Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
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?
Gooooood. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Ignore the point and call me names, yesssssss. Let the hate flow through you.ruisleipa wrote:
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.".
k, sorry.Ottomania wrote:
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?
I thought I'd just point out the technology exists.
But FM's right, why do you think that the command structure wasn't in place?
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
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.
Any other sources?
There's a reason why this wasn't made open for public sooner. You should ask yourself why this video was released now. It's also very interesting to notice how people react to "news" like these.-Sh1fty- wrote:
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.
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.Ottomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
I meant the transmission of video, on air.
Any other sources?
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
now you know how I feel when you claim outrage at one thing and ignore the brutality of something else. Awesome!Ottomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
I meant the transmission of video, on air.
Any other sources?
Tu Stultus Es
Integrated sensors, networking, and digital communications for situational awareness, management of the combat arena in real time, and digital transmission of images and target locations to joint operations battlefield commandersOttomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?Ottomania wrote:
I meant the transmission of video, on air.
Any other sources?
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/milita … /index.htm
source above
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.Ottomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Did you not just read what I said? A vet just said there is. Besides the fact that audio and visual is just a matter of bandwidth, how is that not enough?
Any other sources?
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
nice Pug
Not wise no. However no way does that justify killing innocent people.Pug wrote:
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.
Lets just look at the video and not think about "ifs", in order to retain some kind of scope. They went straight to pick up the wounded persons and not a weapon.
Also i don't think anyone said it was a ambulance, more that it was a passer by who noticed wounded people on the floor. And i don't see the video being "cut" at the time that the van arrived until they were killed.
Last edited by mafia996630 (2010-04-07 10:55:42)
Because:Ottomania wrote:
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.Ottomania wrote:
I would prefer not to believe words of a vet who can say "And a few hundred of us were cheering on the deaths of the people on the screen.".
Any other sources?
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
I think I explained it already. You have a different opinion than mine. I can live with the fact you are wrong.mafia996630 wrote:
Not wise no. However no way does that justify killing innocent people.
Lets just look at the video and not think about "ifs", in order to retain some kind of scope. They went straight to pick up the wounded persons and not a weapon.
Also i don't think anyone said it was a ambulance, more that it was a passer by who noticed wounded people on the floor. And i don't see the video being "cut" at the time that the van arrived until they were killed.
Do your eyes deceive the logic ? They went to pick up bodies, end off.Pug wrote:
I think I explained it already. You have a different opinion than mine. I can live with the fact you are wrong.mafia996630 wrote:
Not wise no. However no way does that justify killing innocent people.
Lets just look at the video and not think about "ifs", in order to retain some kind of scope. They went straight to pick up the wounded persons and not a weapon.
Also i don't think anyone said it was a ambulance, more that it was a passer by who noticed wounded people on the floor. And i don't see the video being "cut" at the time that the van arrived until they were killed.
he has no interest in logicmafia996630 wrote:
Do your eyes deceive the logic ? They went to pick up bodies, end off.
1) so?Pug wrote:
Because:Ottomania wrote:
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
So despite the fact that that has no bearing on the issue, and ignoring common sense, you expect a source on an obscure fact that frankly I don't even know how to look for.
Yeah, no, you're wrong, now you're just trying to weasel your way out of it.
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
2)I didnt say it does not exist. Since this is not an major operation they might have not used the feature. I will re-watch video to have a clue.
3)Our subject video is not taken from a recon helicopter.
4) I know, I have just get into this because Shifty admitted that video communication was used as a decision tool to open fire.
really?ruisleipa wrote:
he has no interest in logicmafia996630 wrote:
Do your eyes deceive the logic ? They went to pick up bodies, end off.
it occurs to me that both of you live to bait americans for fun.
you display nothing but disrespect at every opportunity. this isn't a debate at all, it's you guys being dense.
but okay, let's focus on the van.
why did the pilot say picking up weapons?
didn't see it? why did he say that?
are they a target even if they didn't pick up a weapon? we have a vet saying they are, yet lets continue focusing on it.
is this a good unbiased video feed?
was the van marked?
if the van wasn't marked was roe followed?
hmmm...i guess logic fails me
lolOttomania wrote:
1) so?Pug wrote:
Because:Ottomania wrote:
What the fuck? Why did I just become the guilty guy for asking a source?
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
2)I didnt say it does not exist. Since this is not an major operation they might have not used the feature. I will re-watch video to have a clue.
3)Our subject video is not taken from a recon helicopter.
4) I know, I have just get into this because Shifty admitted that video communication was used as a decision tool to open fire.
ahh, so next time there's a video failure in the field, all helicopters are grounded for combat operations because they can't use the radio instead. like there's no backup plan. because radio isn't good enough to ask permission to fire.
makes sense to me
Asking permission to fire does not make your shooting legal.Pug wrote:
lolOttomania wrote:
1) so?Pug wrote:
Because:
1) The pilots reported via radio. That's command and control
2) The technology exists. It's stupid to think commanders wouldn't want a video feed from a helicopter
3) You've seen Blackhawk Down, which featured the technology already
4) It has no bearing on anything, because the video shows the ROE was in effect because they used the radio
So why did we have to drive you out to the ocean to prove there's water in the ocean?
For what again?
2)I didnt say it does not exist. Since this is not an major operation they might have not used the feature. I will re-watch video to have a clue.
3)Our subject video is not taken from a recon helicopter.
4) I know, I have just get into this because Shifty admitted that video communication was used as a decision tool to open fire.
ahh, so next time there's a video failure in the field, all helicopters are grounded for combat operations because they can't use the radio instead. like there's no backup plan. because radio isn't good enough to ask permission to fire.
makes sense to me
Otto, if I might ask, how does the video feed make a difference in this situation?
Why is it so important?
I mean, there's no video of the control room so therefore we don't know. But why is it important?
Why is it so important?
I mean, there's no video of the control room so therefore we don't know. But why is it important?
Yet there's the clip they edited out in Kerry's post that says otherwise.Ottomania wrote:
Asking permission to fire does not make your shooting legal.
So what's with the arguing?
first off I couldn't care less if you're American or whatever.Pug wrote:
really?
it occurs to me that both of you live to bait americans for fun.
you display nothing but disrespect at every opportunity. this isn't a debate at all, it's you guys being dense.
but okay, let's focus on the van.
why did the pilot say picking up weapons?
didn't see it? why did he say that?
are they a target even if they didn't pick up a weapon? we have a vet saying they are, yet lets continue focusing on it.
is this a good unbiased video feed?
was the van marked?
if the van wasn't marked was roe followed?
hmmm...i guess logic fails me
disrespect? purleaaze.
No, he didn't see anyone picking up any weapons.
Was the van marked? NO. It was just some civilians who came to help someone shot to bits by the helicopter.
Who says they're a target?
Was roe followed? I dunno, maybe, like I said I don't really care about the roe that much as it has little to do with the morality of the situation.
Facts - here were no weapons when the guys came in the van to take away the wounded. The guy in the van was ONLY trying to get the wounded away.
Is it OK to fire on medical personnel or anyone fulfilling the role of medical personnel when they are NOT holding a weapon and are clearly showing NO idication of engaing in hostilities? NO IT ISN'T. Or maybe you think it is.
Yes. logic, and morality, fail you.
rus:
disrespect has to do with posting shit one-sided logic on a daily basis. i think you do it with glee and purposeful. otherwise you'd actually see that I never said I liked the result, and you wouldn't bait me into an argument by being insulting. outrage? yeah, i'm pissed they shot up the van. but being pissed and understanding WHY are completely different.
But we have a vet on this forum that says they are legitimate targets. Argue with him, since we both don't know what the roe are.
in the meantime, troll away
disrespect has to do with posting shit one-sided logic on a daily basis. i think you do it with glee and purposeful. otherwise you'd actually see that I never said I liked the result, and you wouldn't bait me into an argument by being insulting. outrage? yeah, i'm pissed they shot up the van. but being pissed and understanding WHY are completely different.
But we have a vet on this forum that says they are legitimate targets. Argue with him, since we both don't know what the roe are.
in the meantime, troll away
Last edited by Pug (2010-04-07 11:31:38)
I prefer to wank off to your mother for fun, thank you very much! jk jk sry.Pug wrote:
really?ruisleipa wrote:
he has no interest in logicmafia996630 wrote:
Do your eyes deceive the logic ? They went to pick up bodies, end off.
it occurs to me that both of you live to bait americans for fun.
you display nothing but disrespect at every opportunity. this isn't a debate at all, it's you guys being dense.
but okay, let's focus on the van.
why did the pilot say picking up weapons?
didn't see it? why did he say that?
are they a target even if they didn't pick up a weapon? we have a vet saying they are, yet lets continue focusing on it.
is this a good unbiased video feed?
was the van marked?
if the van wasn't marked was roe followed?
hmmm...i guess logic fails me
Fog of war maybe ? He wanted a higher score because that what it sounded like.
They can do no harm therefore how can they be a legit target ?
I don't think the feed has been edited as much as you like to believe, also there would be no feed if it wasn't for people like them, this whole thing would have been shoved under the rug. Truth should be revealed and its up to the people to decide.
Not marked as it was a civilian passer by ?
Can't comment on ROE.
mom's hot, don't blame u