van. People crawling and dying I would help.


I for one donated to wikileaks to ensure that content like this keeps making it into the public domain.

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

There is something far more fundamental than an argument about who had what slung over their shoulders.

My question is this:
What the hell is an Apache Gunship doing on patrol over a populated city!?

It is a helicopter designed for assault on mass formations of soviet tanks. Not policing a city!

Its Iraq, not Galway.

Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? In fact would it really be out of the question to think they might be able to acquire Stinger Missile Systems. Which I understand, are plenty capable of taking down Strike helicopters. We do however have military analysts available on the forum (one in the form of a Veteran Tank Commander) if they would be able to inject some fact to fiction.

Gigiwagga

'Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? '

Yeah right, I mean a desperate invaded population should just lie down and die, not throw anything they've got at the invaders, I know I would. Not that I'd expect the US war machine to invade Ireland anytime soon, but if they did, I know I'd be checking for RPG's on eBay or rocks or anything I could get my hands on.
There seems to be a growing sense that the US seems to have enemies everywhere, insurgents under every bush.

FlutterinBantam

:eek:

Getting a little over agitated are we??

Gigiwagga

Chicken

Manic Moran

There seems to be a growing sense that the US seems to have enemies everywhere, insurgents under every bush.

We like to work on the basis that it's better to have the asset and not need it, than find yourself in need of the asset and not have it. A Gunship is not required to shoot at everything it sees, but nothing beats having one around when you find a requirement for it. The Garda Helicopter can't do anything that the Apache can't, except maybe some casualty evacuation.

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

This is perfectly true. But that doesn't mean they have to be stupid about it. If you decided one day to go hiking in the Rockies, would you not tell anyone where you were going and when to send out the search parties if you don't come back on time? That doesn't mean to say that you have to have Mountain Rescue walking with you to make sure you don't get into trouble. You can still be on your own. There are a number of reporters who would be alive (or free) right now if they had done so.

NTM

ArphaRima

Its Iraq, not Galway.

Its a city of 7-odd million people. Mostly civilians I think you'd agree.

Which configuration of Helicopter exactly do you propose the Military use to patrol a "populated city" populated by armed insurgents, using (aside from this one incident, but at large) RPGs, Ak-47s, and whatever else they can get their hands on? In fact would it really be out of the question to think they might be able to acquire Stinger Missile Systems. Which I understand, are plenty capable of taking down Strike helicopters. We do however have military analysts available on the forum (one in the form of a Veteran Tank Commander) if they would be able to inject some fact to fiction.

In fact would it really be out of the question

Pretty much.

I wish the Iraqis had hundreds of shoulder launched Anti Aircraft Missiles to be honest. Then the troops on the ground would be forced to engage. They can differentiate between toddlers and terrorists in close quarters far better than an Apache gunner.

RPG's and AK-47s are little threat to an apache as I'm sure you well know. The RPG's wouldnt hit, and the ak47's wouldnt hurt.

The use of a gunship in taking out questionable targets of opportunity most certainly should be reviewed. If there was hostile action or there was imminent hostile action on friendly forces I could condone the use of a powerful weapons platform like that. Otherwise its far too blunt a tool.


I think its fair to say that the gunner did not see the 2 kids in the van. He couldnt have. But thats my point. A trooper or apc gunner at least might have had a chance. Given the time required to arrive on scene, the ground based force could easily have engaged them successfully.

That the gunship was easier for the military to use is not an answer I will accept. The American people should hold their political and military leaders to account for incidents like this. Rules of engagement for Apaches should be modified to be on a lower combat stance over cities. Only for use in an active hostile combat engagement as close air support, under co-ordinated ground guidance.
It struck me as strange that they were reluctant to fire with armored friendlies vehicles nearby, but not to fire into a residential neighbourhood.

Johnny Utah

Disgusting.....

And the US shouldn't even be there in the first place seeing as they're conducting an illegal war!

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

Its a city of 7-odd million people. Mostly civilians I think you'd agree.

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

Yay we've got a helicopter expert and a tank commander, lucky us.

ArphaRima

But again, we're talking about Iraq; not Galway. Im not talking about the size of the population but rather the situation as a whole. If Galway citizens started taking a disliking to helicopters and carried RPGs, I wouldnt exactly do the traffic report from a Bell-47.

You do know RPG stands for Rocket Propelled GRENADE dont you? Its not a SAM/MANPAD. Notwithstanding the lucky shot on a hovering Blackhawk in Somalia.
A Bell-47 straight from skippy would not be appropriate either. Actually my argument is less about the tool but more the task it has been purposed for.

---

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

MackDeToaster

I've actually been a great fan of Wikileaks and have donated in the past, but I have to say that after seeing their politicized portrayal of this my respect has lessened and I don't think I'll be donating any more.

The video shows just one tiny part of what was going on at the time, the video from the 2nd Apache would be useful, but imo in the context of what I understand to have being going on, i.e. this being a particularly savage year of fighting, a firefight very close by and these helicopters going around as support, the streets deserted of people, but yet a group of men approaching that combat zone, some apparently almost certainly armed and acting suspiciously, i.e. peering around the corner towards the humvee, the Apaches were justified in attacking.

Some people here seem very naive but that is the very nasty reality of war, it's all about killing the enemy until they give up and that maybe utterly horrific but that's what happens. I'm no supporter of the Iraq war, let alone Bush and Cheney, I despise them and they made a complete balls of it when maybe they could have grasped success from disaster, but from a military viewpoint I can't see much wrong with the first action, horrific though it may be.

The van I'm not so certain about, here I'd really like to see the 2nd choppers video as that's what seems to have been doing the shooting, but the van was not marked as a medical vehicle and the very fact that it arrived in when no-one else was stirring, and when any sane person would have been hiding low or gotten the hell out of there immediately makes me wonder what was going on.

Once again, we're only getting a small part of what pilots could see and what was going on, and it's far from clear as to what was happening. Either they were very brave and incredibly heroic for trying to help, but yet insanely stupid, or they were not quite the innocents they seem, the insurgents were fighting a guerilla warfare after all, the dirtiest of the dirty. I just can't make my mind up on the van without more info.

I haven't seen the firing of missiles into the house, but if there were obviously innocent people walking by outside at the time who were killed as a result then the pilots should be charged with murder.

Lab_Mouse

Dont know what to make of this video.Any independent evidence that they did/didnt have weapons with them(one ak 47 doesnt justify the attack.Worked in gaza and was often walked about by a guard carring a ak47 just in case the locals thought we were settlers)

Having said that,if that video is what the gunner seen then I think I probably would of opened fire.Also as for their callousness,soldiers arent trained to value human life so wouldnt read all that much into what they were saying.

Overheal

fluffer wrote: »

You do know RPG stands for Rocket Propelled GRENADE dont you? Its not a SAM/MANPAD. Notwithstanding the lucky shot on a hovering Blackhawk in Somalia.
A Bell-47 straight from skippy would not be appropriate either. Actually my argument is less about the tool but more the task it has been purposed for.

---

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone, for a confirmed kill. That was Baghdad.

Im not saying the chances are anything but absurdly remote: but take the chance Why?

Pretty much.

The Iraq Military uses and stocks the Stinger System. So does the US Military. To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.

I was mostly talking about the rules of engagement for aerial gunships in a primarily civilian urban environment.
Discuss.

I don't know what those rules would be for an urban environment, or which ones they were operating under, or whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself.

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone, for a confirmed kill. That was Baghdad.

Im not saying the chances are anything but absurdly remote: but take the chance Why?The Iraq Military uses and stocks the Stinger System. So does the US Military. To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.I don't know what those rules would be for an urban environment, or which ones they were operating under, or whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself.

Military nerds are funny and sad at the same time, a bit like clowns.

Interesting, 'whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself' I always thought rules were a series of measures opposing sides agree to in order to complete some objective, oops I forgot, we're talking about the USA here, they, and only they make the rules. sorry 'craft' the rules. Nice word that 'crafted' sounds a bit like 'theatre of war' almost arty farty.

partyatmygaff

Overheal wrote: »

A musket's not very accurate either but you still wouldnt dare your friend to shoot it at you from 50 paces.

Further, a trained marksman can make shots that can range in excess of a mile; the record being a couple miles, iirc, in a live combat zone.

A trained marksman can do that... Definitley not with an AK 47 though. Think maybe a .50 calibre sniper rifle and even at that it would unlikely do much if any damage to the helicopter unless it was a very well placed shot. Anyways, that's not the point, the apache wasn't under threat by them. The ground forces were; and the apache's job was to assist the ground troops.

Overheal

info@williamrua wrote: »

Military nerds are funny and sad at the same time, a bit like clowns.

Interesting, 'whether specific rules had been crafted for the Green Zone itself' I always thought rules were a series of measures opposing sides agree to in order to complete some objective, oops I forgot, we're talking about the USA here, they, and only they make the rules. sorry 'craft' the rules. Nice word that 'crafted' sounds a bit like 'theatre of war' almost arty farty.

I don't know, but you can check. Do you mean things that opposing sides agree upon like the Geneva Convention? The Insurgency has not complied with that either. Nor the Ottawa Treaty, infamously.

A trained marksman can do that... Definitley not with an AK 47 though. Think maybe a .50 calibre sniper rifle and even at that it would unlikely do much if any damage to the helicopter unless it was a very well placed shot. Anyways, that's not the point, the apache wasn't under threat by them. The ground forces were; and the apache's job was to assist the ground troops.

True and I should have added that. But you can see why the idea is to keep the best possible distance from hostile forces. Why get low to the ground and give a sniper a chance to take out your cockpit or take shots at vulnerable points on the apache? The longer you loiter, and the closer you do it, the bigger target you become.

The Prime question is, is the Insurgency completely defenseless against Air Superiority? We could explore that.

My name is URL

This thread is like what happens to cheddar at a cheesestrings factory

Overheal

My name is URL wrote: »

This thread is like what happens to cheddar at a cheesestrings factory

It gets eaten?

Gigiwagga

Overheal wrote: »

I don't know, but you can check. Do you mean things that opposing sides agree upon like the Geneva Convention? The Insurgency has not complied with that either. Nor the Ottawa Treaty, infamously.True and I should have added that. But you can see why the idea is to keep the best possible distance from hostile forces. Why get low to the ground and give a sniper a chance to take out your cockpit or take shots at vulnerable points on the apache? The longer you loiter, and the closer you do it, the bigger target you become.

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

I'm curious how mouthpieces for American aggression will look back through recent history as old men, like the old SS troops who worked in the concentration camps, that hard to swallow grimace, where they have to believe that what they did was not their fault because they didn't know what was going on. Acknowledging misjudgement of your own country must be hard if not impossible. You're like those old men, I feel sorry for you.

The insurgency don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country.

Iraqi = insurgent/terrorist/enemy/threat/hostile forces...only to you.

the_syco

karma_ wrote: »

Syco, the whole point of an independant free press is that they don't and shouldn't need express permission from anyone on where they can find a story or what story they can print.

<snip>

Frankly I find the attitude of not allowing reporters into these zones without express permission worrying and certainly not befitting the actions of a free society.

An independent free press is great, but going into a zone where you have insurgents shooting the allied forces, telling the military to be aware that they are there may mean that instead of "fire", the person giving the okay says "we have reporters in the area, can you confirm...?".

Addisyn Screeching Sportswear wrote: »

We'll have to wait until the next episode of JAG for this one.

F**king hate "to be continued" episodes!

info@williamrua wrote: »

but if they did, I know I'd be checking for RPG's on eBay or rocks or anything I could get my hands on.

So you fought up North before the ceasefire? Otherwise, STFU.

fluffer wrote: »

I wish the Iraqis had hundreds of shoulder launched Anti Aircraft Missiles to be honest. Then the troops on the ground would be forced to engage. They can differentiate between toddlers and terrorists in close quarters far better than an Apache gunner.

You're talking about the terrorists who like to hide in schools, and use human shields? You're talking about the terrorists who have used mentally retarded women as suicide bombers? Yeah, the soldiers will really be able to tell who is who. From a mile away. With a less accurate boom stick pointing at the enemy, maybe?

fluffer wrote: »

The RPG's wouldnt hit, and the ak47's wouldnt hurt.

Wouldn't hit, and not hitting are two different things. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be that one hit out of 500 misses...

fluffer wrote: »

Only for use in an active hostile combat engagement as close air support, under co-ordinated ground guidance.

It's providing air support for an active hostile combat engagement. Should they wait for insurgents to open fire before deeming them hostile?

Overheal wrote: »

The Iraq Military uses and stocks the Stinger System. So does the US Military. To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.

I'd say so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJX9alYwIa0

Overheal

the_syco wrote: »

I'd say so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJX9alYwIa0

What was NTM saying about them filming themselves .......

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

When did that become a justification for using IEDs and taking hostages and beheading them on camera?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_insurgent_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactics_of_the_Iraqi_insurgency

the_syco

Overheal wrote: »

What was NTM saying about them filming themselves .......

I'm unsure what you mean by this? I posted the link as agreement that they (terrorists) have gotten their hands on stingers in the past, and have used them against choppers.

Savage Tyrant

American Armed Forces, Just like the british Armed Forces, are what they claim to be fighting against. They are Terrorists. Plain and Simple.

FlutterinBantam

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

American Armed Forces, Just like the british Armed Forces, are what they claim to be fighting against. They are Terrorists. Plain and Simple.

Good man yourself, that will definitely enhance this debate.

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

In case you didn't notice the US are the bad guys here

I'm curious how mouthpieces for American aggression will look back through recent history as old men, like the old SS troops who worked in the concentration camps, that hard to swallow grimace, where they have to believe that what they did was not their fault because they didn't know what was going on. Acknowledging misjudgement of your own country must be hard if not impossible. You're like those old men, I feel sorry for you.

The insurgency don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country.

Iraqi = insurgent/terrorist/enemy/threat/hostile forces...only to you.

Oh jesus comparing a poster to an SS trooper... :rolleyes:

So since the insurgency don't have to comply with anything because it's their bloody country, what's your opinion on the Rwandan genocide? Technically the Nazi's could've just rounded up as many German jews as they wanted - it's their bloody country right?

FlutterinBantam

You are wasting logic on Red bill sunshine.

He only want to hear what he wants to hear;)

Gigiwagga

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You are wasting logic on Red bill sunshine.

He only want to hear what he wants to hear;)

Yeah you guys are right, the US is right, they're always right. What's a little mistake here and there, hell it wasn't even a mistake, they nearly had RPG after all.
You go on believing what you guys need to, after all how could you live with yourselves if you had to acknowledge the US as the no1 global terrorist.

lol sad

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

Yeah you guys are right, the US is right, they're always right. What's a little mistake here and there, hell it wasn't even a mistake, they nearly had RPG after all.
You go on believing what you guys need to, after all how could you live with yourselves if you had to acknowledge the US as the no1 global terrorist.

lol sad

How does that get thanked - read my post, it's directed at you and actually has an argument to make.

"lol sad" - OMG YAW liek death 2 da Infidelz

Gigiwagga

speedboatchase wrote: »

Oh jesus comparing a poster to an SS trooper... :rolleyes:

So since the insurgency don't have to comply with anything because it's their bloody country, what's your opinion on the Rwandan genocide? Technically the Nazi's could've just rounded up as many German jews as they wanted - it's their bloody country right?

Comparing the posters opinion and thought process with former SS troopers.

What happened in Rwanda cannot be compared in any way with US global aggression. Jesus you're getting desperate now.

Yes technically, but also technically murder is murder. Murder is murder always, first and last.
Ethnic issues inside a sovereign country are complex on many levels, and don't compare whatsoever with the current and recent foreign policy of the US.
It's sad when the best comparisons to be made with US aggression is Rwandan genocide, and the bloody Holocaust.

speedboatchase

info@williamrua wrote: »

Comparing the posters opinion and thought process with former SS troopers.

What happened in Rwanda cannot be compared in any way with US global aggression. Jesus you're getting desperate now.

Yes technically, but also technically murder is murder. Murder is murder always, first and last.
Ethnic issues inside a sovereign country are complex on many levels, and don't compare whatsoever with the current and recent foreign policy of the US.
It's sad when the best comparisons to be made with US aggression is Rwandan genocide, and the bloody Holocaust.

I wouldn't compare the two, but you invite comparisons if you make a blanket statement like "...don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country". Also the fact you comparing fellow posters to SS guards and on the same page call anyone "desperate" for bringing up the Holocaust is pretty hilarious.

No-one can defend what's on that video clip and I would hope that everyone involved is trialled and punished - the fact the clip was suppressed by the military is also pretty indefensible. However the people that latch onto these events and make crazy blanket statements like the U.S is the no.1 global terrorists come as off, I'm sorry but complete loons. This clip IS bad - but what are the other side doing and why is that behaviour not held to any standard by you? You sarcastically say "we are right. the US is always right" as if I would be 100% pro-USA which is nonsense, but you when you make statements like "no.1 global terrorists" it's pretty obvious you believe the U.S is always wrong. The war and the actions of both sides are not black and white issues, but there doesn't seen any wiggle room in your worldview

ChessHacker

Biggins wrote: »

Steeping back a bit, there is a couple of things.

1. Its a war zone.

No. It's a city in Iraq which has been turned into a war zone.

2. There was [sic]men carrying weapons. Some appeared to be carrying weapons including an RPG:

The men posed no threat. In some militarised countries, carrying weapons is commonplace.

3. The camera men there surely had enough experience to know that if Gunships turn up and see an enemy with guns, they had better get the hell out of there fast and not just walk with the men as if they are on a Sunday stroll!

Apache gunships don't turn up.
They fly a great distance away and were most likely unseen.

4. The men in the gunship were not blood thirsty killers despite in this case unfortunate deaths.
See this later frame alone (safe - not gruesome) that shows the mentality of the soldiers:

In this instance, friendlies refers to US (or allied) troops, certainly not civilians.

The murder of the men in the van was a war crime.
When the US soldiers wanted to bring the two injured children to the US medical facility, they were ordered to bring them to the Iraqi police (IP) instead. All these policies come from the top and are by no means just the actions of a few rogues.

Gigiwagga

speedboatchase wrote: »

I wouldn't compare the two, but you invite comparisons if you make a blanket statement like "...don't have to comply with anything, it's their bloody country". Also the fact you comparing fellow posters to SS guards and on the same page call anyone "desperate" for bringing up the Holocaust is pretty hilarious.

No-one can defend what's on that video clip and I would hope that everyone involved is trialled and punished - the fact the clip was suppressed by the military is also pretty indefensible. However the people that latch onto these events and make crazy blanket statements like the U.S is the no.1 global terrorists come as off, I'm sorry but complete loons. This clip IS bad - but what are the other side doing and why is that behaviour not held to any standard by you? You sarcastically say "we are right. the US is always right" as if I would be 100% pro-USA which is nonsense, but you when you make statements like "no.1 global terrorists" it's pretty obvious you believe the U.S is always wrong. The war and the actions of both sides are not black and white issues, but there doesn't seen any wiggle room in your worldview

I never said the US is ALWAYS wrong, never. I believe their constantly aggressive stance is wrong. This clip is probably one of many, many more, and the only reason it's getting such coverage is because journalists were killed more so than that civilians were. The clip is good in that it shows that US aggression in all it's glory, it can't be debated away by blind US positivity and lame hand wringing. Hopefully we will see more and more of these being released. And the US will be seen by more people for what they are; War Mongers.

Important to note that when I refer to the US I refer to their military and their foreign strategy, and those who support it.

Does that include you ? I can't answer that question and I wouldn't try to, but you can.

karma_

You can equate this to Bloody Sunday.

The people of Derry still hurt about it after nearly 40 years, I can only imagine what the people in Baghdad feel like. How many of their own Bloody Sundays have they had to endure if we accept that hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict?

It highlights the flaws in the rules of engagement and teh truth is this video is too late to have any significant impact on those rules.

I think everyone can accept war is a dirty business, but that still cannot excuse the lack of care taken in the decision to erase those 14 people. There can be no justification of it.

Cunny-Funt

I wish people would stop saying the guy was peeking around the corner with an RPG, it was a camera , you can see it in the pics, its a damn CAMERA.

I also love how those defending the actions of these guys ignore the whole incident with the van.

The Americans in this video were indeed trigger happy. He was ITCHING to kill off the wounded man, so much so that he fed bull**** down the comms saying a van had turned up to collect the weapons. It was obvious it was someone trying to help the wounded, and he blew apart the van with kids in it (who survived thank ****) and he was chuffed with the size of the bullet hole in the wind shield.

Its yet another gun cam vid of trigger happy Americans, this time killing iraqi civilians. Theres plenty more of them killing British armed forces, or hell even shooting at themselves, blue on blue. Who knows what we've not been shown.

& no I'm not saying all american solders are trigger happy, way too many of them are however.

ArphaRima

You're talking about the terrorists who like to hide in schools, and use human shields? You're talking about the terrorists who have used mentally retarded women as suicide bombers? Yeah, the soldiers will really be able to tell who is who. From a mile away. With a less accurate boom stick pointing at the enemy, maybe?

I am talking about a helicopter not engaging from miles away at a poorly ID'd and hastily spotted target of opportunity. Too many false positives on enemy contacts as may have been the case here, and almost certainly seems like the case with the van.
The armour and troops were there in minutes. They could have discerned the situation far better than a helicopter can. The injured children and other possible incidents could have been avoided.
Let me be clear. There may have been cause to engage. I just dont believe they could clearly justify it from an attack helicopter.


As for them being regarded as terrorists. Well if I was Iraqi I would be killing Americans, British and anyone else aiding in the occupation of my country. I would see them as legitimate targets. As would most people in this country given our history.

I think your definition of active hostile environment is different to the one I was trying to convey. Live fire or imminent live fire is what I am talking about. Think of the word active.

Wouldn't hit, and not hitting are two different things. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be that one hit out of 500 misses.........To say in the course of 7 years the insurgency hasn't petted one is not out of the realm of possibilities.

As for the men in the video being a threat to the apache, with the possible sighting of an rpg, I dont think that is a valid point at all. Its not even a discussion point in this thread. This was an opportunistic attack. Which I dont mind. If they get it right. In this case I dont believe they did, and I believe there was a high chance of them getting it wrong through their methods and dogma.

Accountability. I dont even see the airmen as accountable here. I see their leadership as accountable. They were greenlit far too easily for action by their controller, especially in the environment they were in. Again not his fault. Its the procedure that is too lax.
Civilian control and leadership over their military bulldogs is what I question.