Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.11 Bravo wrote:
they were not aiding...they were cleaning the scene.
Well the guns and RPG that was spoted gave them the right for the first round. That second round to the people in the car seemed wrong. They were not cleaning the scene they were collecting up a wounded man and it looked like there were no weapons on them. They should have held off on the car till they went for the dead.. Sucks because they might have just been a concerned citizen who got caught up in the crossfire.Ottomania wrote:
Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.11 Bravo wrote:
they were not aiding...they were cleaning the scene.
I acknowledge these facts - that some people there had weapons, and there was no way of knowing if they were insurgents. That the pilots asked for permission and recieved it. And they shot at a car blatantly going to pick up wounded. And that the pilots laughed at the dead bodies. All these I acknowledge...it doesn't make it right, does it?lowing wrote:
I find the video of insurgents with RPG's and Ak-47s definitive. I call the fact the soliders correctly identified them and asked for permission to fire definitive. I call the fact that the soldiers had no idea (or way to know) that there was little kids in the unmarked car definitive. I also call your lack of acknowledgement of these facts definiitve.
And you still haven't explained why shotting at a car picking up wounded is acceptable. Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines?
And you also haven't said anything about the relationship of RoE vis-a-vis the actual morality of the actions.
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
So, are we any further with this or...are we still on the roundabout?
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
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
people would rather hurl insults at each other than exchange opinions
Tu Stultus Es
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
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.
How about this:ruisleipa wrote:
I acknowledge these facts - that some people there had weapons, and there was no way of knowing if they were insurgents. That the pilots asked for permission and recieved it. And they shot at a car blatantly going to pick up wounded. And that the pilots laughed at the dead bodies. All these I acknowledge...it doesn't make it right, does it?lowing wrote:
I find the video of insurgents with RPG's and Ak-47s definitive. I call the fact the soliders correctly identified them and asked for permission to fire definitive. I call the fact that the soldiers had no idea (or way to know) that there was little kids in the unmarked car definitive. I also call your lack of acknowledgement of these facts definiitve.
And you still haven't explained why shotting at a car picking up wounded is acceptable. Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines?
And you also haven't said anything about the relationship of RoE vis-a-vis the actual morality of the actions.
1) don't have a weapon in a war zone and you won't be a target
2) don't hang around with people who are armed in a war zone and you won't be a target
3) when picking up wounded, stick to picking up bodies instead of picking up a weapon and you won't be a target
If you can prove that combatants should not be shot, or people who act like combatants should not be shot...great.
Until then, STFU
"errr, Like no".Pug wrote:
How about this:ruisleipa wrote:
I acknowledge these facts - that some people there had weapons, and there was no way of knowing if they were insurgents. That the pilots asked for permission and recieved it. And they shot at a car blatantly going to pick up wounded. And that the pilots laughed at the dead bodies. All these I acknowledge...it doesn't make it right, does it?lowing wrote:
I find the video of insurgents with RPG's and Ak-47s definitive. I call the fact the soliders correctly identified them and asked for permission to fire definitive. I call the fact that the soldiers had no idea (or way to know) that there was little kids in the unmarked car definitive. I also call your lack of acknowledgement of these facts definiitve.
And you still haven't explained why shotting at a car picking up wounded is acceptable. Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines?
And you also haven't said anything about the relationship of RoE vis-a-vis the actual morality of the actions.
1) don't have a weapon in a war zone and you won't be a target
2) don't hang around with people who are armed in a war zone and you won't be a target
3) when picking up wounded, stick to picking up bodies instead of picking up a weapon and you won't be a target
If you can prove that combatants should not be shot, or people who act like combatants should not be shot...great.
Until then, STFU
2. That doesn't justify their deaths which is what some of you are trying to do.
3. I did't see them pick up a gun ? correct me if i'm wrong.
Last edited by mafia996630 (2010-04-07 09:46:51)
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 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.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
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.
At the time nothing suggested they weren't either.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?Ottomania wrote:
Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.
oh, for fucks sake! this is a fucking war, people, callateral damage does occur during those, you know. shit happens, it's unavoidable. now, the way usa fight this war is certainly wrong, and only an idiot would buy their reasoning (the one present to the public anyway) for fighting it in the first place, but one thing can be said for sure - they do a lot to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. anybody who does not agree with that is a fucking retard.
p.s. and another thing which would be mighty interesting to know is how those people at wikileak got their hands on the video. you do not see that kinda material released to the public every day. is this really a "leak"? or carefully planned provocation? i doubt we'll ever know...
p.s. and another thing which would be mighty interesting to know is how those people at wikileak got their hands on the video. you do not see that kinda material released to the public every day. is this really a "leak"? or carefully planned provocation? i doubt we'll ever know...
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
It's fucking depressing reading though articles on various news websites and seeing comments from retarded sheep that are just going along with the 'Oh fuck people died' without actually thinking anything through.
Ivan gets it rightShahter wrote:
oh, for fucks sake! this is a fucking war, people, callateral damage does occur during those, you know. shit happens, it's unavoidable. now, the way usa fight this war is certainly wrong, and only an idiot would buy their reasoning (the one present to the public anyway) for fighting it in the first place, but one thing can be said for sure - they do a lot to keep civilian casualties as low as possible. anybody who does not agree with that is a fucking retard.
p.s. and another thing which would be mighty interesting to know is how those people at wikileak got their hands on the video. you do not see that kinda material released to the public every day. is this really a "leak"? or carefully planned provocation? i doubt we'll ever know...
Tu Stultus Es
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?Ottomania wrote:
Murderers clean the scene, not relatives of victims.
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?
we arm our medics too.
Tu Stultus Es
-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.
Last edited by Ottomania (2010-04-07 10:02:46)
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?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.
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?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.
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.