As opposed to unarmed gunmen?-Sh1fty- wrote:
What they did know is that there was to armed gunmen they needed to take down. Which they did quite well at.
exactly. and especially not when there are certified civilians around.Dilbert_X wrote:
They could have been anyone, bodyguards for the cameramen for example, they didn't necessarily need to be 'taken down'.
But there is a greater amount of certified terrorists / enemy combatants around.ruisleipa wrote:
exactly. and especially not when there are certified civilians around.Dilbert_X wrote:
They could have been anyone, bodyguards for the cameramen for example, they didn't necessarily need to be 'taken down'.
no there isn't...are we watching the same video?mtb0minime wrote:
But there is a greater amount of certified terrorists / enemy combatants around.
There were no reported friendlies. That means no reporters had called in to say they were in the area. THAT makes them certified enemy combatants.ruisleipa wrote:
no there isn't...are we watching the same video?mtb0minime wrote:
But there is a greater amount of certified terrorists / enemy combatants around.
there were NO certified enemy combatants around in the case under discussion.
Last edited by Vilham (2010-04-06 02:13:02)
Exactly. In this day and age, in this location, with these insurgents, if they're not confirmed friendly, for the sake of your own men and their lives, it's best to assume they are enemies. But that assumption alone doesn't mean you get to fire on anyone. However, once they saw the weapons, or what appeared to be weapons, and went through the SOP and CO confirmations and got the OK to fire, that's completely acceptable. Who knows how many other times this has happened and has wound up saving countless lives in the process.Vilham wrote:
There were no reported friendlies. That means no reports had called in to say they were in the area. THAT makes them certified enemy combatants.
Last edited by mtb0minime (2010-04-06 02:12:13)
fixd?mtb0minime wrote:
Who knows how many other times this has happened and has wound up destroying countless lives in the process.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-06 02:14:46)
Oh, in that case, do you have a transcript from your interview with them, or even a recording of it? How about a statement from them while under oath? How can you be 100% sure of what was going through someone else's mind?ruisleipa wrote:
mtb - I'm 100% sure those guys were just itching to shoot something and waiting for any excuse.
mtb0minime wrote:
Who knows how many other times this has happened and has wound up destroying countless lives in the process.
We'll never know for sure, but I'm willing to bet '# saved > # destroyed'.ruisleipa wrote:
fixd?
Yes it does. How have you not got that yet.ruisleipa wrote:
The helicopter was maybe looking for suspicious activity. But there were NO certified combatants. there were a few guys with what the pilots thought were guns. That does NOT equal certified enemy combatants, does it?
Because the locals know not to be on the street with a gun out when you can hear gunships circling. The locals also don't carry guns on the street because they know that will get shot. Carrying a gun makes you a combatant. Now if you aren't in some form of authorized organization i.e. the Iraq army, police, PMC, media or coalition and are carrying a weapon then you ARE an enemy combatant.Vilham - I think you have it the wrong way round. If someone is unarmed, or even armed and not shoting at you, why assume they're enemy combatants rather than...er...not enemies? Especially in Iraq where as I pointed out everyone and their dog has a gun, including 'allies'.
Friendlies also includes civilians you know?
They could've been cameramen for the insurgents as well. Wouldn't it be awesome if we all wore uniforms so that we would know who to shoot?ruisleipa wrote:
exactly. and especially not when there are certified civilians around.Dilbert_X wrote:
They could have been anyone, bodyguards for the cameramen for example, they didn't necessarily need to be 'taken down'.
I agreeVilham wrote:
Yes it does. How have you not got that yet.ruisleipa wrote:
The helicopter was maybe looking for suspicious activity. But there were NO certified combatants. there were a few guys with what the pilots thought were guns. That does NOT equal certified enemy combatants, does it?Because the locals know not to be on the street with a gun out when you can hear gunships circling. The locals also don't carry guns on the street because they know that will get shot. Carrying a gun makes you a combatant. Now if you aren't in some form of authorized organization i.e. the Iraq army, police, PMC, media or coalition and are carrying a weapon then you ARE an enemy combatant.Vilham - I think you have it the wrong way round. If someone is unarmed, or even armed and not shoting at you, why assume they're enemy combatants rather than...er...not enemies? Especially in Iraq where as I pointed out everyone and their dog has a gun, including 'allies'.
Friendlies also includes civilians you know?
Where do you get this everyone and their dog has a gun as well? Have you been their yourself?
No, it means they are unidentified, not enemy anything necessarily.Vilham wrote:
There were no reported friendlies. That means no reporters had called in to say they were in the area. THAT makes them certified enemy combatants.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-06 03:03:38)
Again, Baghdad in 2007 was not a 'warzone'.DonFck wrote:
- In a warzone, you expect to see AK:s and RPG:s, and I still couldn't tell if it was an RPG or a bloody long lense behind the corner.
Baghdad in 2007 was at least a hostile zone, and most probably at least the part of Baghdad that chopper was circling. And they asked for permission to fire; had they not received it, they wouldn't have opened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, Baghdad in 2007 was not a 'warzone'.DonFck wrote:
- In a warzone, you expect to see AK:s and RPG:s, and I still couldn't tell if it was an RPG or a bloody long lense behind the corner.
How would it be if someone invaded your country for political reasons and started shooting the place up 'But dude, its like, a warzone - shoot first man'.
They asked for permission to fire based on their report the guys were carrying RPGs, which they weren't.DonFck wrote:
Baghdad in 2007 was at least a hostile zone, and most probably at least the part of Baghdad that chopper was circling. And they asked for permission to fire; had they not received it, they wouldn't have opened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, Baghdad in 2007 was not a 'warzone'.DonFck wrote:
- In a warzone, you expect to see AK:s and RPG:s, and I still couldn't tell if it was an RPG or a bloody long lense behind the corner.
How would it be if someone invaded your country for political reasons and started shooting the place up 'But dude, its like, a warzone - shoot first man'.
That would take all the fun out of the LAPD beating up African American DUI:s.Dilbert_X wrote:
They asked for permission to fire based on their report the guys were carrying RPGs, which they weren't.DonFck wrote:
Baghdad in 2007 was at least a hostile zone, and most probably at least the part of Baghdad that chopper was circling. And they asked for permission to fire; had they not received it, they wouldn't have opened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, Baghdad in 2007 was not a 'warzone'.
How would it be if someone invaded your country for political reasons and started shooting the place up 'But dude, its like, a warzone - shoot first man'.
Maybe the LAPD should have gunships and just waste anyone who looks like they're gang members.
Indeed it wasn't an RPG, but it certainly looked like one, to me, to the trained gunner, to his commander watching the feed. But what would they know. Dilberts on the case.Dilbert_X wrote:
They asked for permission to fire based on their report the guys were carrying RPGs, which they weren't.DonFck wrote:
Baghdad in 2007 was at least a hostile zone, and most probably at least the part of Baghdad that chopper was circling. And they asked for permission to fire; had they not received it, they wouldn't have opened.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, Baghdad in 2007 was not a 'warzone'.
How would it be if someone invaded your country for political reasons and started shooting the place up 'But dude, its like, a warzone - shoot first man'.
Maybe the LAPD should have gunships and just waste anyone who looks like they're gang members.
Last edited by max (2010-04-06 03:28:55)
As of mid-2007, the National Police Forces' employed approximately 25,000 national policeSpark wrote:
iraq didn't have a local or federal police...BN wrote:
Pull out.eleven bravo wrote:
ok. I agree, we shouldnt have invaded. Iraq posed absolutely no threat and the bush administration knowingly misled the public in order to justify an invasion. now that we've got that out of the way and we could both say we stand on the same position on that subject, could you please suggest a different way a military should be able win? because the fact is we are there, now, engaging an enemy in a fluid combat environment.
Its not your job, correct. Its not my job either. But you cant say this is wrong wrong wrong wrong without at least giving me something practical to think about. Please, considering we are there and thats not going to change any time soon, what should be done instead?
We have liberated Iraq from Hussein. Iraq seem to have a domestic terrorism problem which should be dealt with by the local & federal police.
Because and Ill say this one more time.max wrote:
What I don't understand is why did the Apache not close in for a better look / confirmation?
From the distance anything can look like a gun. Journalists get mistaken for enemies all the time. Some of their equipment looks a suspiciously like weapons. It's important to take good look. It would just take a seconds to close in for a better look.
Nothing in that situation could have hurt the helicopter. It's build specifically to withstand small arms fire . Hitting a fast flying helicopter a couple 100m up with an RPG would be a hugely lucky shot.
I just watched the video 3:45 guy clearly has an RPG.CapnNismo wrote:
Gotta agree with max on this one. Why not make sure? You had two guys with AKs out of how many? Not really a threat. Fuck, when I saw that "RPG guy" it clearly was not an RPG.
I'm sorry, but also listening to the pilots talking about what they just did as if they were playing pool is also quite sick.
Last edited by Vilham (2010-04-06 03:49:08)
