mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6982|d

Iconic Irony wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

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.
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.
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.

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.
God dammit, i hate threads that move so fast.

Listen mofo, don't throw around personal insults; no need for it. Also I'm pretty sure warman already holds that title, jk <3 warman.


On your other point, is it so wrong to consider minimizing casualties ? while ruisleipa might seem idealist, his way of thinking is what will win "hearts & minds", however its too late for that now.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2010-04-06 15:07:10)

henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|6567|Belfast
They made a mistake, it's human nature. They were presented with a situation, but they were at the wrong angle and misinterpreted it. If YOU were that gunner, you wouldn't think "oh, that's just a guy holding camera, he's no threat." To those crew men, that guy with a camera, which they thought was an RPG, was a threat. They couldn't just assume that they were not a threat, because it would mean that their lives would be in danger. As Vilham said, they followed every rule in the book. They followed their ROE and asked for permission to engage. If anything their commanders were at fault, but not the pilots. However, if this was a bunch of pilots shooting at what ever moves, yeah, that would be a cause for serious concern. But this is nothing more than a mistake. Some of the comments on the youtube video are plain over reactions.

EDIT: I'm a day late to register my opinion on the video. From the looks of it, some people are declaring it as evil and inhumane like the screwed up faggots on Youtube. While others have a similar opinion to my own, am I right?

Last edited by henno13 (2010-04-06 16:04:41)

mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6982|d

Kmarion wrote:

Warning, this is an extremely stupid thing to do with a gunship circling. Very suspect.

http://i43.tinypic.com/iee8no.gif
Yea because their attitude totally depicted that they were aware of the gunship.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6868

mafia996630 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Warning, this is an extremely stupid thing to do with a gunship circling. Very suspect.

http://i43.tinypic.com/iee8no.gif
Yea because their attitude totally depicted that they were aware of the gunship.
If they'd been aware of the gunship they're presumably thought twice about wandering around with AK's and RPG's.
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|6982|d

ghettoperson wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Warning, this is an extremely stupid thing to do with a gunship circling. Very suspect.

http://i43.tinypic.com/iee8no.gif
Yea because their attitude totally depicted that they were aware of the gunship.
If they'd been aware of the gunship they're presumably thought twice about wandering around with AK's and RPG's.
I agree.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6820|132 and Bush

mafia996630 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Warning, this is an extremely stupid thing to do with a gunship circling. Very suspect.

http://i43.tinypic.com/iee8no.gif
Yea because their attitude totally depicted that they were aware of the gunship.
Leaning around the corner and then standing up and pointing something directly at it doesn't depict awareness?
What the hell are you looking at?

https://i40.tinypic.com/hspddz.jpg

https://i43.tinypic.com/1zyx0rr.jpg

The group strolling behind him might not have been aware, but he was.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6820|132 and Bush

At the request of CC-Marley

https://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg
RPG's were found at the site.

A nice breakdown here..
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Here as well.
Wikileaks, the website devoted to publishing classified documents on the Internet, made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military "murdered" a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi "civilians" in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but "Collateral Murder," as Wikileaks describes the incident.

There are a couple of things to note in the video. First, Wikileaks characterizes the attack as the U.S. military casually gunning down Iraqis who were innocently gathering on the streets of New Baghdad. But the video begins somewhat abruptly, with a UAV starting to track a group of Iraqi males gathering on the streets. The voice of a U.S. officer is captured in mid-sentence. It would be nice to know what happened before Wikileaks decided to begin the video. The U.S. military claimed the Iraqis were killed after a gun battle with U.S. and Iraqi security forces. It is unclear if any of that was captured on the strike footage. Here is what the U.S. military had to say about the engagement in a July 2007 press release:

Soldiers of 1st Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, and the 2nd Battalion, 16th Infantry Regiment, both operating in eastern Baghdad under the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, along with their Iraqi counterparts from the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Division National Police, were conducting a coordinated raid as part of a planned operation when they were attacked by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Coalition Forces returned fire and called in attack aviation reinforcement.   

There is nothing in that video that is inconsistent with the military's report. What you see is the air weapons team engaging armed men.

Second, note how empty the streets are in the video. The only people visible on the streets are the armed men and the accompanying Reuters cameramen. This is a very good indicator that there was a battle going on in the vicinity. Civilians smartly clear the streets during a gunfight.

Third, several of the men are clearly armed with assault rifles; one appears to have an RPG. Wikileaks purposely chooses not to identify them, but instead focuses on the Reuters cameraman. Why?

Fourth, there is no indication that the U.S. military weapons crew that fired on this group of armed men violated the military's Rules of Engagement. Ironically, Wikileaks published the military's Rules of Engagement from 2007, which you can read here. What you do see in the video is troops working to identify targets and confirm they were armed before engaging. Once the engagement began, the U.S. troops ruthlessly hunted their prey.

Fifth, critics will undoubtedly be up in arms over the attack on that black van you see that moves in to evacuate the wounded; but it is not a marked ambulance, nor is such a vehicle on the "Protected Collateral Objects" listed in the Rules of Engagement. The van, which was coming to the aid of the fighters, was fair game, even if the men who exited the van weren't armed.

Sixth, Wikileaks' claim that the U.S. military's decision to pass the two children inside the van to the Iraqi police for treatment at an Iraqi hospital threatened their lives is unsubstantiated. We do not know the medical assessment of the two Iraqi children wounded in the airstrike. We don't even know if the children were killed in the attack, although you can be sure that if they were Wikileaks would have touted this. (And who drives their kids into the middle of a war zone anyway?) Having been at attacks where Iraqis have ben killed and wounded, I can say I understand a little about the process that is used to determine if wounded Iraqis are transported to a U.S. hospital. The person has to be considered to have a life-threatening situation or in danger of losing a vital function (eyesight, etc.). Yet, even though the threshold to transfer Iraqis to U.S. military hospitals is high, I have repeatedly seen U.S. personnel err on the side of caution and transport wounded who probably should not have been sent to a U.S. hospital.

Baghdad in July 2007 was a very violent place, and the neighborhoods of Sadr City and New Baghdad were breeding grounds for the Mahdi Army and associated Iranian-backed Shia terror groups. The city was a war zone. To describe the attack you see in the video as "murder" is a sensationalist gimmick that succeeded in driving tons of media attention and traffic to Wikileaks' website.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|6567|Belfast
Thanks Kmarion, that seems to clear up a lot of things.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6926|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Besides that, for a definition of "right" to be meaningful it has to do more than just exist. This entire thread is trying to decide the justice of the issue, but that doesn't mean whatever conclusion we come to (we frequently come to those ) has any sort of sway on the situation. The action already happened, any consequences of the action have nothing to do with us, and the same situation is probably happening again. I would like to think that the U.S. military wants to limit collateral damage because they think it's the right thing to do as well, but regardless of reason they choose to do so the public has little discourse for changing their decisions on the matter. They don't rule with an iron fist but they do the next best thing, essentially act with impunity. The fact that their ideals align closely (I mean seriously, all things considered they are still within 90% of reasonable liberal people) is more a matter of coincidence than necessity.
I have no doubt the US military wants to limit collateral damage. They are a professional 'non stupid' organisation, who no doubt have the best of intentions. My opinions on 'might v right' were expressed mainly in the context of the political decisions that brought this situation to bear, not on the actions of the individuals involved in the clip. As with most things, whether it is right or wrong is a matter of opinion and your own individual values and principles. My denunciation of 'might makes right' stems from the fact that what is right, or more accurately what is contrary to the victors 'version of right', no longer dies. There is no single history book anymore and people can draw their own conclusions by accessing the globally shared bank of knowledge. The Tiananmen Square massacre may not feature in any Chinese history books but the fact the movement was suppressed by might and the information suppressed by power hasn't stopped modern Chinese people from finding out what their forebears did and perhaps being reviled by it.
There have been multiple versions of history for centuries. It isn't particularly hard to pick up a book and write something down, particularly in the last few centuries. The internet makes it easier for less valuable opinions to be saved, but it doesn't do very much about strengthening the already strong theories. It doesn't change the fact that whoever won still won, and in a thousand years people will remember that story and not the story of the side that lost.

Tiananmen Square for example, everybody knows what happened, yet that government is still in power. That government is slowly changing yes, but arguably not because of the events of that day. Just because it is easier for the opinion of the little guy to exist doesn't make the little guy any more powerful, though it may seem like it does.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6820|132 and Bush

You can read the report here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA
Narration starts on page 11.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6748|Global Command

Cybargs wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

i have to add that even if there were no wmds, going to war to get rid of a tyrant isnt a bad thing..
now saying we are going to war to take the oil in iraq. thats something else. i wouldnt say its illegal for a country to do so...just not the best decision..
Iraqi government still owns Iraqi oil. Like most countries, they sell it to companies to extract the oil and refine it. Nothing wrong with that...
That's a good and important point Robot.



Those filled with hate ask: did we plunder and rape Japan? German?


Last I check those two places have their own governments and economies.


Thus far, the U.S. has been very restrained In its imperialism. The people don't want that. We worship freedom above all but God.

The bankers and tax collectors on the other hand are a insidious war mongering parasitical bunch. Profits always trumps morality with that bunch.


The only solution is a Star Trek like future wherein money is obsolete.

This will only be accomplished when we drag said bankers and tax collectors to a field and slowly impale them on stakes.



Say what you will about my methods but in my empire their will be no unplanned starvation.
CC-Marley
Member
+407|7048

CameronPoe wrote:

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.
Which is surely unreachable or nearly unreachable in terms of the RPG the crew expressed concern about?
They were worried about the  Hummvees and Bradleys in the area as well.
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6894|Canberra, AUS

ATG wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

i have to add that even if there were no wmds, going to war to get rid of a tyrant isnt a bad thing..
now saying we are going to war to take the oil in iraq. thats something else. i wouldnt say its illegal for a country to do so...just not the best decision..
Iraqi government still owns Iraqi oil. Like most countries, they sell it to companies to extract the oil and refine it. Nothing wrong with that...
That's a good and important point Robot.



Those filled with hate ask: did we plunder and rape Japan? German?


Last I check those two places have their own governments and economies.


Thus far, the U.S. has been very restrained In its imperialism. The people don't want that. We worship freedom above all but God.

The bankers and tax collectors on the other hand are a insidious war mongering parasitical bunch. Profits always trumps morality with that bunch.


The only solution is a Star Trek like future wherein money is obsolete.

This will only be accomplished when we drag said bankers and tax collectors to a field and slowly impale them on stakes.



Say what you will about my methods but in my empire their will be no unplanned starvation.
atg is the master of the segueway
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5456|Cleveland, Ohio

FatherTed wrote:

kmar pls close this abortion of a thread
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6926|67.222.138.85
one good thread and you wusses piss your pants
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6748|Global Command
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6719|so randum
https://i.imgur.com/NVih0.jpg
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6874

Unbelievable Massacre? LOL someone must've seen me play BF2 LOL And I was rapping uncape with helo! LOL XD


On-topic:

Kmar wrote:

a link explaining the incident and debunking the video
lol at sheep like TC who blindly follow the video and buy into the conspiracy

Last edited by mtb0minime (2010-04-06 18:41:42)

13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5918

FatherTed wrote:

https://i.imgur.com/NVih0.jpg
lol.

Last edited by 13/f/taiwan (2010-04-06 18:36:05)

lowing
Banned
+1,662|6870|USA

13/f/taiwan wrote:

lol.
apparently ya missed the day it was front page news on the CNN page.
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5918
Doesn't shit like this happen every day?
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5478|foggy bottom
not every day but often enough to laugh at the outrage of some people over a near three old event
Tu Stultus Es
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5918
So its like the time that US pilot accidentally killed a few British soldiers 5 years ago and CNN reporter made an article about it. I'm sure there are more threads like this.
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5478|foggy bottom
he hurt our own guys too.  Ive got a sniper buddy who has a piece of 25mm HE shrapnel stuck in his ass.
Tu Stultus Es
Iconic Irony
Bare Back Rough Rider
+189|5495|San Angelo, TX

mafia996630 wrote:

On your other point, is it so wrong to consider minimizing casualties ? while ruisleipa might seem idealist, his way of thinking is what will win "hearts & minds", however its too late for that now.
Yeah, "considering" casualties sounds all fair and good after you've had time to sit down, relax and watch the video 10 times.  They don't have time to have a philosophical debate on what they are doing.  They have to go with the best educated choice they can make and pray it was a good one.

One thing this thread has shown me is that most of you lily licking pussies have never had to make a hard decision on the spot in your entire lives outside of "how should I do my hair today" or "I wonder if Sally Slutstein wants me to slip my finger in her bloody hatchet wound or not."


ruisleipa doesn't sound idealistic at all to me, he sounds like someone who doesn't have the slightest damn clue what he's talking about.  You win hearts and minds through aid, helping the citizens, building hospitals and schools, rebuilding the economy, policing the country from thugs with automatic rifles and rocket propelled grenades walking down the street at 2 in the afternoon, and assholes that blow up cargo vans in crowded market places.  You do not win hearts and minds by just "letting everyone go because you are not 110% sure the guy that looks like he is holding an RPG, is in fact, holding an RPG.

How would you feel about the pilot if he said, "oh well, can't be sure, I'll let him go" and then the guy proceeded to shoot a fucking rocket through a school window?  You'd be calling the pilot a piece of shit, not much differently than how all of your friends have been calling that gunner a piece of shit in this thread so far.




AND THAT, is why you and your friends are a gaggle of Jerry's Kids.


EDIT:

After a smoke the ignorance of the people in this thread is still bugging me.  I sort of understand you people's ignorance but none-the-less it is still ignorance, nay it goes beyond, this is sheer stupidity.

When I first watched the video I went into it knowing that several innocent people had died and been injured.  I sat watching the video, hoping that the bullets would miss or there would be a message at the end saying "but they survived" but there was none.  I was angry and sad.  However, I understand that if I HADN'T known that innocent people were killed I would have sat and watched and said "well, that's what they get, score another victory over stupid asshole insurgents".  But, unlike us, those airmen didn't have the luxury and now they are on the burner for it.

My measure of a mans intelligence is the ability to look at a situation or circumstance from more than one point of view, then to make an educated decision on were he stands on the issue and stick with it.  You people are taking one view, Reuters view.  The view of a company that tragically lost two employees whom to some, were like family.  You fail to understand the fog of war.  This is a sad story indeed, but that's what it should be.  War is not meant to be happy or fun in real life, it's meant to be sad, painful and disgusting and that is exactly what this video is.  It shows wars true face, a face that knows not rhyme or reason, logic or fairness, only pain, suffering and senselessness.   Also, I guarantee you those cameramen went into Iraq knowing full well what could happen to them and unfortunately it did happen to them, it's no different than when a soldier takes the oath, knowing full well what could happen.

But you know what, they take those oaths anyways.  That's what these cameramen should be remembered for, not that they died for no reason at all.

Last edited by Iconic Irony (2010-04-06 20:34:18)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard