If you like thrash, this one is from Turkey;
Search
Search results: 719 found, showing up to 50
First bullet fired on their plane.Jay wrote:
How long until France surrenders?
Dude, Islam is religion of peace and tolerance. Those who blow up themselves are non-muslims trying to ruin image of the Islam.lowing wrote:
no I thought there might be one day out of the year that Islam DIDN'T blow up something. Don't tell me I am wrong !!Ottomania wrote:
Dont you know the islamic sacrifice festival?
Dont you know the islamic sacrifice festival?
We are kinda educated beheaders due to annual sheep ,cow killing spree.lowing wrote:
for Islam, yupOttomania wrote:
Man was unable to find a gun so he used the knife. Perfectly normal.
This OP is extremely ordinary to be posted as a new topic.lowing wrote:
ummmm wouldn't that ring true for 95 % of all OP's? If you don't want to post anything constructive, keep moving then, simply really.Ottomania wrote:
We can access to CNN, you dont have to post a new topic for every single news.
Man was unable to find a gun so he used the knife. Perfectly normal.
Same thread was opened 5 years ago, yet you are so lazy to make a search before opening a new one.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=8337
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=8337
We can access to CNN, you dont have to post a new topic for every single news.
M.O.A.B wrote:
I can't see that going down well.Ottomania wrote:
Only for this time. Next time time we will send our conscripts to see who sucks worser at all.eleven bravo wrote:
turkey got owned by israel
I dont think we are that stupid.Mekstizzle wrote:
Like I said
It would either cause the disbandment of NATO because most countries would refuse to fight with Turkey, or Turkey would just get kicked out of NATO. Or Turkey would get kicked out + the US declares war on Turkey + US invites Israel into NATO.
Only for this time. Next time time we will send our conscripts to see who sucks worser at all.eleven bravo wrote:
turkey got owned by israel
Thats why conscription sucks.henno13 wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFSEFml31vc
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/1927 … 781775.png
Nice one IDF
Flying coffin..
1st picture: In guncam footage at around 4:10 cameraman shows up on the corner. Although I watched carefully many times it is hard to match the position of cameraman and photo you have posted. Another possibility is he is zooming at full capacity. Also in the footage participants sound like nearest friendly element is far away from the targets. Where did you find the photo?Kmarion wrote:
"it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement.".. They were legit targets.Pug wrote:
rus:
disrespect has to do with posting shit one-sided logic on a daily basis. i think you do it with glee and purposeful. otherwise you'd actually see that I never said I liked the result, and you wouldn't bait me into an argument by being insulting. outrage? yeah, i'm pissed they shot up the van. but being pissed and understanding WHY are completely different.
But we have a vet on this forum that says they are legitimate targets. Argue with him, since we both don't know what the roe are.
in the meantime, troll away
This was found on the dead journalist camera.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8634 … humvee.jpg
^That is what the insurgents were targeting with their RPG's/AK's
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9726 … qiak47.jpg
http://i42.tinypic.com/i5bpdj.jpg
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/833/savegunsmall.jpg
The death of the journalist is tragic. However, they embedded themselves amongst a threat to Americans troops. They put themselves in the line of fire. It's a risk they voluntarily take. There is nothing unbelievable here.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p3091871
This gif convinced me of the existence of RPG, but I still have suspects with AK.
Pilots recognized cameras as weapons. Bonus it seem to them like cameraman at the corner was engaging some friendlies. And I think thats why they hurried to shoot. However second shooting on van was total cruelty.
Asking permission to fire does not make your shooting legal.Pug wrote:
lolOttomania wrote:
1) so?Pug wrote:
Because:
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
2)I didnt say it does not exist. Since this is not an major operation they might have not used the feature. I will re-watch video to have a clue.
3)Our subject video is not taken from a recon helicopter.
4) I know, I have just get into this because Shifty admitted that video communication was used as a decision tool to open fire.
ahh, so next time there's a video failure in the field, all helicopters are grounded for combat operations because they can't use the radio instead. like there's no backup plan. because radio isn't good enough to ask permission to fire.
makes sense to me
1) so?Pug wrote:
Because:Ottomania wrote:
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
2)I didnt say it does not exist. Since this is not an major operation they might have not used the feature. I will re-watch video to have a clue.
3)Our subject video is not taken from a recon helicopter.
4) I know, I have just get into this because Shifty admitted that video communication was used as a decision tool to open fire.
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.Ottomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?
Any other sources?
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
I meant the transmission of video, on air.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You mean like the guy that was actually in Iraq saying there is video to go along with the audio? Or by your emphasis on instantaneous are you going to tell me that the speed of light isn't fast enough for you? Darn causality, makes everything so difficult.
Any other sources?
I meant the transmission of video, on air.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You mean like the guy that was actually in Iraq saying there is video to go along with the audio? Or by your emphasis on instantaneous are you going to tell me that the speed of light isn't fast enough for you? Darn causality, makes everything so difficult.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
It is predator drones. I asked for attack helicopters.Pug wrote:
Without googling, most likely there is, considering Predator drones are controlled in that fashion.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?
Do you still want proof?
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.Cybargs wrote:
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
Video doesnt tell how hard he is wounded. Probably he avoided a direct hit. And you dont have right to end someones life just because he is wounded hard. You cant decide whether a person is goint to survive or not without a medical expertise.M.O.A.B wrote:
So hold on. Let's say you have a wounded insurgent, with no legs, his guts are hanging out and the guy is screaming. You have no way of keeping him alive or treating him. Are you saying it would be more humane to just let him lie there and slowly die?Ottomania wrote:
If they had really intended to kill the wounded they wouldnt have been waiting for saviors to come. They even didnt know that wounded person was a hostile. And your statement of killing a wounded person to end his pain is utter bullshit.Cybargs wrote:
If you got hit by a 30 mike mike... You're dead anyway. They just gave him a quicker death. You'd be bitching if they didn't kill him fast and go "OMG THEY LEFT HIM TO BLEED TO DEATH FUCKING AMEIRCAN CRUEL BASTARDS."
Whens the last time in war its wrong to kill someone who's wounded? It's not exactly a fucking tickling competition now is it?
Btw yes it is wrong to kill a defenceless person in any case.
If you watch the video you will realize pilots' eagerness to open fire. And confirmation from command doesnt mean that they have right to shoot, due to misinformation at very first. There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio.ghettoperson wrote:
So if they're 'ruthless killers', why did they hang around for a while before doing anything to confirm that they were going to shoot at legitimate targets, and why did they radio it in to command who confirmed that they could shoot, after seeing the exact same footage that the pilots saw?Ottomania wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Oh an insult, I see you can't debate properly. Without having to attack a person's character to make his opinion less valid.Ottomania wrote:
Dont pretend to play cool guy.What you have said dont have a bit of value in terms of debating, and it is clear that you have first insulted people with opposite opinion with such a dialogue.-Sh1fty- wrote:
- OMG INNOCENT CIVILIANS
- No...they had weapons.
- OH NO CIVILIAAAAANS
- They had an RPG, AKs, grenades and machine guns (in report).
- CIVILIAAAAAAAAAAAAAANSIf they werent really trying to hide they would have published the video before wikileaks discovered it.
What do you mean by hide?
There was nothing to hide, and if it was hidden I assume it was to keep it away from people like you who have nothing better to do than try and point out the Americans are ruthless killers.
I am not pointing out the Americans are ruthless killers, but those pilots are, and why the whole case was tried to be covered up.
You cant shoot people relying on probability.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, if they killed some insurgents, what would they be then?Ottomania wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Oh an insult, I see you can't debate properly. Without having to attack a person's character to make his opinion less valid.Ottomania wrote:
Dont pretend to play cool guy.What you have said dont have a bit of value in terms of debating, and it is clear that you have first insulted people with opposite opinion with such a dialogue.-Sh1fty- wrote:
- OMG INNOCENT CIVILIANS
- No...they had weapons.
- OH NO CIVILIAAAAANS
- They had an RPG, AKs, grenades and machine guns (in report).
- CIVILIAAAAAAAAAAAAAANSIf they werent really trying to hide they would have published the video before wikileaks discovered it.
What do you mean by hide?
There was nothing to hide, and if it was hidden I assume it was to keep it away from people like you who have nothing better to do than try and point out the Americans are ruthless killers.
I am not pointing out the Americans are ruthless killers, but those pilots are, and why the whole case was tried to be covered up.
If they had really intended to kill the wounded they wouldnt have been waiting for saviors to come. They even didnt know that wounded person was a hostile. And your statement of killing a wounded person to end his pain is utter bullshit.Cybargs wrote:
If you got hit by a 30 mike mike... You're dead anyway. They just gave him a quicker death. You'd be bitching if they didn't kill him fast and go "OMG THEY LEFT HIM TO BLEED TO DEATH FUCKING AMEIRCAN CRUEL BASTARDS."Ottomania wrote:
Stop trying to stand behind your bullshit argument. Trying to help a wounded person has nothing to do with cleaning the scene. You dont have a fucking single clue that crawling person was even an insurgent, or people inside that van were different than ordinary civilians trying to help a person on the edge of death.11 Bravo wrote:
ok..... not true in a warzone where it is also a PR campaign that the insurgents are fighting but you know it all cause you have been there and not seen that right?
Whens the last time in war its wrong to kill someone who's wounded? It's not exactly a fucking tickling competition now is it?
Btw yes it is wrong to kill a defenceless person in any case.
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Oh an insult, I see you can't debate properly. Without having to attack a person's character to make his opinion less valid.Ottomania wrote:
Dont pretend to play cool guy.
What you have said dont have a bit of value in terms of debating, and it is clear that you have first insulted people with opposite opinion with such a dialogue.-Sh1fty- wrote:
- OMG INNOCENT CIVILIANS
- No...they had weapons.
- OH NO CIVILIAAAAANS
- They had an RPG, AKs, grenades and machine guns (in report).
- CIVILIAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS
If they werent really trying to hide they would have published the video before wikileaks discovered it.What do you mean by hide?Ottomania wrote:
That report was written by same people who also tried hide those killings.
There was nothing to hide, and if it was hidden I assume it was to keep it away from people like you who have nothing better to do than try and point out the Americans are ruthless killers.
I am not pointing out the Americans are ruthless killers, but those pilots are, and why the whole case was tried to be covered up.
Stop trying to stand behind your bullshit argument. Trying to help a wounded person has nothing to do with cleaning the scene. You dont have a fucking single clue that crawling person was even an insurgent, or people inside that van were different than ordinary civilians trying to help a person on the edge of death.11 Bravo wrote:
ok..... not true in a warzone where it is also a PR campaign that the insurgents are fighting but you know it all cause you have been there and not seen that right?Ottomania wrote:
Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.11 Bravo wrote:
they were not aiding...they were cleaning the scene.
Dont pretend to play cool guy. That report was written by same people who also tried hide those killings.-Sh1fty- wrote:
It's the same crap over and over again.M.O.A.B wrote:
So, are we any further with this or...are we still on the roundabout?
- OMG INNOCENT CIVILIANS
- No...they had weapons.
- OH NO CIVILIAAAAANS
- They had an RPG, AKs, grenades and machine guns (in report).
- CIVILIAAAAAAAAAAAAAANS
It is also weird that you can not share this video on your wall.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/vide … 7755646029
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/vide … 7755646029
Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.11 Bravo wrote:
they were not aiding...they were cleaning the scene.
Whatever, there was not any person like you posted on the scene.M.O.A.B wrote:
No this makes you seem more like an insurgent.
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/28748/0408-05.jpg
A helmet and body armour is more suggestive of coalition troops or sensible journalists.
If any genocide have ever happened, fuck the responsibles.nukchebi0 wrote:
This thread title led me to believe you'd finally seen the light in regards to Turkish-Armenian relations in the early part of the 20th century.
Let's take the middle way, it is unclear. What was the urgency for killing so many people? They were not a threat at the moment.-Sh1fty- wrote:
WHAT?Ottomania wrote:
Although I dont agree with your fictious RPG, you dont have right to blow up 20 people just because one of them is carrying a RPG.Vilham wrote:
No there was an RPG, 3:45. Get some glasses.
You can clearly see an RPG-7 in that video! Want my glasses?
I am sure they never put their helmet off, even while sleeping.M.O.A.B wrote:
Pays to take precautions in a war zone you know.Ottomania wrote:
How the hell are they supposed to identify them as friendly? They were even unaware of the helicopter.M.O.A.B wrote:
If you don't have a means of identifying yourself as a friendly, expect to become a target.
Its why you see Beeb journalists wearing big navy blue flak jackets and helmets with PRESS tapes in English and Arabic on them.
A journalist is nothing more than a civilian. So it is not an excuse to aim them just because they dont carry sign. Also it is senseless to suppose that brave gunmen who cant recognize a huge camera can identify the helmet or jacket. A helmet ant a vest makes you seem more like an insurgent btw.
Although I dont agree with your fictious RPG, you dont have right to blow up 20 people just because one of them is carrying a RPG.Vilham wrote:
No there was an RPG, 3:45. Get some glasses.
How the hell are they supposed to identify them as friendly? They were even unaware of the helicopter.M.O.A.B wrote:
If you don't have a means of identifying yourself as a friendly, expect to become a target.Ottomania wrote:
Yeah, it is normal to be killed just because you didnt attach ID or vest, pilots have nothing to do with it. Did you honestly believe that triggerhappy predators would recognize anything? Beside the journalists, what about other victims?M.O.A.B wrote:
That doesn't explain why the journalists weren't wearing ID or vests though.
Tbh, contractor's would have been better for their bodyguards, considering a contractor actually looks like a contractor with his body armour.
They made three mistakes that day, and paid for it.
There was not a RPG nor ak47s.. It was a camera with a big lens, or whatever equipment.The Sheriff wrote:
When you're with a group of men armed with ak47's, one carrying an RPG, then yes it is normal to be killed in a fucking war zone.Ottomania wrote:
Yeah, it is normal to be killed just because you didnt attach ID or vest, pilots have nothing to do with it. Did you honestly believe that triggerhappy predators would recognize anything? Beside the journalists, what about other victims?
Can you stop being so dense please.
That's like complaining about being arrested at a KKK march because you were walking with them.
Bring some footage...11 Bravo wrote:
no thats turkish troops. why not go as the kurd civilians about that eh?Ottomania wrote:
triggerhappy predators
Yeah, it is normal to be killed just because you didnt attach ID or vest, pilots have nothing to do with it. Did you honestly believe that triggerhappy predators would recognize anything? Beside the journalists, what about other victims?M.O.A.B wrote:
That doesn't explain why the journalists weren't wearing ID or vests though.Ottomania wrote:
Because it was just belonging to ordinary people trying to help the wounded.ghettoperson wrote:
I'll say this again, since no one picked up on it before, why wasn't the photog or the minivan marked 'PRESS'?
Tbh, contractor's would have been better for their bodyguards, considering a contractor actually looks like a contractor with his body armour.
They made three mistakes that day, and paid for it.
Because it was just belonging to ordinary people trying to help the wounded.ghettoperson wrote:
I'll say this again, since no one picked up on it before, why wasn't the photog or the minivan marked 'PRESS'?
You have a good imagination, there was no one with RPG.Vilham wrote:
1. Those pilots have to react instantly, they don't have time to send the video back, let it be analyzed for a few hours then open fire.ruisleipa wrote:
shooting at unamred civilians and children? noooooo...nothing wrong there. good show pilots!Vilham wrote:
I see nothing that pilots did wrong.
2. Those straps on the cameras from several hundred feet up will look just the same as any guns strap.
3. Two of them DID have AKs.
4. The guy who sat on the corner pointing something up at the choppers is A, an insurgent with a RPG. B, a fucking moron for sitting in a hidden position pointing something at someone who is on the lookout for people trying to kill him.
Thats not the case, really. And of course if something like that have happened, I wouldnt be going to punish all civilians, but thats what your some retarded army staff insist on doing.eleven bravo wrote:
I wonder what you would think if people dressed like civilians tried killing you?Ottomania wrote:
I wonder what would you think if your father were ripped off to pieces like that.eleven bravo wrote:
maybe you guys should go and fight for the insurgency
I wonder what would you think if your father were ripped off to pieces like that.eleven bravo wrote:
maybe you guys should go and fight for the insurgency
Lets shoot everyone carrying something longer than 20 cm, how about that?M.O.A.B wrote:
Because you could clearly distinguish them as journalists with cameras right?Ottomania wrote:
Pilots were the only eyewitness of the scene. It is their very first fault to report fictious arms hold by the victims!