I imagine the ROE allows them to neutralise targets that are trying to evac the bad guys. After all, if you just went through all the trouble of blowing some dudes leg off, the last thing to want him doing is spending his time making bombs.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I forgot if I asked this or not. But now after seeing the video for the 3rd time (only 2 times to the end) I don't understand why they engaged the mini-van.
The question has never been if they were civilians you thick cnut, the question has been since the start, if the pilots had good enough reason to open fire, which they evidently did.ruisleipa wrote:
you talked about exterminating these people, which is just what the video shows. executing would be a better word perhaps.DBBrinson1 wrote:
So how do you know that they all were civilians? Cause the video said so?ruisleipa wrote:
errr..did you watch the video of the US exterminating some people?
It doesn't speak volumes if you don't nuke a country, it just means you're not total dickheads.
I don't know if they were all civilians, no-one does - you, anyone here, even the pilots don't know - ubt we DO know SOME of them were civilians and two were journalists. So what's the point about being compassionate and not killing everyone... I don't get it.
At least there is this;
those rounds meant instant death for anybody they hit. poof.
They guy seen crawling away was likely wounded by scrapnel or concussion. Those rounds. They hit you in the arm and your arm explodes taking off a good chunk of your shoulder with it. If you get a torso hit the body would be torn apart, meaning most of them did not suffer.
tbh, I thought the barbaric executions carried out under saddam were reason enough to invade.
My issue was where the thing went. Those burned bodies hanging from the bridge JG mentioned? They should never have been there. They were mercenaries, which is illegal.
Meanwhile OBL is still allegedly on the loose and we have a unending clusterfuck. gg.
those rounds meant instant death for anybody they hit. poof.
They guy seen crawling away was likely wounded by scrapnel or concussion. Those rounds. They hit you in the arm and your arm explodes taking off a good chunk of your shoulder with it. If you get a torso hit the body would be torn apart, meaning most of them did not suffer.
tbh, I thought the barbaric executions carried out under saddam were reason enough to invade.
My issue was where the thing went. Those burned bodies hanging from the bridge JG mentioned? They should never have been there. They were mercenaries, which is illegal.
Meanwhile OBL is still allegedly on the loose and we have a unending clusterfuck. gg.
So just because the chopper is in no danger from those armed men themselves, they can't engage them, despite the fact that the ground troops might be killed were they not attacked?ruisleipa wrote:
yeah, neither of them are brave then are they? Wow, we agree on something, whoulda thunk it.eleven bravo wrote:
the gunner on that chopper facing the very possible fact of being shot down is just as brave as the insurgent lying 500 meters away from a patrol of troops waiting to detonate an ied
Except the chopper has zero chance of being shot down.
I was talking about the 'relative braveness' if there be such a thing, of safely taking potshots at specks in crosshairs, versus less asymmetric combat.Pug wrote:
Sorry, I thought you meant they shouldn't have shot the RPG guy because the RPG couldn't hit them from that range.CameronPoe wrote:
I never questioned the validity of 'targethood' if carrying.Pug wrote:
And then they walk around the corner and see a APC or wait an hour and an Apache flies overhead...
Aren't you a target, by either side, if you are carrying in a warzone?
What did you mean?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 13:34:38)
Door Gunner: Git some! Git some! Git some, yeah, yeah, yeah! Anyone who runs, is a VC. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined VC! You guys oughta do a story about me sometime!
Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
Door Gunner: 'Cuz I'm so fuckin' good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo, too! Them's all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?
Private Joker: Why should we do a story about you?
Door Gunner: 'Cuz I'm so fuckin' good! I done got me 157 dead gooks killed. Plus 50 water buffalo, too! Them's all confirmed!
Private Joker: Any women or children?
Door Gunner: Sometimes!
Private Joker: How can you shoot women or children?
Door Gunner: Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much! Ain't war hell?
I love it, even in war liberals insist on "fairness". It just isn't "fair" if you do not give your enemy a chance to kill you back....CameronPoe wrote:
I was talking about the 'relative braveness' if there be such a thing, of safely taking potshots at specks in crosshairs, versus less asymmetric combat.Pug wrote:
Sorry, I thought you meant they shouldn't have shot the RPG guy because the RPG couldn't hit them from that range.CameronPoe wrote:
I never questioned the validity of 'targethood' if carrying.
What did you mean?
All's fair in love and war. The gunner decided to kill the enemy, the enemy decided to hide among civilians. It dosent' matter whether they're going to shoot the chopper or not, they're the enemy, and they would have engaged the chopper if they were given the opportunity. Just because they can't do it dosen't mean that they won't if given the chance, thus they should be killed.DesertFox- wrote:
So just because the chopper is in no danger from those armed men themselves, they can't engage them, despite the fact that the ground troops might be killed were they not attacked?ruisleipa wrote:
yeah, neither of them are brave then are they? Wow, we agree on something, whoulda thunk it.eleven bravo wrote:
the gunner on that chopper facing the very possible fact of being shot down is just as brave as the insurgent lying 500 meters away from a patrol of troops waiting to detonate an ied
Except the chopper has zero chance of being shot down.
as said war is hell and sometimes civilians die. they were in the wrong place at the wrong time though.
the soldiers were just doing their job.
the soldiers were just doing their job.
I fully agree with dispatching a threat irrespective of how unevenly matched your enemy is. I was just commenting on the fact that earning a medal for 'rushing the beaches in a hail of fire' far outweighs popping some guerrillas through a laser sight crosshairs. If you think otherwise then you just don't get the gravitas of earning something through hard graft as opposed to earning something without even nearly breaking a sweat.lowing wrote:
I love it, even in war liberals insist on "fairness". It just isn't "fair" if you do not give your enemy a chance to kill you back....
And to suggest I insist on fairness, in some vain battle against reality, is just pulling bullshit out of thin air. But then again, you do that quite often just to get people drawn into pointless arguments.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 14:10:09)
No, I'm not syaing that. I'm just saying that eleven bravo is wrong in equating - somehow - the relative 'bravery' of the guy with an IED and a chopper pilot.DesertFox- wrote:
So just because the chopper is in no danger from those armed men themselves, they can't engage them, despite the fact that the ground troops might be killed were they not attacked?
If you can't reply civilly without resort to ignorant and stupid language, don't bother. Of course the question is whether they were civilians, at least partly. Or are you saying the pilots had good reason to open fire on a crowd of people they knew to be civilians?Vilham wrote:
The question has never been if they were civilians you thick cnut, the question has been since the start, if the pilots had good enough reason to open fire, which they evidently did.
I'd love to hear all you war gods say 'oh civilians get killed all the time' if it's your family who gets killed.
Worst are when retarded medal seeking CO's call in a 200m danger fucking close artillery strike.CameronPoe wrote:
I fully agree with dispatching a threat irrespective of how unevenly matched your enemy is. I was just commenting on the fact that earning a medal for 'rushing the beaches in a hail of fire' far outweighs popping some guerrillas through a laser sight crosshairs. If you think otherwise then you just don't get the gravitas of earning something through hard graft as opposed to earning something without even nearly breaking a sweat.lowing wrote:
I love it, even in war liberals insist on "fairness". It just isn't "fair" if you do not give your enemy a chance to kill you back....
And to suggest I insist on fairness, in some vain battle against reality, is just pulling bullshit out of thin air. But then again, you do that quite often just to get people drawn into pointless arguments.
Ahh, riiiiiight. We should be using car bombs.CameronPoe wrote:
I was talking about the 'relative braveness' if there be such a thing, of safely taking potshots at specks in crosshairs, versus less asymmetric combat.Pug wrote:
Sorry, I thought you meant they shouldn't have shot the RPG guy because the RPG couldn't hit them from that range.CameronPoe wrote:
I never questioned the validity of 'targethood' if carrying.
What did you mean?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36189682/ns … tn_africa/
The main flaw in your argument is that you think members of the armed forces give a shit about medals or recognition.CameronPoe wrote:
I fully agree with dispatching a threat irrespective of how unevenly matched your enemy is. I was just commenting on the fact that earning a medal for 'rushing the beaches in a hail of fire' far outweighs popping some guerrillas through a laser sight crosshairs. If you think otherwise then you just don't get the gravitas of earning something through hard graft as opposed to earning something without even nearly breaking a sweat.lowing wrote:
I love it, even in war liberals insist on "fairness". It just isn't "fair" if you do not give your enemy a chance to kill you back....
And to suggest I insist on fairness, in some vain battle against reality, is just pulling bullshit out of thin air. But then again, you do that quite often just to get people drawn into pointless arguments.
Because they're brave? Que?Pug wrote:
Ahh, riiiiiight. We should be using car bombs.CameronPoe wrote:
I was talking about the 'relative braveness' if there be such a thing, of safely taking potshots at specks in crosshairs, versus less asymmetric combat.Pug wrote:
Sorry, I thought you meant they shouldn't have shot the RPG guy because the RPG couldn't hit them from that range.
What did you mean?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36189682/ns … tn_africa/
I was under the impression that medical services and related were not allowed to be targetted.ghettoperson wrote:
I imagine the ROE allows them to neutralise targets that are trying to evac the bad guys. After all, if you just went through all the trouble of blowing some dudes leg off, the last thing to want him doing is spending his time making bombs.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I forgot if I asked this or not. But now after seeing the video for the 3rd time (only 2 times to the end) I don't understand why they engaged the mini-van.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-06 14:26:36)
I don't. I'm just using that as a measurand. I don't know the first thing about what a soldier really gives a shit about. Probably brotherhood and covering each others asses and getting through without being killed.Iconic Irony wrote:
The main flaw in your argument is that you think members of the armed forces give a shit about medals or recognition.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 14:26:51)
Beans, booze, broads and bullets.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't. I'm just using that as a measurand. I don't know the first thing about what a soldier really gives a shit about. Probably brotherhood and covering each others asses and getting through without being killed.Iconic Irony wrote:
The main flaw in your argument is that you think members of the armed forces give a shit about medals or recognition.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-06 14:42:49)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
one might hope they care about not killing anyone who doesn't need to be killed, serving their country, making the world a safer place and all that shit. apparently not though.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't. I'm just using that as a measurand. I don't know the first thing about what a soldier really gives a shit about. Probably brotherhood and covering each others asses and getting through without being killed.
I suppose it all depends on your job. Fact is, EVERY soldier, that is away from home in Iraq or Afghanistan is in harms way. Bravery has nothing to do with any of it. they are performing their jobs, and collectively, through everyones efforts, the mission is accomplished. None of them set out ot die for their country, nor given the choice would they rather do so.CameronPoe wrote:
I fully agree with dispatching a threat irrespective of how unevenly matched your enemy is. I was just commenting on the fact that earning a medal for 'rushing the beaches in a hail of fire' far outweighs popping some guerrillas through a laser sight crosshairs. If you think otherwise then you just don't get the gravitas of earning something through hard graft as opposed to earning something without even nearly breaking a sweat.lowing wrote:
I love it, even in war liberals insist on "fairness". It just isn't "fair" if you do not give your enemy a chance to kill you back....
And to suggest I insist on fairness, in some vain battle against reality, is just pulling bullshit out of thin air. But then again, you do that quite often just to get people drawn into pointless arguments.
There have been plenty of soldiers killed from rocket and mortar attacks at bases where there was relatively low danger. Supply personnel, office personnel, air craft crew chiefs etc...
In my opinion these soldiers were "brave" the second they enlisted. I didn't meet any soldiers that spoke of medals, or bravery. They spoke of going home, friends and family.
So you can take what you think you know about the difference between storming beaches, and long range helicopter attacks and shove.............
Nah, not at all. Shooting people walking down the street carrying an automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades is a completely inconceivable, irresponsible, act of evil.ruisleipa wrote:
one might hope they care about not killing anyone who doesn't need to be killed, serving their country, making the world a safer place and all that shit. apparently not though.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't. I'm just using that as a measurand. I don't know the first thing about what a soldier really gives a shit about. Probably brotherhood and covering each others asses and getting through without being killed.
In case you've been living under a rock for the past........oh......7 years, insurgents don't wear uniforms, carry the same weapons or seem to have any qualms about hiding behind women and children, or behind crowds of civilians for that matter, or blowing up civilians, for no good reason, I suppose, but yeah, you're right, these airmen are some real cunning evil bastards for shooting something that resembles a combatant, holding combat arms, in the middle of the day, in the open, after receiving permission.
You have got to be the dumbest fuck I've ever seen on this board.
they were soldiers
Tu Stultus Es
Warning, this is an extremely stupid thing to do with a gunship circling. Very suspect.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
kmar pls close this abortion of a thread
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Requesting bans for the LiberalFags in the thread.