Saddam did that and I don't hear anyone bitching about Saddam.Ottomania wrote:
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.
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?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Cowardly? I call it compassionate. The US could easily exterminate these people. The fact that we haven't speaks volumes.
It doesn't speak volumes if you don't nuke a country, it just means you're not total dickheads.
They were concerned for the column of Hummvees that was going to be moving down that road in a few minutes time, not for their own sake.CameronPoe wrote:
Which is surely unreachable or nearly unreachable in terms of the RPG the crew expressed concern about?JohnG@lt wrote:
Attack helicopters are equipped with long range camera gear. They can see and shoot at targets while appearing as only a spec on the horizon to them. They don't hover directly over the target.
I think they acted professionally. There were constant calls for permission to engage and they probably had rights to a healthy level of suspicion. From the footage that suspicion for me wasn't really a slam dunk though, but it wasn't exactly great footage. There will always unavoidably be a certain level of fuckups in any conflict and this may have been one of them.DBBrinson1 wrote:
We haven't. We recognize that genocide isn't the answer. Our foes haven't. That is what makes us compassionate... But Cam, after watching this video -do you find that the pilots acted irresponsible?CameronPoe wrote:
Why would you exterminate them? What have they done to deserve it?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Cowardly? I call it compassionate. The US could easily exterminate these people. The fact that we haven't speaks volumes.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 11:50:45)
Pistols at dawn would've been more fair than an Apache lighting them up with 30 mike mike rounds?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.
Journalists don't sling long tubes on their shoulders. Especially not photographers. Why the fuck did they bring kids around?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.
You mean the opposing factions in terms of firepower?DBBrinson1 wrote:
You really can't compare the two.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not fair. Correct. It doesn't make the school bully who beats the cripple for his lunch money any less of a coward. You are basically saying 'might conquers all and you can't do anything about it so fuck off and roll over for me'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's not fair, but then life isn't fair. To do anything but roll over in the face of a vastly technologically superior enemy and then claim the enemy is a coward for using the weapons at their disposal is pretty ridiculous. Bringing a knife to a gun fight and then calling the guy a coward for using the gun is stupid.
why are you bringing up pistols at dawn again? doesn't even make sense here. I don't see what your point is. I wasn't talking about 'fairness' in my last post, although no, it's not 'fair' the helicopter killed a bunch of civilians and seriously injured some kids, if you want me to say that.JohnG@lt wrote:
Pistols at dawn would've been more fair than an Apache lighting them up with 30 mike mike rounds?
Why they are there is irrelevant to the argument that the use of technology is cowardly.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not fair. Correct. It doesn't make the school bully who beats the cripple for his lunch money any less of a coward. You are basically saying 'might conquers all and you can't do anything about it so fuck off and roll over for me'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's not fair, but then life isn't fair. To do anything but roll over in the face of a vastly technologically superior enemy and then claim the enemy is a coward for using the weapons at their disposal is pretty ridiculous. Bringing a knife to a gun fight and then calling the guy a coward for using the gun is stupid.
Lulz. I find the whole thing about "fairness" in war absurd. There is not fucking fairness in war, you either have better tech and training or you don't.CameronPoe wrote:
You mean the opposing factions in terms of firepower?DBBrinson1 wrote:
You really can't compare the two.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not fair. Correct. It doesn't make the school bully who beats the cripple for his lunch money any less of a coward. You are basically saying 'might conquers all and you can't do anything about it so fuck off and roll over for me'.
Protip: If you ever find your neighborhood in a combat zone, don't run out in the street with a group of men carrying AK's and RPG's -especially in braod daylight. Also don't point said weapons at distant helicopters.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.
Might makes fact. Might does not make right. Might can make right. Might can also make wrong, but that wrong will be called right.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why they are there is irrelevant to the argument that the use of technology is cowardly.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not fair. Correct. It doesn't make the school bully who beats the cripple for his lunch money any less of a coward. You are basically saying 'might conquers all and you can't do anything about it so fuck off and roll over for me'.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's not fair, but then life isn't fair. To do anything but roll over in the face of a vastly technologically superior enemy and then claim the enemy is a coward for using the weapons at their disposal is pretty ridiculous. Bringing a knife to a gun fight and then calling the guy a coward for using the gun is stupid.
Might does make right okay. You can bitch about moral ideals all you want, but that is the fact. The winner writes the history books, the winner makes the rules. You only have the opinion you are presenting because the powerful have indirectly granted it to you - as much as you may despise their methods, the democratic West has largely protected free speech despite clearly having the military hardware to suppress it. We are lucky that the present day "might", though it has many obvious failings, is largely moral.
That is not to say that people should not fight for their country/beliefs. But the difficulty of doing so should not escape them and it should not let them call the other side that is also fighting for their beliefs cowards.
I believe we went over our totally uninformed guesses as to the kids in the van previously.Cybargs wrote:
Journalists don't sling long tubes on their shoulders. Especially not photographers. Why the fuck did they bring kids around?
You're just an idiot who doesn't get it. What you want is for the Americans to roll up in HMMWVs and verify whether they are reporters or enemy combatants. That takes away every single technological advantage that we have in our favor. This is why I keep mentioning pistol duels.ruisleipa wrote:
why are you bringing up pistols at dawn again? doesn't even make sense here. I don't see what your point is. I wasn't talking about 'fairness' in my last post, although no, it's not 'fair' the helicopter killed a bunch of civilians and seriously injured some kids, if you want me to say that.JohnG@lt wrote:
Pistols at dawn would've been more fair than an Apache lighting them up with 30 mike mike rounds?
Would you call the gunner on that chopper brave? I've seen braver people on bungee cords. I know war ain't fair, never ever gave any illusion that it was, quite the opposite in fact.Cybargs wrote:
Lulz. I find the whole thing about "fairness" in war absurd. There is not fucking fairness in war, you either have better tech and training or you don't.
Iraq had a pretty good air force back in 91, but US had numbers lel.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-04-06 11:54:44)
Fact is right. Your perceptions of right and wrong can in no way be logically defined as more correct than any other definitions of right and wrong. What goes in the history books as right and wrong is the only definition that has any meaning beyond the academic.CameronPoe wrote:
Might makes fact. Might does not make right. Might can make right. Might can also make wrong, but that wrong will be called right.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Why they are there is irrelevant to the argument that the use of technology is cowardly.CameronPoe wrote:
Life is not fair. Correct. It doesn't make the school bully who beats the cripple for his lunch money any less of a coward. You are basically saying 'might conquers all and you can't do anything about it so fuck off and roll over for me'.
Might does make right okay. You can bitch about moral ideals all you want, but that is the fact. The winner writes the history books, the winner makes the rules. You only have the opinion you are presenting because the powerful have indirectly granted it to you - as much as you may despise their methods, the democratic West has largely protected free speech despite clearly having the military hardware to suppress it. We are lucky that the present day "might", though it has many obvious failings, is largely moral.
That is not to say that people should not fight for their country/beliefs. But the difficulty of doing so should not escape them and it should not let them call the other side that is also fighting for their beliefs cowards.
Is a tank gunner brave? Is a sniper sitting in a tree brave? Is a pilot in a plane brave? It all depends on the situation but the entire concept of bravery is a bit outdated.CameronPoe wrote:
Would you call the gunner on that chopper brave? I've seen braver people on bungee cords. I know war ain't fair, never ever gave any illusion that it was, quite the opposite in fact.Cybargs wrote:
Lulz. I find the whole thing about "fairness" in war absurd. There is not fucking fairness in war, you either have better tech and training or you don't.
Iraq had a pretty good air force back in 91, but US had numbers lel.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-04-06 11:56:42)
But Galt said that the Apache would have been well outside of range.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
I have and i don't agree with you, there's always time to section off combatants from non combatants, we were not there to kill civilians we went there to help them apparently.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have valid views because I actually spent a year in the country, have you?mafia996630 wrote:
Is that how you justify your views ? haha.JohnG@lt wrote:
If you feel so strongly about it, go spend some time over there and try to help them out. I'll be eating popcorn when they show you on Al-Jazeera with a hood over your head right before they decapitate you.
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
If there's no gun on the convoy that can shoot further than 500 metres then they need better guns.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The insurgent is out of range too.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-06 11:57:26)
Basra is lolz.LostFate wrote:
I have and i don't agree with you, there's always time to section off combatants from non combatants, we were not there to kill civilians we went there to help them apparently.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have valid views because I actually spent a year in the country, have you?mafia996630 wrote:
Is that how you justify your views ? haha.
Some semblance of intelligence in DAST would be nice.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.
