just glad ottomania is better at denying genocide than planning warfare
Tu Stultus Es
Just like what your government did to the Armenians?Ottomania wrote:
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.
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.
that was just the cost of civil war
Tu Stultus Es
They would be doing their jobM.O.A.B wrote:
So, if they killed some insurgents, what would they be then?
I think some people, after watching that video, will want to totally convince themselves that they were all insurgents and deserved to die because of their own sheer guilt, or because they don't want to feel like 'they' are in the wrong
Then you have those people who accept that they all weren't insurgents but will just brush it off as nothing because civilians are expected to die and because the pilots did nothing wrong anyway, so it all doesn't matter one bit.
Two groups of people who have issues with themselves or are just trying to be hard on the internet. I'll admit for me, this doesn't affect me in any way, but I still feel for the innocent people that died, whether the pilots were right or wrong. From what I gather, most people here don't really care who died or anything, the lack of value for human lives is abit messed up really. Then again, most people don't even care that soldiers from their own countries are dying (what people say is different from what is actually going on inside them, believe that)
So yeah... it's all about everyone being in their own bubble until something breaks that.
So hold on. Let's say you have a wounded insurgent, with no legs, his guts are hanging out and the guy is screaming. You have no way of keeping him alive or treating him. Are you saying it would be more humane to just let him lie there and slowly die?Ottomania wrote:
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.
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.
You cant shoot people relying on probability.M.O.A.B wrote:
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?
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.
How does it NOT justify their deaths? If you are a non-combatant, do you think its wise to hang around with a target?mafia996630 wrote:
"errr, Like no".
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.
I didn't see them pick up a gun, but we have some audio to that regard. We also have a missing segment in the video just before the pickup. And we also have a biased source claiming there was no rpg but apparently there was because they edited that part out. Forgive me if I make a leap of logic there. But we also have an unmarked ambulance. Now, with all of that, if the intention was to pick up wounded only and that's exactly what they were to do...then we are at an impass - we have an inconclusive video from an biased source. You trust the source, I do not.
Shifty you never debate anything so don't bother flaming others.-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.
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.
If there was nothing to hide why did the US govt originally claim everyone there was an insurgent, and thn that they didn't know how the deaths occurred. get your head out of your ass and stop trusting everything without questioning anything ffs.
How about this:Pug wrote:
How about this:
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
Don't assume everyone carrying a gun in a country where everyone carries a gun is an 'insurgent'.
Don't act like it's a warzone when it's the middle of a city in 2007 that wasn't a war zone.
Don't act like shooting kids is something you should be proud of.
If you can prove that people obviously helping wounded are combatants...great.
Until then, STFU. Kthxbye.
They were unarmed and trying to help a wounded man away from the scene. How would they be combatants? considering there was nothing there to certify that anyone was a combatant your statement has no meaning whatsoever, unless you think it's the right way of thinking to assume EVERYONE in a certain area is a 'combatant' and shoot them, kids women and all.M.O.A.B wrote:
At the time nothing suggested they weren't either.
WTF? What planet are you on, planet immorality? So you think it's OK to just go and shoot a wounded person who is no threat to you or anyone and could easily live given medical care? Fucks sake man. So when in WWII medics were specifically targeted that was OK by you yeah? Or when ambulances are targeted, that's OK too? I'll ask again: Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.Cybargs wrote:
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?
You must have x-ray eyes if you could tell there were kids in that van.ruisleipa wrote:
They were unarmed and trying to help a wounded man away from the scene. How would they be combatants? considering there was nothing there to certify that anyone was a combatant your statement has no meaning whatsoever, unless you think it's the right way of thinking to assume EVERYONE in a certain area is a 'combatant' and shoot them, kids women and all.M.O.A.B wrote:
At the time nothing suggested they weren't either.
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
If you watch the video you will realize pilots' eagerness to open fire. And confirmation from command doesnt mean that they have right to shoot, due to misinformation at very first. There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio.ghettoperson wrote:
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?
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.
what exactly is being debated here?
Tu Stultus Es
American soldiers are evil bastards sent by satan to kill innocent Iraqis.eleven bravo wrote:
what exactly is being debated here?
Okay, so you are carrying a gun in a warzone...have you made yourself a target? Yes or noruisleipa wrote:
How about this:
Don't assume everyone carrying a gun in a country where everyone carries a gun is an 'insurgent'.
Don't act like it's a warzone when it's the middle of a city in 2007 that wasn't a war zone.
Don't act like shooting kids is something you should be proud of.
If you can prove that people obviously helping wounded are combatants...great.
Until then, STFU. Kthxbye.
Dates are awesome. If it's 2010 and you are carrying an RPG and there's still military operations going on, can you expect to it to be classified as a "friendly"? Yes or no.
Kids - where did I say I was proud of that jackass?
You could certainly see the effects in that vid.Cybargs wrote:
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
thought that was common knowledgeCybargs wrote:
American soldiers are evil bastards sent by satan to kill innocent Iraqis.eleven bravo wrote:
what exactly is being debated here?
Tu Stultus Es
Video doesnt tell how hard he is wounded. Probably he avoided a direct hit. And you dont have right to end someones life just because he is wounded hard. You cant decide whether a person is goint to survive or not without a medical expertise.M.O.A.B wrote:
So hold on. Let's say you have a wounded insurgent, with no legs, his guts are hanging out and the guy is screaming. You have no way of keeping him alive or treating him. Are you saying it would be more humane to just let him lie there and slowly die?Ottomania wrote:
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."
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.
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.Cybargs wrote:
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.Cybargs wrote:
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
Without googling, most likely there is, considering Predator drones are controlled in that fashion.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?
Do you still want proof?
It is predator drones. I asked for attack helicopters.Pug wrote:
Without googling, most likely there is, considering Predator drones are controlled in that fashion.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?
Do you still want proof?
You mean like the guy that was actually in Iraq saying there is video to go along with the audio? Or by your emphasis on instantaneous are you going to tell me that the speed of light isn't fast enough for you? Darn causality, makes everything so difficult.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.Cybargs wrote:
If you're hit by a 30 mike mike ESPECIALLY from an Apache... You're already dead.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
Let me quote a line from this book I've got.Ottomania wrote:
Video doesnt tell how hard he is wounded. Probably he avoided a direct hit. And you dont have right to end someones life just because he is wounded hard. You cant decide whether a person is goint to survive or not without a medical expertise.M.O.A.B wrote:
So hold on. Let's say you have a wounded insurgent, with no legs, his guts are hanging out and the guy is screaming. You have no way of keeping him alive or treating him. Are you saying it would be more humane to just let him lie there and slowly die?Ottomania wrote:
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.
Btw yes it is wrong to kill a defenceless person in any case.
Book wrote:
'Once in Mozambique I was asked to fix up a sucking wound caused by an M16 rifle on a terrorist wanted alive for interrogation. He was doing quite well after my treatment but the fire-fight was still warm and the choppers coming in to collect him and our wounded were getting shot to pieces so, as he was not as important as our casualties, he was shot rather than being left to die slowly'
I meant the transmission of video, on air.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You mean like the guy that was actually in Iraq saying there is video to go along with the audio? Or by your emphasis on instantaneous are you going to tell me that the speed of light isn't fast enough for you? Darn causality, makes everything so difficult.Ottomania wrote:
Can you provide a source to me which mentions about the instantaneous video communication between an attack helicopter and command?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You are not a vet, and 30mm from an Apache is very similar to if not the same as 30mm from anything else.
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".
I'm glad you think it's funny. Actually, I think it shows a rather disturbing lack of humanity on your part.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This just keeps getting more and more funny as people say things like "There is no videolink between helicopter and command just radio." and "Would you also find it acceptable if someone attacked a US ambulance going to pick up wounded marines? I think not.".