55 replies to this topic

[Jok3r]

A note: the Geneva convention is irrelevant here: the Convention applies to Wartime, which, technically speaking, Iraq is not (there's no declared state of war). And another clarification: this wasn't just an outpost that had been around for a while that they were near. This was an outpost for Bravo company that had been taking fire throughout the day, so the Apaches were there to help defend it, meaning they probably had orders to shoot on sight anyone carrying a weapon. Does that mean they should be killing civilians? By no means, but it does explain some of the mindset, I think.

[Brad]

It would also be nice if you would stop treating the insurgents as monsters under the bed. You de-humanise them, and say that simply because they have guns they are going to use them. They are people, and quite frankly, their cause they fight for is a fair one, even if I condemn the fighting itself. What would you do, if your country was suddenly occupied by foreign forces whom demanded that you stand down and do as your told, while the main reason for them being there is natural resources?

The 'conflict' shown is disturbing, and is not, in anyway, justified. Why do they deserve to be killed at the hands of some guy in a Apache? Because they kill? That sounds like a misplaced sense of self-justice to me. You don't get to decide who lives and who dies - I thought that the US/UK forces are supposed to give them a chance to surrender? I will admit that they were scared and most likely lashed be cause of it - but that does not justify, in any way, the murder of blurry people with a blurry camera which supposedly (I don't think they did) looked like firearms. There is also of-course the attack on the van, which was picking up wounded, which I'm sure violates some rules of conflict/Geneva convention.

The fact of the matter is that the soldiers had one of the most stupid and irresponsible things to take into a battle - a shoot-on-sight mindset. This, in no way however, cannot take responsibility for their actions.

[Jok3r]

I understand what you're arguing, but... are you suggesting that, if they were armed, they didn't intend to use the weapons they had? That they just were walking around the streets with AK's? That's a little bit ridiculous, imo. Now, what you're saying they violated (aside from basic right and wrong: I agree with you that what they did was wrong, but... read on) is the Rules of Engagement. No Geneva convention (this isn't a war, strictly speaking it's a police action, so the Geneva convention is not in effect). Also: this isn't about judging what gives who the right to kill: that's another issue for another topic, and that's an argument about war itself. And... yes, I do believe coalition forces ROE is to give people the chance to surrender. I'm pretty sure however, that this does not apply to helicopters, because they can't take prisoners. Is what happened right? No, not by any means. However, I think they did largely follow their procedures: the problem lies with those procedures, as well.

[Golan]

Video not released by military: military's fault.
Actual situation: definitely ambiguous, in light of attacks that day without further intel understandable.
Conclusion: Military isn't properly equipped for such peace-keeping operations.

Brad, on 7 Apr 2010, 14:34, said:

It would also be nice if you would stop treating the insurgents as monsters under the bed. You de-humanise them, and say that simply because they have guns they are going to use them. They are people, and quite frankly, their cause they fight for is a fair one, even if I condemn the fighting itself. What would you do, if your country was suddenly occupied by foreign forces whom demanded that you stand down and do as your told, while the main reason for them being there is natural resources?

Wait a second, if they do intent to fight for whatever cause, then that also means that they do intent to use their guns, no?

Edited by Golan, 07 April 2010 - 17:02.

[SquigPie]

Oh god.....

THOSE FUCKS!

I'm too angry, those bastards.

THOSE FUCKING MONSTERS!

can't write anything coherent, let me cool down for a minute...

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

I am not saying what they did is totally wrong, its not right but the fault lies in the system of CAS system with helos. They simply do give any chance to surrender and just rain death from above where they are pretty much harmless to the aircraft. There is no warning whatsoever when they engage the van trying to help out a wounded personal no matter insurgent or not, they might well be some civilian trying to help someone wounded when they see one.

[Camille]

those fuckers deserve to rot in jail. no excuses, no mercy whatsoever.

it's a good thing videos like this finally get to be seen by the masses. maybe it will stir people up enough so they may alter their views towards the ridiculous "war" that is USA-Iraq.

[Dauth]

Yes, let us become brutal executioners, let our morals die, drowned in blood. Come to FS for all the hate and bile your little hearts can handle.

Seeing this, I'm glad you guys aren't politically active, for both our sakes, you'd be arrested or you'd get into power and I'd be killed for being a dangerous liberal.

[Camille]

see it as an outlet of rage.

[Golan]

I'm not entirely sure if this was directed at you...

[Camille]

you're right, my sincere excuses for intervening.

[SquigPie]

Me then?


I was just pissed of after having read that thing, I think that the military should be punished (like that's gonna happen...) for hiding information, I think that they're cowardly hiding this instead of admitting their mistakes.

[Brad]

Golan, on 7 Apr 2010, 17:53, said:

Brad, on 7 Apr 2010, 14:34, said:

It would also be nice if you would stop treating the insurgents as monsters under the bed. You de-humanise them, and say that simply because they have guns they are going to use them. They are people, and quite frankly, their cause they fight for is a fair one, even if I condemn the fighting itself. What would you do, if your country was suddenly occupied by foreign forces whom demanded that you stand down and do as your told, while the main reason for them being there is natural resources?

Wait a second, if they do intent to fight for whatever cause, then that also means that they do intent to use their guns, no?

I was trying more-so to point out the fact that a lot of people might carry guns in a conflict area for self-defence, however silly that may be.

[Golan]

Yes, it's really silly as it means identifying oneself as a combatant.

Hell, sure civilian casualties are to be avoided at (almost) all cost by the military, but that doesn't mean that they should ignore every kind of provocation, passive or active.

[Kalo]

I wasn't going to reply again. But every ones response about how horrible it is and how absolutely inhumane it is ; is just hilarious. You really think this video will stop this? No, not only that but there are more countries then just the United States that do this. Stop thinking the US is a horrible beast that needs to be stopped. Everyone of your countries was quick to jump on the "invade Iraq" bandwagon. It wasn't even funny. And before you go "Oh my Country wouldn't do this, that's just wrong." Simplest things can bring out a "monster" in any man. It's in you too, you ; under the right circumstances. Would do this too. And probably regret it obviously. I wouldn't doubt that the gunner is still probably thinking about this.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/wariniraq/tp..._Combatants.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...t_coalition.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghan...80%93present%29

This goes on every, single, day.


To Wiz, suggesting that the AK-47 and an RPG is a PERSONAL Defense weapon (or that's what I got from your post).

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

And the U.S. CURRENT standard issue is the M4.

M4 standard Cartridge : 5.56x45mm NATO Jams more
M16 standard Cartridge : 5.56x45mm NATO Jams more
AK-47 standard Catridge : 7.62x39mm M43, Jams less
Used by 54 countries and or armies ( http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_armies_and_...s_use_the_AK-47 )

The AK-47 is a bigger round, incase you didn't get that. AND

The RPG-7 :
40 mm (1.57 in) barrel
85mm warhead

Used by 40 countries.


Do not say they were possibly just doing to defend themselves. if ANYONE in the US was caught brandishing a weapon like that (Even if it was banned, they did not confiscate currently owned AK-47s) they would probably be arrested and be investigated to make sure they were allowed to even own one. And the US is regarded as a GUN country, we banned the purchase of a plethora of rifles. http://en.wikipedia....ult_Weapons_Ban . And they're trying to renew it apparently.

What's a personal defense weapon for most people? A 9mm hand gun. It can stop the people causing you to be in fear of your life. Or a 22. Revolver.

Don't tell me the US Soldiers were in the wrong for thinking they might kill their buddies they were covering.


Now I have not stated my opinion as to whether I think this was wrong. Let me do so now :

They were not wrong for thinking it proper to engage those civilians which they thought were insurgents (Which was obviously bad in retrospect), They are wrong for shooting a Van with children in it. Even if they did not know. BUT I cannot say they "didn't have it coming" because a car like that can easily contain an IED or anything else of malicious nature. If the vehicle had been marked or something with a call sign or the fact that it was an ambulance and the US Military still engaged then I could recognize this as wrong. then I'd say "What monsters!".


Would I do it? Yes. I'd have to live with that. but I'd also have to live with the fact that my inaction could have lead to the deaths of my brothers - Quoting my brother here. And I believe the same thing.


Edit : Before some smartass tries to discredit me for using wiki links, Provide a link or source that disproves what I say. I will concede. Not until then. wikis word against yours..I'll go for Wiki.

Edited by Kalo, 07 April 2010 - 23:14.

[Libains]

I'll just point out for the record, the UK involvement in Iraq is to me, a completely useless, waste of taxpayer's money, war. I don't really care if they thought there were WMDs. The war is illegal, and does us no favours. I will mention, however, that while there are other countries involved in this war, it does always seem to be America doing the things that get negative press. Case in point:

A-10s kill British soldier

It's things like these that lead to issues with the American way of waging war.

[Kalo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire..._in_Afghanistan

Friendly fire happens. When you go into a warzone that has been filled with death between either side you cannot expect to not be shot at. By the enemy or otherwise.

Edited by Kalo, 07 April 2010 - 23:20.

[Wizard]

Kalo, on 7 Apr 2010, 23:58, said:

I wasn't going to reply again. But every ones response about how horrible it is and how absolutely inhumane it is ; is just hilarious. You really think this video will stop this? No, not only that but there are more countries then just the United States that do this. Stop thinking the US is a horrible beast that needs to be stopped. Everyone of your countries was quick to jump on the "invade Iraq" bandwagon. It wasn't even funny. And before you go "Oh my Country wouldn't do this, that's just wrong." Simplest things can bring out a "monster" in any man. It's in you too, you ; under the right circumstances. Would do this too. And probably regret it obviously. I wouldn't doubt that the gunner is still probably thinking about this.

No one is trying to say suggest that their position is higher and mightier than anyone elses. That is really a total misunderstanding of the points made so far tbh

Quote

To Wiz, suggesting that the AK-47 and an RPG is a PERSONAL Defense weapon (or that's what I got from your post).

You're reading it wrong.

Quote

if ANYONE in the US was caught brandishing a weapon like that (Even if it was banned, they did not confiscate currently owned AK-47s) they would probably be arrested and be investigated to make sure they were allowed to even own one. And the US is regarded as a GUN country, we banned the purchase of a plethora of rifles. http://en.wikipedia....ult_Weapons_Ban . And they're trying to renew it apparently.

But left out a huge number of weapons designed to tear people apart, but that is a different subject.

Quote

What's a personal defense weapon for most people? A 9mm hand gun. It can stop the people causing you to be in fear of your life. Or a 22. Revolver.

Also, bear in mind that in certain countries they have a different culture towards guns. Owning one is a practicality, not just for pretending you'll scare away more theives.

Quote

Don't tell me the US Soldiers were in the wrong for thinking they might kill their buddies they were covering.

Sorry, what do you mean and where did you pull that counter from exactly?

Quote

They were not wrong for thinking it proper to engage those civilians which they thought were insurgents (Which was obviously bad in retrospect)

Then you and I are likely to never agree here, because they engaged civilians, that to me can never be right. Especially when you're engaging them from miles away, using poor quality video feed and a weapon that blow body parts off.

Quote

BUT I cannot say they "didn't have it coming" because a car like that can easily contain an IED or anything else of malicious nature. If the vehicle had been marked or something with a call sign or the fact that it was an ambulance and the US Military still engaged then I could recognize this as wrong. then I'd say "What monsters!".

So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?

[Dr. Knickers]

Quote

So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?

It's not their job to treat wounded insurgents. They should leave the job to the proper medical personnel who can treat the wounds and take the men to a hospital if needed. Especially when you consider that an emergency vehicle would be properly labelled, most likely discouraging the Apache gunner from firing. I mean, there's a difference between firing on an ambulance and firing on an unmarked van.

[Kalo]

How did I read that wrong, when you own a weapon I assume it's for personal defense. I don't buy a gun thinking I'm going to go assault my neighbor with it.

And I got that from Joker, though there's no proof I assumed he was right as it would make logical sense. And owning an Assault rifle is not practical for defense...

Edited by Kalo, 07 April 2010 - 23:43.

[Wizard]

Dr. Knickers, on 8 Apr 2010, 0:39, said:

Quote

So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?

It's not their job to treat wounded insurgents. They should leave the job to the proper medical personnel who can treat the wounds and take the men to a hospital if needed. Especially when you consider that an emergency vehicle would be properly labelled, most likely discouraging the Apache gunner from firing. I mean, there's a difference between firing on an ambulance and firing on an unmarked van.

I am honestly struggling to see how you can argue against a decent human being (whether they are or not) attempting to help a wounded person, whether they are insurgent or otherwise (in this case it was the bloody cameraman ffs).

[Kalo]

Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 23:46, said:

Dr. Knickers, on 8 Apr 2010, 0:39, said:

Quote

So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?

It's not their job to treat wounded insurgents. They should leave the job to the proper medical personnel who can treat the wounds and take the men to a hospital if needed. Especially when you consider that an emergency vehicle would be properly labelled, most likely discouraging the Apache gunner from firing. I mean, there's a difference between firing on an ambulance and firing on an unmarked van.

I am honestly struggling to see how you can argue against a decent human being (whether they are or not) attempting to help a wounded person, whether they are insurgent or otherwise (in this case it was the bloody cameraman ffs).

Here's food for thought : You release a couple dozen people from prison, they go back to their respective countries. Kill your fellow country men. Believe it or not you are participating in their death. It's involuntary manslaughter in case you didn't know. And a crime in some countries like the U.S. And this is the same as helping Insurgents. Would you save a man if you knew he was going to lead to the death of dozens of other human beings which you're trying to say are the victim here?

Another thing is either way something bad could or can happen. Such is life as a Human being.

Edited by Kalo, 07 April 2010 - 23:55.

[Dr. Knickers]

Wizard, on 7 Apr 2010, 16:46, said:

Dr. Knickers, on 8 Apr 2010, 0:39, said:

Quote

So a humanitarian dash by a concerned bystander is a bad thing now and they should have expected to be shot at for attending to a wounded person?

It's not their job to treat wounded insurgents. They should leave the job to the proper medical personnel who can treat the wounds and take the men to a hospital if needed. Especially when you consider that an emergency vehicle would be properly labelled, most likely discouraging the Apache gunner from firing. I mean, there's a difference between firing on an ambulance and firing on an unmarked van.

I am honestly struggling to see how you can argue against a decent human being (whether they are or not) attempting to help a wounded person, whether they are insurgent or otherwise (in this case it was the bloody cameraman ffs).

Helping injured people is great, and I'd applaud anybody who would help other people for being kind, but the people in that van should have thought twice before stopping to help. Rushing to help people in a combat zone isn't such a great idea, unless you like being suspected and shot at.

[Wizard]

Technically under certain laws in the US, indifference to human life is also an offence. By not attempting to assist a wounded person they would be guilty likewise. And your example here refers to the failure to act of the Apache pilots in preventing the insurgents from harming their comrades, the fact that they might have left someone to help an injured man who might hurt another at a later date would not be considered involuntary manslaughter even in a Kangaroo Court.

Edit: clarified a point.

Edited by Wizard, 08 April 2010 - 00:04.

[Warbz]

After watching all that and reading some of the replies, all I thought/said was 'meh'.
Then I realised how apathetic and careless my reaction was and am now just a tad confused about how I came to be so desensitised.
Though, I'm sure it has somethign to do with playing GTA4 until late at night, how many people can I roadkill in that crowd? Maybe playing COD over and over amassing the biggest killstreak I could. Battlefield maybe? Gunning in an Apache, the fuzzy little black and white screen. Somoenes running to B flag. Fire a few shots, you see the tracers smash into the floor and throw dirt and debris 10ft in the air. 50 points. Sorted.

Meh...

Edited by W!, 08 April 2010 - 02:20.