Real vid of an Apache attack *explicit*

i doubt it'd take that long to call in a blackhawk med-evac. He might not have been hit directly from the 30mm either, he was underneath the truck when they shot at him. Even if he had been hit, its still possible for it not to be life threatening if medical attention is given to him quickly, he could've been shot in the leg. People lose limbs in the war and dont die, so its not like because he was hit by a 30mm its instantly assumed his wounds are fatal.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
i doubt it'd take that long to call in a blackhawk med-evac. He might not have been hit directly from the 30mm either, he was underneath the truck when they shot at him. Even if he had been hit, its still possible for it not to be life threatening if medical attention is given to him quickly, he could've been shot in the leg. People lose limbs in the war and dont die, so its not like because he was hit by a 30mm its instantly assumed his wounds are fatal.
Click to expand...

Which part of “this is war” don’t you understand? This was an enemy soldier, he got what he asked for. End of the story. Nobody is going to waste their time to go there and save some crazy ass terrorist who didn’t surrender when he had a chance (who knows, maybe he would blow himself up). He fought for what he believed in and he died for it.
 
Top Secret said:
What did you expect? The Apache to shoot each guy in the leg, have the nearest Ranger squad to move into that position, secure them, and ship them to the local hospital for warm food and a bath? This is war people. If you can't handle it, I'm sorry. The people of the world have Army's for one purpose, to fight, secure, and kill if need be. In war, you kill. It happens on some distance battlefield far from home (Hopefully) so people don't usually understand what war 'Really' is. People die. I'm 16 and I get it, why can't you? Those 3 Iraqi soldiers, they didn't 'have' to guard there. They could have disbanded like others have. But they didn't, they wanted to fight. They wanted the risk. And they lost.
Click to expand...

Well even the iraqis took americans prisoner. If i recall correctly, some of the prisoners taken by the iraqis were wounded. I guess they just should've been shot tho right? As far as i'm concerned, i dont think u get war. Just because its more convenient, doesn't mean u should cause more casualties. What yur saying is because he's the enemy, he's not worth the effort of taking him in alive.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
Well even the iraqis took americans prisoner. If i recall correctly, some of the prisoners taken by the iraqis were wounded. I guess they just should've been shot tho right? As far as i'm concerned, i dont think u get war. Just because its more convenient, doesn't mean u should cause more casualties. What yur saying is because he's the enemy, he's not worth the effort of taking him in alive.
Click to expand...

The Iraqi's didn't take American prisoners because they felt sorry for them. Any American POW was a PR bonanza for the Hussein government.
 
Well even the iraqis took americans prisoner. If i recall correctly, some of the prisoners taken by the iraqis were wounded. I guess they just should've been shot tho right? As far as i'm concerned, i dont think u get war. Just because its more convenient, doesn't mean u should cause more casualties. What yur saying is because he's the enemy, he's not worth the effort of taking him in alive.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason the Iraqi's would take an American POW would be for 1. Profit or 2. Information. That's it. And don't lie to yourself. If the POW was no longer of use to them, yes they would have probably been shot.

*Edit*

We're not fighting the Erwin Rommel here.
 
LoneDeranger said:
The Iraqi's didn't take American prisoners because they felt sorry for them. Any American POW was a PR bonanza for the Hussein government.
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of feeling sorry for him, its the moral principle. Ok so he's helping the enemy and transporting weapons. I do agree that he should have been engaged by the apache , but now that he's wounded and practically immobile, why do u feel it appropriate to kill him? If the opportunity is present where its not necessary to take another life, why do it?
 
Don't you get it? There are several reasons:
1. He might of died anyways. Laying there for hours suffering.
2. He could have still disabled the Apache via RPG fire.
3. He could have radio'd for backup giving the Apache's location.
4. His life wasn't the #1 priority. Securing the area was.
5. Taking his life was necessary.
 
Top Secret said:
The ONLY reason the Iraqi's would take an American POW would be for 1. Profit or 2. Information. That's it. And don't lie to yourself. If the POW was no longer of use to them, yes they would have probably been shot.

*Edit*

We're not fighting the Erwin Rommel here.
Click to expand...

The iraqis released american POWs. They didn't shoot them instead, and why release a POW if he/she is still of use?
 
The iraqis released american POWs. They didn't shoot them instead, and why release a POW if he/she is still of use?
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, the POW's were rescued, not 'freed'.
 
Top Secret said:
Don't you get it? There are several reasons:
1. He might of died anyways. Laying there for hours suffering.
2. He could have still disabled the Apache via RPG fire.
3. He could have radio'd for backup giving the Apache's location.
4. His life wasn't the #1 priority. Securing the area was.
5. Taking his life was necessary.
Click to expand...

1. So if u were ever in a similar situation where u might die, would u rather someone just kill u instead of trying to save u?

2. Can u see an rpg on him? An rpg isn't something u can hide in yur pants unless yur MC Hammer. They didn't even know the apache was there, and i'm pretty sure they weren't aware of its location after the attack. If he was, would he have rolled out into its view so he could be shot again?

3. An apache is airborn and can move quite quickly, ontop of that its night time and not visible if u dont have night vision, it'd be pretty hard to give its location especially considering he himself didn't know where it was.

4. U can still accomplish both. Its not like u have to choose between one or the other.

5. Thats your opinion, not a fact.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
2. Can u see an rpg on him? An rpg isn't something u can hide in yur pants unless yur MC Hammer. They didn't even know the apache was there, and i'm pretty sure they weren't aware of its location after the attack. If he was, would he have rolled out into its view so he could be shot again?
Click to expand...

And can you say for sure that he DIDN'T have an RPG on hand, or nearby? He did throw what appeared to be an RPG, why risk going to rescue a soldier who took the risk to fight in the first place? What if he had a sidearm, and a medic DID get to him and the medic ended up getting shot and killed as a result (hypothetical, obviously, but still)? Securing the area and eliminating all opposition outweighs the risks involved for resucing one (potentially) mortally wounded Iraqi.
 
1. So if u were ever in a similar situation where u might die, would u rather someone just kill u instead of trying to save u?

2. Can u see an rpg on him? An rpg isn't something u can hide in yur pants unless yur MC Hammer. They didn't even know the apache was there, and i'm pretty sure they weren't aware of its location after the attack. If he was, would he have rolled out into its view so he could be shot again?

3. An apache is airborn and can move quite quickly, ontop of that its night time and not visible if u dont have night vision, it'd be pretty hard to give its location especially considering he didn't know himself where it was.

4. U can still accomplish both. Its not like u have to choose between one or the other.

5. Thats your opinion, not a fact.1. So if u were ever in a similar situation where u might die, would u rather someone just kill u instead of trying to save u?

2. Can u see an rpg on him? An rpg isn't something u can hide in yur pants unless yur MC Hammer. They didn't even know the apache was there, and i'm pretty sure they weren't aware of its location after the attack. If he was, would he have rolled out into its view so he could be shot again?

3. An apache is airborn and can move quite quickly, ontop of that its night time and not visible if u dont have night vision, it'd be pretty hard to give its location especially considering he didn't know himself where it was.

4. U can still accomplish both. Its not like u have to choose between one or the other.

5. Thats your opinion, not a fact.
Click to expand...

1. Ofcourse not. But war is hell.
2. Nope, but it might have been there. I'm not going to risk my life on a 'maybe' on some enemy soldier.
3. It's still a threat. Maybe he couldn't have taken it down. But if he got to a radio, I'm sure he could have contacted someone who could have.
4. You obviously don't know a damned thing about the military.
5. ^^^

*Edit*
Shuzer, that's a perfect example. Thank you.
 
Shuzer said:
And can you say for sure that he DIDN'T have an RPG on hand, or nearby? He did throw what appeared to be an RPG, why risk going to rescue a soldier who took the risk to fight in the first place? What if he had a sidearm, and a medic DID get to him and the medic ended up getting shot and killed as a result (hypothetical, obviously, but still)? Securing the area and eliminating all opposition outweighs the risks involved for resucing one (potentially) mortally wounded Iraqi.
Click to expand...

theres always risk involved in war. People have pretended to surrender before by waving white flags and when the opposition came close enough they shot them. Just because this COULD happen i dont think it means we should shoot everyone with their hands up. If it was fairly uncertain i'd say yes, shoot him, but from the footage i saw, i'm almost 100% sure he didn't have an rpg. Rpgs are quite large and very difficult to conceal, especially for someone whose wounded and not even sure where the enemy is.
 
theres always risk involved in war. People have pretended to surrender before by waving white flags and when the opposition came close enough they shot them. Just because this COULD happen i dont think it means we should shoot everyone with their hands up. If it was fairly uncertain i'd say yes, shoot him, but from the footage i saw, i'm almost 100% sure he didn't have an rpg. Rpgs are quite large and very difficult to conceal, especially for someone whose wounded and not even sure where the enemy is.
Click to expand...

You still cannot dismiss the fact that there could have been a radio for him to get to.
 
Top Secret said:
1. Ofcourse not. But war is hell.
2. Nope, but it might have been there. I'm not going to risk my life on a 'maybe' on some enemy soldier.
3. It's still a threat. Maybe he couldn't have taken it down. But if he got to a radio, I'm sure he could have contacted someone who could have.
4. You obviously don't know a damned thing about the military.
5. ^^^

*Edit*
Shuzer, that's a perfect example. Thank you.
Click to expand...

1. I find it hard to argue this point as u dont really prove yours, rather than stating an irrelevant tangent

2. Theres not much risk, the iraqi can barely move

3. If they called in more enemy, it would've given the american apache the upperhand as its night and more iraqi opposition eliminated means less to deal with on a later date.

4. I'm quite certain i know alot more about it than u do. I'm in the military. U shouldn't just speculate on something u have no knowledge of.
 
Top Secret said:
You still cannot dismiss the fact that there could have been a radio for him to get to.
Click to expand...

yes he could've. But u can't dismiss the fact that its out on an open field at night time and Americans would be able to slaughter iraqis in that type of terrain. Just because more iraqis may come doesn't mean america shouldn't be there to engage them. I'd rather fight them with those kind of advantages then somewhere in urban streets where they have the element of surprise.
 
1. It is not an 'irrelevant tangent'. It is the point of this discussion entirely.
2. He was 4 feet from the truck and seemed to be moving to me. My guess is he had shrapnel injury's and probably just shock.
3. It doesn't take much to take down a chopper. Even at night. A stolen IV Stinger hand held weapon system for example would make easy prey of an Apache. If he had radio'd specific information, I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard. And even so, the chopper wouldn't be the risk of leaked information, but rather ground forces that might have been in the area.
4. The Canadian Army? *Chuckles* But seriously, you probably come from a military family as I do. But I wouldn't put your knowledge above mine, I have my military career in place as of now.
 
Soliders are only trained to do one thing and thats to kill. The military sways their views to make it seem like their enemies are not human thus making it a lot easier to kill. He killed them because they needed to in order to take that point. In a war you don't ask questions you just shoot and if you wound an enemy then it is your job as a soldier to end that persons life because there is not telling what that person can do. If you were to fail the mission or have casualties on your side because you didn't want to shoot the wounded guy and he ended up doing something not only would you be trouble but I would say you are a disgrace. In war people get kill and you need to get over it. Hippies.
 
Jon, you also seem to be missing a major factor here. Saddam's militia had a chance to disband and walk away. Alot did, some stayed. The ones that stayed hate Americans. Now, if an American medic attempted to take an Iraqi (who chose to fight for the single purpose of killing Americans) and give him medical care, he would either attempt to kill the medic (or whoever he could potentially kill), kill himself, or be of no absolute use to the military. Now, the third example, while maybe harsh, is (or can be) the truth.

What use would a normal, wounded Iraqi soldier be to the military, exactly? It would a. be another mouth to feed, b. cost money to give him medical care, and require round the clock medical care and c. end up causing the military alot of wasted trouble in the end. What's the point of keeping an Iraqi soldier such as that alive, if he wouldn't want to be alive in American hands? Not to mention his fate after the war, what, trialed and jailed? Put to death? All that care in vain.

Also, if you have such compassion for enemy soldiers, why not wound them ALL and take them in? Where do you draw the line? How many soldiers do you think get wounded every day, but not killed, then executed soon after? If you took in 10 Iraqi's a day, you'd have alot of medics working round the clock to keep them alive.

I still don't see why you're so bent on seeing an enemy soldier, who wouldn't want to be taken into enemy hands in the first place, spared at the expense of risk, following that more risk, time, money and space, ultimately to be jailed/executed later on anyway?
 
JonTheCanuck said:
Well even the iraqis took americans prisoner. If i recall correctly, some of the prisoners taken by the iraqis were wounded. I guess they just should've been shot tho right? As far as i'm concerned, i dont think u get war. Just because its more convenient, doesn't mean u should cause more casualties. What yur saying is because he's the enemy, he's not worth the effort of taking him in alive.
Click to expand...

Many of the American prisoners were starved, beaten, shot and killed, and even raped; ala Jessica Lynch.
We're not the f*cking bad guys. What do you not understand?
BTW: They never released any of our soldiers. Our soldiers were rescued in some cases, and found at abandoned bases in others.
 
Top Secret said:
1. It is not an 'irrelevant tangent'. It is the point of this discussion entirely.
2. He was 4 feet from the truck and seemed to be moving to me. My guess is he had shrapnel injury's and probably just shock.
3. It doesn't take much to take down a chopper. Even at night. A stolen IV Stinger hand held weapon system for example would make easy prey of an Apache. If he had radio'd specific information, I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard. And even so, the chopper wouldn't be the risk of leaked information, but rather ground forces that might have been in the area.
4. The Canadian Army? *Chuckles* But seriously, you probably come from a military family as I do. But I wouldn't put your knowledge above mine, I have my military career in place as of now.
Click to expand...

1. "war is hell" isn't a good statement to enforce your argument.

2. They used explosive rounds on him, i dont think he's going anywhere.

3. So if you're never going to use an apache against an opponent who might have the capabilities to take it down, whats the point in using them?

4. Is this a debate or r u gonna start turning it into personal insults. I dont really care who has more military knowledge but u cant state what i do or dont know.
 
1. Yes it is.
2. The rounds landed on the 'other' side of the truck. He obviosly was able to move.
3. What? You use them because they are effective. That's a bad point my friend. Anything can be taken out.
4. No, it wasn't a personal insult. I never did state what you 'do or do not know' I simply think you're not grasping the concept that is war.
 
/me wants to see Jon's response to his post

I'm curious as to what his reasons for keeping an enemy soldier, much like the one mentioned, alive are
 
I'm curious as to what his reasons for keeping an enemy soldier, much like the one mentioned, alive are
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was wondering that too.

*Edit*

BTW: They never released any of our soldiers. Our soldiers were rescued in some cases, and found at abandoned bases in others.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought so. Those bastards wouldn't release one of our soldiers.
 
Shuzer said:
Jon, you also seem to be missing a major factor here. Saddam's militia had a chance to disband and walk away. Alot did, some stayed. The ones that stayed hate Americans. Now, if an American medic attempted to take an Iraqi (who chose to fight for the single purpose of killing Americans) and give him medical care, he would either attempt to kill the medic (or whoever he could potentially kill), kill himself, or be of no absolute use to the military. Now, the third example, while maybe harsh, is (or can be) the truth.

What use would a normal, wounded Iraqi soldier be to the military, exactly? It would a. be another mouth to feed, b. cost money to give him medical care, and require round the clock medical care and c. end up causing the military alot of wasted trouble in the end. What's the point of keeping an Iraqi soldier such as that alive, if he wouldn't want to be alive in American hands? Not to mention his fate after the war, what, trialed and jailed? Put to death? All that care in vain.

Also, if you have such compassion for enemy soldiers, why not wound them ALL and take them in? Where do you draw the line? How many soldiers do you think get wounded every day, but not killed, then executed soon after? If you took in 10 Iraqi's a day, you'd have alot of medics working round the clock to keep them alive.

I still don't see why you're so bent on seeing an enemy soldier, who wouldn't want to be taken into enemy hands in the first place, spared at the expense of risk, following that more risk, time, money and space, ultimately to be jailed/executed later on anyway?
Click to expand...

a lot of them couldn't disband. There were squads behind the front line who executed soldiers who tried to desert. Because someone is an inconvenience they should be killed? That sounds a lot like how saddam thinks. I thought the whole reason u guys are there is because of people who think like that. I guess the whole thought of preservation of life is just a far fetched dream that we shouldn't even bother to strive for. Who r u to say what the iraqi soldier wants? I'd rather be taken by the enemy then killed.
 
a lot of them couldn't disband. There were squads behind the front line who executed soldiers who tried to desert. Because someone is an inconvenience they should be killed? That sounds a lot like how saddam thinks. I thought the whole reason u guys are there is because of people who think like that. I guess the whole thought of preservation of life is just a far fetched dream that we shouldn't even bother to strive for. Who r u to say what the iraqi soldier wants? I'd rather be taken by the enemy then killed.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of natural selection? As for those soldiers not deserting when they could have, that is bullshit. If two of those three soldiers wanted to desert, they could have just turned on the 'real' Iraqi soldier a week ago and walked to the nearest town. Same thing if there had only been one. Some people are born into sucky lives, it's true. But that doesn't mean you are totally helpless. I know, if it was me, and I wanted to desert, I would have pulled out my .45 (Or whatever, Ak-47) and walked up right behind one of them, aimed at the head and pulled the trigger and would have shot the other if needed. No one will hinder my freedom.

*Edit*

Extreme situations require extreme measures.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
a lot of them couldn't disband. There were squads behind the front line who executed soldiers who tried to desert. Because someone is an inconvenience they should be killed? That sounds a lot like how saddam thinks. I thought the whole reason u guys are there is because of people who think like that. I guess the whole thought of preservation of life is just a far fetched dream that we shouldn't even bother to strive for. Who r u to say what the iraqi soldier wants? I'd rather be taken by the enemy then killed.
Click to expand...

..did you just compare me to Saddam? Wow.

Anyhow.. heh. An inconvenience that is a threat, and in the long run would be jailed/executed. I just don't see a point in putting them through a near death experience, then keeping them alive in enemy hands, having them judged, sentenced and (possibly) executed years down the road.

Besides, there's a huge difference between miltiary operations in Iraq and what Saddam did to his OWN people. Saddam would kill anyone for any reason, at his whim, whatever he pleased (again, his own people, too). The military isn't gunning down Iraqi citizens (that's not say no casualties have occured), they're taking out enemy threats. There's a fine line between the two.

Besides, who are YOU to say what the Iraqi soldier wants? Does he want to be captured, held against his will, and ultimately judged and jailed? Of course, it differs from person to person, but, most of the Iraqi's who are fighting are fighting for the sole reason that they hate Americans. What you'd rather have happen isn't necessarily what an Iraqi soldier would.
 
Top Secret said:
Ever heard of natural selection? As for those soldiers not deserting when they could have, that is bullshit. If two of those three soldiers wanted to desert, they could have just turned on the 'real' Iraqi soldier a week ago and walked to the nearest town. Same thing if there had only been one. Some people are born into sucky lives, it's true. But that doesn't mean you are totally helpless. I know, if it was me, and I wanted to desert, I would have pulled out my .45 (Or whatever, Ak-47) and walked up right behind one of them, aimed at the head and pulled the trigger and would have shot the other if needed. No one will hinder my freedom.

*Edit*

Extreme situations require extreme measures.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the soldiers in the video. Yes i'm sure for them its easy to desert now. I think the right means were taken when they were engaged but not when they continued to blow away the wounded guy who had no means of inflicting anymore damage to them. The squads enforcing the iraqis to stay didn't make it that easy for the soldiers Top, and there was more then one of them believe it or not. Its a lot easier to say something than actually do it.
 
Watching the video again, I don't think the "wounded" Iraqi is even alive anymore. He crawls out a few feet, then stops moving. It's a good 4-5 second before they fire again, but, if he is alive, he's not going to be for much longer. Even if they did dispatch a med unit
 
JonTheCanuck said:
then whats the point in filling him with a dozen more holes?
Click to expand...

Listen to the guy commanding him, he tells him to take out the truck.
 
no he doesn't he says "take him out" the other guy says "the truck?" and he replies "not the truck, hit him" i dont know if those r exact quotes, dont feel like quoting word for word, too lazy :D
 
but not when they continued to blow away the wounded guy who had no means of inflicting anymore damage to them.
Click to expand...

Do you not get it?! You DO NOT know that!

The squads enforcing the iraqis to stay didn't make it that easy for the soldiers Top
Click to expand...

I don't remember saying it would be easy. I simply said nothing will hinder my freedom. If it involves my death, then so be it.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
no he doesn't he says "take him out" the other guy says "the truck?" and he replies "not the truck, hit him" i dont know if those r exact quotes, dont feel like quoting word for word, too lazy :D
Click to expand...

I suppose you're right. Either way, he looked rather lifeless to me.

Besides, if they have no intention of dispatching a med unit, why not assure the targets have been neutralized?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
the Age of Conan thread
2 3
Replies
83
Views
5K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
R
Top20 Gaming Lows of 2004
Replies
20
Views
2K
Bad^Hat
Bad^Hat
Back
Top