Baaaah. :banghead:
Turns out this is a much bigger misunderstanding, I don't know how but understood "cover up" just as if it was "discover" or "reveal".
Baaaah. :banghead:
Turns out this is a much bigger misunderstanding, I don't know how but understood "cover up" just as if it was "discover" or "reveal".
Hopefully this will launch a more thorough review of these types of incidents (within the military and within the people who oversee military operations (people within the government)) and bring the attention of more of the public around. It needs publicity and while WikiLeaks is a good start the mainstream media need to jump on it to really do it justice. Somehow I just can't see Fox reporting on such an anti-war video though. It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media cover this story (if at all).
Here's the article on BBC News.
Here's the article on BBC News.
Actually, I can perfectly understand the American pilot and gunman (or is it the same person). When a lot of your fellow soldiers die daily due to enemies popping up with RPG's and AK47's, you wouldn't take a risk of "what if it's not a weapon he's carrying". More than that, I know that in that same situation, I would open fire without a doubt, simply because if it turned out to be an armed squad, and some squad was KIA by them, their deaths would be on me.
Also, don't hate the soldier, hate the politician. Politician is the killer, soldier is a weapon.
There's a war outside. Stay home or GTFO from the war zone = be safer. Simple logics. I can't say people walking around watching the shoot outs didn't have it coming to them
I have to agree with you, I'm sure when you see somebody that is carrying what looks like a rocket launcher, which could kill one of your buddies, you probably tend to act quickly. And it sure as hell looked to me like weapons in their hands, why else would the "rpg" guy be peeking around a corner suspiciously? As for the the innocent people, if you see people walking around with weapons in a war zone, you might want to gtfo of there before shit hits the fan. This is war, it's never going to change folks, might as well accept it.
So, I've watched the first 10 minutes or so, until the van is destroyed, and if I'd been in that chopper, I'd have shot as well. From the images there, it's hard to see what they're carrying, but being under constant threat of getting shot down, it's no wonder they assumed what they were carrying to be weapons. Also, at 2:37, you see a man poking his head out of the wall, with what I guess isn't, but appears very much to be an RPG. This is what ultimately triggers the shooting. From there on, they just act under the assumption that the man on the ground have anti-aircraft weapons, as well as assault rifles. In a war, if a wounded enemy picks up a weapon, you shoot him. If allies of the wounded come to help, you shoot them. Simply because reinforcements will rescue the wounded, salvage weapons and even possibly shoot at you, all of which are of course not wanted.
Once a chopper sees an AA gun, I'm sure everyone in it basically goes very tense, and it would probably take a lot to keep them from shooting. Same with HQ... if your chopper tells you he saw an AA gun, you'll allow him to engage for sure. The one thing that doesn't make sense is that, while the men appear to be carrying weapons, and that an individual pokes his head out of the wall in a threatening matter, the group overall doesn't look that threatening. They're not taking position right off the bat. They don't really act like a squad would.
But still, that will happen, yes. Who's to blame? Can you really send the guys in the chopper to martial court? They firmly believed they were under threat of an RPG, and so did the HQ.
edit: Oh, what I understand here is that they truly are carrying weapons and RPGs, but are allied? I guess that what is to blame then is the lack of communications at higher levels. If a group of allies doesn't tell you it's sending X number of men in area X, how are you to know they're allies?
Once a chopper sees an AA gun, I'm sure everyone in it basically goes very tense, and it would probably take a lot to keep them from shooting. Same with HQ... if your chopper tells you he saw an AA gun, you'll allow him to engage for sure. The one thing that doesn't make sense is that, while the men appear to be carrying weapons, and that an individual pokes his head out of the wall in a threatening matter, the group overall doesn't look that threatening. They're not taking position right off the bat. They don't really act like a squad would.
But still, that will happen, yes. Who's to blame? Can you really send the guys in the chopper to martial court? They firmly believed they were under threat of an RPG, and so did the HQ.
edit: Oh, what I understand here is that they truly are carrying weapons and RPGs, but are allied? I guess that what is to blame then is the lack of communications at higher levels. If a group of allies doesn't tell you it's sending X number of men in area X, how are you to know they're allies?
A Colt is a weapon.
Yeah, **** it! They have the time for three approaches to fire one missile but damn, if a civilian appears time's running fast!
1. Colt is a tool to kill with, a firearm. Soldier is the weapon. Politician is the killer.
Ultimately, US soldiers don't go to war on their own free will ("f**k it, I'm bored, lets go to war! WOOO YEAH! WAR!!!"), they're sent into war by their government, and every death in war is on politician's hands
2. There is an American ground unit on site, and there are armed Arabs running into the building. There seems to be perfect set up for a firefight. You come close and get shot, you're the one who's responsible for your own death.
I understand your pacifist revolt, but you just don't get how war works I think.
I know it and I hate it. That's why I don't understand anyone who'd work the same way.
rubbish in todays world (with a few noteable exceptions) every soldier becomes a soldier through his own free will
the simple fact of the matter is no politician no tyrant no anybody could start a war if it werent for the hundreds and thousands of idiots willing to blindly follow his every whim
Thoroughly enjoyed this video.
I'm pretty sure you hear this every now and then... you sir, are an idiot.
+1 for most of that, in the aftermath of the napoleonic wars the french army concluded that 25% of it's casualties were due to friendly fire, one of the first aircraft shot down by a spitfire was a hurricane, the RAF almost shot down the Dutch royal family when they were fleeing to britain and the luftwaffe managed to damage 2 german destroyers so badly that they spent over 12 months being repaired. unfortunately with the distance between shooter and target getting larger the likelyhood of mistakes grows, when you had to insert a piece of metal in your opponent whilst still holding on to it and moving on foot, there wasn't too much difficulty in telling who was who, when the piece of metal can hit an opponent over a mile away and you may be travelling at high speed
then mistakes can and will happen
Those pilots must be blind, I only saw 2 individuals with AK47s, and that "RPG" they magically saw, was a camera from the journalist, one of the other group had a camera as well.
I guess anything that remotely looks like a threat is a target, weapon or no weapon.
I guess anything that remotely looks like a threat is a target, weapon or no weapon.
I was wondering how long this would take to get here.
Lets see what the old Army manual says about RPG-7s vs. stationary tanks (this is for an experienced RPG user):
So if the helicopter was standing absolutely still at 700-900m a Soviet RPG master would have a ~3-4% chance of hitting it. Even if they were circling some guy they actually saw had an RPG, they wouldn't feel threatened because it's basically an impossible shot. The helicopter was moving around at 1000m+.
Having said all that, this is a war zone. The guys in that helicopter were not so much trained but whipped up into a frenzy. They were trained to see weapons, so they saw weapons, not cameras. Although they could not tell there were weapons from that distance, and so, you could say, should not have shot, this is a war where anything from a goat to a jug of water can be a threat. When the gunner is wishing for the crawling, heavily wounded man to pick up a weapon, you realise he is totally detached from the reality of ending a life. He just wanted to shoot 'im an insurgent.
The situation we have now really shouldn't justify anything, it's a horrible one in the first place, but you can see how things like this happen.
You really can't justify the van incident. They opened fire on an unarmed civilian who was attempting to give medical aid to a wounded individual. (in this case, a civilian journalist) Even if the wounded person and the man giving aid were confirmed enemy combatants, opening fire on them would have violated the first Geneva convention.You could say that trying to say that the forces in the video were willingly and knowingly engaging civilians is stretching the truth a bit. But oh look, in the longer video they obviously did.
They waste a guy casually walking down the road. They were actually going for the building and the families inside. Someone is in the way, no matter, just shoot through him.
Someone did a nice summing up of the Geneva Protocols on this:
According to the Geneva Protocols, you cannot harm, shoot, explode, murder a wounded enemy combatant. You are also required to collect that enemy combatant yourself if the enemy cannot and give them medical treatment.
Unarmed medical staff are protected. Killing them is a violation of the laws of war. Additionally, you cannot kill them for not wearing a red cross or a red crescent. They have to shoot at you first, and you have to give them advanced warning that if they do not desist you will fire on them.
These are simply war crimes. And a lot of people are missing the point. The point is that the US government covered this up. Badly. And do with so many incidents like this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 7/12/AR2007071202357.html
The Apache crew fired because militants "were endangering the stability of Iraq" and because they had positive identification that the militants "had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Brent Cummings, the battalion's executive officer. "No innocent civilians were killed on our part deliberately. We took great pains to prevent that. I know that two children were hurt, and we did everything we could to help them. I don't know how the children were hurt."
And this isn't going to be reported to Americans. NBC is owned by the people that make the engine and electronics for the helicopter. (GE) FOX is owned by a Saudi Arabian prince. CNN? They cut the video off BEFORE the helicopter engages the reporters. They never mention the van, or the children, and they stress how the military has already investigated this and found nobody at fault.
They also throw in Reuters first press release, insisting that Reuters doesn't blame the military either, and that war correspondents jobs are dangerous.
Well whatever, I've said more than enough, probably very badly, but I wanted my 1.31268049p out there. Did I mention the guys authorising the shooting of the various targets did not have any sort of video, only what the people in the helicopter were telling them?
There is a new video btw. The guy helping the wounded in his van was taking his children to school.
Lets see what the old Army manual says about RPG-7s vs. stationary tanks (this is for an experienced RPG user):
So if the helicopter was standing absolutely still at 700-900m a Soviet RPG master would have a ~3-4% chance of hitting it. Even if they were circling some guy they actually saw had an RPG, they wouldn't feel threatened because it's basically an impossible shot. The helicopter was moving around at 1000m+.
Having said all that, this is a war zone. The guys in that helicopter were not so much trained but whipped up into a frenzy. They were trained to see weapons, so they saw weapons, not cameras. Although they could not tell there were weapons from that distance, and so, you could say, should not have shot, this is a war where anything from a goat to a jug of water can be a threat. When the gunner is wishing for the crawling, heavily wounded man to pick up a weapon, you realise he is totally detached from the reality of ending a life. He just wanted to shoot 'im an insurgent.
The situation we have now really shouldn't justify anything, it's a horrible one in the first place, but you can see how things like this happen.
You really can't justify the van incident. They opened fire on an unarmed civilian who was attempting to give medical aid to a wounded individual. (in this case, a civilian journalist) Even if the wounded person and the man giving aid were confirmed enemy combatants, opening fire on them would have violated the first Geneva convention.You could say that trying to say that the forces in the video were willingly and knowingly engaging civilians is stretching the truth a bit. But oh look, in the longer video they obviously did.
They waste a guy casually walking down the road. They were actually going for the building and the families inside. Someone is in the way, no matter, just shoot through him.
Someone did a nice summing up of the Geneva Protocols on this:
According to the Geneva Protocols, you cannot harm, shoot, explode, murder a wounded enemy combatant. You are also required to collect that enemy combatant yourself if the enemy cannot and give them medical treatment.
Unarmed medical staff are protected. Killing them is a violation of the laws of war. Additionally, you cannot kill them for not wearing a red cross or a red crescent. They have to shoot at you first, and you have to give them advanced warning that if they do not desist you will fire on them.
These are simply war crimes. And a lot of people are missing the point. The point is that the US government covered this up. Badly. And do with so many incidents like this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ... 7/12/AR2007071202357.html
The Apache crew fired because militants "were endangering the stability of Iraq" and because they had positive identification that the militants "had weapons and were using them against coalition and Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Brent Cummings, the battalion's executive officer. "No innocent civilians were killed on our part deliberately. We took great pains to prevent that. I know that two children were hurt, and we did everything we could to help them. I don't know how the children were hurt."
And this isn't going to be reported to Americans. NBC is owned by the people that make the engine and electronics for the helicopter. (GE) FOX is owned by a Saudi Arabian prince. CNN? They cut the video off BEFORE the helicopter engages the reporters. They never mention the van, or the children, and they stress how the military has already investigated this and found nobody at fault.
They also throw in Reuters first press release, insisting that Reuters doesn't blame the military either, and that war correspondents jobs are dangerous.
Well whatever, I've said more than enough, probably very badly, but I wanted my 1.31268049p out there. Did I mention the guys authorising the shooting of the various targets did not have any sort of video, only what the people in the helicopter were telling them?
There is a new video btw. The guy helping the wounded in his van was taking his children to school.
What I meant was "each soldier choses to serve in the army on his own free will, each soldier is sent to war with him having no choice"
In a war zone - yes.
And by stopping by 7 dead bodies and one wounded guy, with the area surrounded with high caliber bullet holes, he should have realised that "somebody wants this guy dead still, and I'm bringing my children into the fight I don't belong to"
Do you have to work hard at being a complete retard or does it come naturally?
Comes naturally. Its a gift.
Its actually "You sir, are and idiot"
The Geneva Convention is immoral. All but one of SEAL team 10 and an entire helicopter SAR crew and ground team were killed because of it in Aghanistan.
SEAL team 10 were observing a Taliban stronghold from a mountaintop. A shepherd discovered them. The SEALs debated killing the man with silenced weapons, as they suspected he was a Taliban informant. They let him go fearing prosecution (he said he hated the Taliban).
They were later flanked by hundreds of Taliban, chased down the mountain side and eradicated save for one survivor who was taken in by a local Pashtun tribe. The SAR bird was sent in later and was shot down.
All the Geneva Convention does is prevent soldiers from using more effective weapons and tactics. Rules do not belong in war. Do you think the insurgents in Iraq or the cells in Afghanistan are adhering to the Geneva Protocols? It's not really in the spirit of the "game" when one side isn't playing to the rules. What are we going to do? Chide them?
I don't like war either, I don't like that civilians get killed, I don't even like that enemy combatants get killed. I'm still shivering from the guncam video. But people who do not participate in war have no business at all telling people how to fight them. Trying to make war quick and clean and gentlemanly is idiotic. So is sending in a strike force for police duty - the whole war is ****ed up.
I don't know why you wrote about helping the combatants in italics. What do you expect the Apache to do, land and rope them to the fuselage for transport back to the airfield? They had 2 ground teams on the way. They would have taken care of him. The irony is, if the father hadn't stopped in the van, the ground team would've arrived and the guy would have been tended for. Just goes to show you that wisdom is needed in addition to a kind heart. Many good deeds are repaid in blood. The crew asked for permission to fire, accurately described the situation and they received the clearance. They were good to go as far as the ROE was concerned.
The building was more questionable. Under another circumstance I would not have fired. But they had 2 ground teams with nuts exposed just a couple blocks away, and the gunner fudged 2 runs costing time. I'm not familiar with hellfire firing procedures, but it's possible the gunner was not looking at the camera when he fired the missile (maybe looking at the side pod to verify clearance). The man walked into frame as he was initiating the unsafe/fire sequence with the pilot and after he locked the target. He might not have seen him until the missile was out of the tube.
The Marines are not held accountable to facts as they are, but as they seem to them at the time. If the "RPG" was indeed just a camera, it is a terrible misunderstanding, but you really can't pass judgment on the Marines.
If you watched the video all the way through, you would have heard the ground team reporting an RPG under one of the bodies.
Has anyone here actually looked into a real infrared camera? It's very sharp, way sharper than the youtube video. The crew can see things much clearer than we can on the internet.
I would have done the same thing as the crew of that bird. As the gunner, I might have been a bit more unsure about the RPG, but I don't think anyone can deny that there were 2 men with AKs in the first few minutes. They would've been able to shwack that whole square with a Mk. 83 if they wanted.
The thing that actually makes me mad about this video is how many people are reacting to it. Like the Marines wanted to kill civilians and reporters.
Oh well... It was the AH-64 crew that declared this part of the inhabited(!) city a war zone. I'm most shocked about the tone of those soldiers, "bastards", "gotcha" They saw they made a mistake but didn't care
Man I'm delighted that my country isn't involved in Iraq, one thing Schröder did right. Afghanistan is enough, look at the trouble we have with that tanker incident.
The people that enlisted before the war can say that. If they joined the army after the war started then they knew where they would be sent.
at least there's plenty of towels to mop it up :hide:
Uhm...forgive me if i'm wrong
but i thought when you sign up for the army you know there may be a war at some point or another, and its generally accepted that you may get sent to fight said war?
Is that not the point of an army?
erm well no it isn't. An army is to defend your self from attacking nations. and it's also a power play
I can't really think of any time in my lifetime that our forces have not been deployed somewhere where they would expect to get shot at.
NI
Falklands
Balkans
Iraq/Kuwait
Afghanistan
That covers the past 40 years or so, so anyone joining up since then should expect to go to 'war'.
ooooh... OUCH.... I see what you did there... both racist AND dark humour...
wow.........
(84 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG