US gunship kills civilians/reuters journalists, then fires upon makeshift ambulance

StarBob said:
You know, I've been trying to research how effective one would be able to identify things in the gunner position of the Apache. I was looking at http://www.howstuffworks.com/apache-helicopter.htm/printable and, as far as I Can tell, even current models have the HUD in an eye piece positioned right over the eye. I feel like this tiny display wouldn't lend itself to the best view of any small target and it appears that it the camera is zoomed to its maximum. I'm fairly sure what we're seeing is the raw feed from the camera and not equivalent to the view a gunner would have. I'm not sure about this though as this informaiton may be old and I know in 2000 there were some upgrades the Apache to "modernize" it. There may have been more since too. Still with the inevitable adrenaline and possible anger coupled with a tiny screen all up in your eye... I wouldn't be surprised if he saw more than he did. I can't say I know though.
Click to expand...

you still attempt to excuse away the incident. the government initially tried to cover it up saying the gun ship was fired upon:

"The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965

look, reuters had to invoke the freedom of information act to obtain the video. it took over a year to release it and they initially lied as to what happened. something's definately not kosher here. yet you continue to gloss over the incident in attempt to explain away their actions as regrettable, accidental or justified under a set of circumstances that you have no reason to believe were what motivated the gunship crew
 
StarBob said:
Not many 17 year olds living in a conservative family voice their opinions on a broad venue, but yeah some people gave me shit about it. I probably wasn't the norm but I wasn't stupid enough to just blindly believe everything that was going on. Be as skeptical as you want, I frankly just don't care if you believe me... it's not like it matters anyways.

Remember Desert Storm? That was Iraq invading Kuwait.
Click to expand...

you would have been 5 years old at the start of desert storm

StarBob said:
I remember sitting at home during the the Kuwait dealings in Iraq wondering if my dad was going to be shipped over there. I saw what was happening. I remember looking at the photos of "WMDs" and saying "Those could literally be any sort of industrial equipment."
Click to expand...

pretty sophisticated for a 5 year old
 
CptStern said:
you still attempt to excuse away the incident. the government initially tried to cover it up saying the gun ship was fired upon:

"The U.S. military said the helicopter attack, in which nine other people were killed, occurred after security forces came under fire."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL05399965

look, reuters had to invoke the freedom of information act to obtain the video. it took over a year to release it and they initially lied as to what happened. something's definately not kosher here. yet you continue to gloss over the incident in attempt to explain away their actions as regrettable, accidental or justified under a set of circumstances that you have no reason to believe were what motivated the gunship crew
Click to expand...

Fundamental difference between "Explain away" and "Explain." I think you should figure that one out. I don't know why you keep suggesting the pilot and gunner had alterior motives and were just hoping to shoot people. You don't know what they were thinking. I'm trying to find legitimate reasoning for why someone would identify more weapons than are there.


you would have been 5 years old at the start of desert storm


pretty sophisticated for a 5 year old
Click to expand...

I should have made more clear what I was trying to say. When I was five I was aware of Desert Storm, I was making you aware that I had a fairly close tie to it. Later in life I learned its purpose.

The second part of it referenced Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't believe the ability to see through bullshit is too difficult of a concept for a 17 year old. But seriously... say what you want, if you knew me then I'd tell you the same thing.


You know I've looked a few Apache videos and, at range, the resolution is not really not significant enough to properly identify targets. It's like trying to read a book a thousand yards away with a pair of binoculars.
 
You don't need razor-sharp detail to read body language, general behaviour and whether a person's hands or empty or holding something.
 
StarBob said:
Fundamental difference between "Explain away" and "Explain." I think you should figure that one out.
Click to expand...

yet your explanations are one sided. hence the explain "away" part

StarBob said:
I don't know why you keep suggesting the pilot and gunner had alterior motives and were just hoping to shoot people. You don't know what they were thinking. I'm trying to find legitimate reasoning for why someone would identify more weapons than are there.
Click to expand...

so you could better explain their actions instead of just looking at what's available. also I never said they were hoping to shoot people. I did however say that I dont think (supported by evidence) that minimising civilian casualties is a priority or even on the list of priorities. it's not a case of "durr hurr lets git dem towelheads" but rather "hey does that guy have a gun? better shoot everything that moves just to be absolutely sure ..oh here comes more of them ..I dont see a red cross. better make sure they dont have rpgs ..mission accomplished, lets go grab a brewsky"



StarBob said:
The second part of it referenced Operation Iraqi Freedom. I don't believe the ability to see through bullshit is too difficult of a concept for a 17 year old.
Click to expand...
ya that seems to be a common theme for many americans

"they might have been fooled, but not I. I'm part of the 12%"

hear that enough times and you start to think there was nobody in the 78% that supported the war but then your mind starts to hurt by the faulty logic and you want to stick a pencil in your ear to alievate the pain

StarBob said:
You know I've looked a few Apache videos and, at range, the resolution is not really not significant enough to properly identify targets. It's like trying to read a book a thousand yards away with a pair of binoculars.
Click to expand...

"they must have had a hard time identifing the targets" ..better eradicate everything that moves just to be absolutely sure
 
Eejit said:
You don't need razor-sharp detail to read body language, general behaviour and whether a person's hands or empty or holding something.
Click to expand...

I know, but as we've seen holding something and holding a dangerous thing can sometimes look very similar... since a lot of dangerous things are designed to be held. I mean in some videos they were close enough to the people that the maximum zoom could see their faces, but in a lot they were stationary far enough away that they were sillouhettes about the sam as the crosshair and it was basically a tossup whether they were holding anything. I think it should be standard policy that, if there is no immediate danger, assault helicopters should be within a range best suited to identify their target or they should be given a stronger lens to do spot checks of potential targets. Of course the same could be said of something like the AC-130 where the range is greater and the armament is even more significant. Of course, the situations for something like this are usually those where the enemy has already been identified by another source.

Still even with changes of this nature, it won't eliminate all mistakes. It's going to take some retraining in threat identification and engagement procedures to even make it effective.
 
CptStern said:
yet your explanations are one sided. hence the explain "away" part



so you could better explain their actions instead of just looking at what's available. also I never said they were hoping to shoot people. I did however say that I dont think (supported by evidence) that minimising civilian casualties is a priority or even on the list of priorities. it's not a case of "durr hurr lets git dem towelheads" but rather "hey does that guy have a gun? better shoot everything that moves just to be absolutely sure ..oh here comes more of them ..I dont see a red cross. better make sure they dont have rpgs ..mission accomplished, lets go grab a brewsky"




ya that seems to be a common theme for many americans

"they might have been fooled, but not I. I'm part of the 12%"

hear that enough times and you start to think there was nobody in the 78% that supported the war but then your mind starts to hurt by the faulty logic and you want to stick a pencil in your ear to alievate the pain



"they must have had a hard time identifing the targets" ..better eradicate everything that moves just to be absolutely sure
Click to expand...


I guess being objective and looking for logical explanations always seems one sided. The reality is there is no side to explaining what happened and how.

Oh well I'm not really sure what you're trying to say anymore. I'm looking at what happened. I'm not trying to do a psychological profile on Apache pilots and gunners. There's no reason to bother explaining my views on the Iraq war to you anymore since apparently skepticism is the only thing you're capable of conveying. I'm aware it's fun to play devil's advocate and try to prove something you can't possibly prove to matter how hard you try, but really, it's old and trolly.
 
Stern just wants you to admit that he is right and will not stop until you do so. My suggestion is to just make fun of his age and the fact that he's probably going to die before most of us.
 
StarBob said:
Wow really? You take my defense of people following rules of engagement to say all that? Being an ignorant prick doesn't make you sound cool at all. There's not a single post I've made that didn't criticize the military in some fashion, but the overriding principle is that I don't believe we should be in Iraq at all. I never have, not even when it started and I was in high school. I saw the straw man tactics being used. I don't appreciate the bullshit stereotyping and prejudice where you clump me in a group of conservative assholes who condone anything as long as it benefits the American people.

If you blame the a gunner for misinterpreting a black and white image from a mile away through a camera lense and a view finder a few inches wide strapped to his face, you're stupid as hell. The people to blame is the officer that OK'd engagement of a non military vehicle. If you want to take it further if you can blame the same officer for allowing engagement without 100% certainty. If the gunner fired without permission, you blame him, and he would be court martialed and probably dishonrably discharged.

Also - No Limit - I think a disregard for human life is the absolute last thing you could say about me. I am a utilitarian and I believe all life is important, but you have to be pretty stupid if you think I'd be willing to risk the lives of friends and family members to ensure that some people in the wrong place at the wrong time are fine.

Photographers are aware of the dangers of being in a war torn country. I'm not sure of the exact number but it was something like 160 photographers have been killed in Iraq since the war began. They should understand the risks associated with it.

Again, for the last time, I do not think that what happened here is ethically or morally justifiable from top to bottom, but the initial attack follows the rules of engagement. If you don't agree with it, start a giant movement to for the government to re-evaluate the rules of engagement for Iraq.

Again, for the last time, the second attack is a separate instance from the initial attack. It is against the Geneva convention to attack a medical vehicle under any circumstances outside of it directly attacking civilians or allied soldiers.

Now that I've said everything again, and I'm sure it will be picked apart, taken out of context, and misinterpreted (somehow), I'm going to leave this place because it's devolving into a lot of ridiculous personal attacks like every internet argument. But honestly, I'm willing to put aside a lot of heartache for accidents, mistakes, and hasty judgements if it means at the end of the day people that are my friends and family can come home safely. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I THINK THEY ARE RIGHT, ETHICAL, OR TRULY JUSTIFIABLE, but it does mean that I will accept certain things with what tolerance I can to ensure the safety of these soldiers. Stupid decisions got us in to this baseless war and I hope some smart ones get us out.
Click to expand...

You're still doing it.
 
Tyguy said:
Stern just wants you to admit that he is right and will not stop until you do so. My suggestion is to just make fun of his age and the fact that he's probably going to die before most of us.
Click to expand...

not if I get my firearm permit first




just bide your time, stern. soon all will be right with the world
 
Gunner is butt hurt because he fears Iran is next on our list.
 
StarBob said:
...
Click to expand...

Do you not understand the issue here? You are absolutely right, from the resolution on that camera they really had no clue what they were seeing, they could only make assumptions.

Our argument is because of that they shouldn't have killed everything in sight. Your argument is that they should have or atleast that it was ok to. Do you not understand how ****ing insane that kind of logic is?
 
StarBob said:
Nice.
Click to expand...

You'll grow up one day and look back at the way you used to think and despise yourself for it. Alternatively you'll end up like most people that post shit like this and continue in a downward spiral of endless stupidity.

unozero said:
Gunner is butt hurt because he fears Iran is next on our list.
Click to expand...

Go polish your guns, maybe you'll be fortunate enough to have one go off accidentally.
 
Gunner said:
You'll grow up one day and look back at the way you used to think and despise yourself for it. Alternatively you'll end up like most people that post shit like this and continue in a downward spiral of endless stupidity.



Go polish your guns, maybe you'll be fortunate enough to have one go off accidentally.
Click to expand...

took you long enough to come up with that.
 
Gunner said:
You'll grow up one day and look back at the way you used to think and despise yourself for it. Alternatively you'll end up like most people that.
Click to expand...

Man, it's self-righteous bullshit attitudes like this that make me want to justify civilian slaughter simply to spite you.
 
Gunner said:
You'll grow up one day and look back at the way you used to think and despise yourself for it. Alternatively you'll end up like most people that post shit like this and continue in a downward spiral of endless stupidity.

Go polish your guns, maybe you'll be fortunate enough to have one go off accidentally.
Click to expand...

So your response to someone not being sensitive enough over deaths is to... hope they die.

Can't argue with that logic.

...For the same reasons you can't argue with a potato.
 
This was a sad thread, but the arguing is just so childish. Somehow, it's even more sad this way.
 
it's really a matter of just putting yourself in another person's shoes...once i gained that ability i saw the world in a whole new light.

there's no need to turn this into a name calling shitfest, let's be civil you assholes.
no matter how much i might disagree with some of you, this thread got me through work a tad easier so knock it off and continue disagreeing with each other.
 
1270603748569.jpg
 
Gunner said:
You'll grow up one day and look back at the way you used to think and despise yourself for it. Alternatively you'll end up like most people that post shit like this and continue in a downward spiral of endless stupidity.
Click to expand...

Yup. Ya got me pegged Internet Psychic. Good for you.
 
I never got this attitude of assuming every civilian is really an insurgent, especially in a part of the world where people carry weapons anyway.

I mean blaming some civvies for "bringing their kids into a warzone"...really?

Just love it. Why don't people just assume innocence until proven otherwise like in law, that is, if it looks, sounds and moves like a civilian then it is until it starts doing something obviously not civilian.

But it's a double standard, easy to distance yourself from some brownies from up in the air and across the airwaves from your armchair.

But people wouldn't tolerate it if this shit occurred in an American city.

Also here's a vid of what it's like to get bombed/fire upon by air assets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLwwi8L7yos


Just in case anyone thinks anything less than 100% confirmation is okay just because you don't identify with the people getting blown to shreds by your tax dollars.

And for anyone who just doesn't care period, you need help you sick ****s.
 
The apache attack wasn't even preceded by any type of indication they could be in danger, which is even more unsettling. Just a bunch of holes being drilled through you and your friends along with a distant noise in the background seconds later.

Do you even suppose apache crews take journalists into consideration when identifying people? It seems as though since they all carry non-typical equipment it would be a no brainer to keep that in the back of their minds when deciding who to kill.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I want to continue this conversation because there are still a bunch of questions regarding the legality surrounding air engagements, although non of us seem have the correct information. Are the ROE amended whenever we develop new technology capable of taking lives?

Would it be outlandish to have some type of system where the video from the chopper is streamed to the approving officer?
 
nurizeko said:
I never got this attitude of assuming every civilian is really an insurgent, especially in a part of the world where people carry weapons anyway.

I mean blaming some civvies for "bringing their kids into a warzone"...really?

Just love it. Why don't people just assume innocence until proven otherwise like in law, that is, if it looks, sounds and moves like a civilian then it is until it starts doing something obviously not civilian.

But it's a double standard, easy to distance yourself from some brownies from up in the air and across the airwaves from your armchair.

But people wouldn't tolerate it if this shit occurred in an American city.

Also here's a vid of what it's like to get bombed/fire upon by air assets.

*Video*


Just in case anyone thinks anything less than 100% confirmation is okay just because you don't identify with the people getting blown to shreds by your tax dollars.

And for anyone who just doesn't care period, you need help you sick ****s.
Click to expand...

This is why I said this was just like a friendly fire incident. Tragic, but it's something that happens in war. I think it would be much more difficult to ascertain friend from foe flying by in a jet though. I think everyone agrees that more should be done to aid anyone in a "shooting from miles away" scenario to better identify targets... and better protocol on the orders to engage.
 
You'd really need to be a pathetic nationalistic prick to try and defend this kind of behaviour. Doubly so when the ones arguing that the victims looked like they were carrying weapons are usually the same ones whinging that they have a right to carry automatic weapons themselves in their own country, which incidentally hasn't been turned into a warzone by a foreign power.
 
This stuff happens in every war, it's just that since Vietnam information goes around a lot faster and to more people. Some of the information falls on ears that are living in a civil state and it goes against their preconceived notions of war, causing outrage. The Allies bombed plenty of cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, and it was deemed necessary to win the war. The US dropped two nuclear bombs in Japan, how many innocent people unfairly died then? Now the US deems it necessary in Iraq to take out groups of people that might be gathering with weapons. It's war, it has no real law despite people at home thinking it should.

And do you really think that this Iraq story is bad compared to so many other stories which most people haven't heard of over the years?

Wikileaks didn't find any kind of "scandal" in that video, they simply let the masses in on what war is really like. Most people are misdirecting their anger over this: it's not the fault of the soldiers, or the ones in command.

If anything it's a call for pacifism, and a change in mentality towards conflict.
 
Shooting an an unarmed van that came to pick up the wounded isn't a scandal? You're an idiot.
 
I call them how I see them. Sorry. If I believed for a second a rational discussion with him was worth the effort I might not resort to that, but in this case idiot or dumbass is well justified.
 
You didn't get my point at all, I guess. ****ing douche.
 
See, it's presumptuous bulls**t like that that starts wars to begin with.
 
That looks like the smallest RPG i've ever seen. Oddly enough, you can't see it or anything resembling an RPG outside of that shot (and the photographer leaning around the corner) in the rest of the video, which is odd considering the best and clearest footage of the "insurgents" is taken right before they open fire and nowhere there can you see anything resembling an RPG or even coming close to the size of one.

The only people on the full-length video to report there were RPG's at the scene were the pilots, the same people who accidentally identified the journalists cameras as RPGs, the same people who went on to report they saw flashes coming from the Saeed's camera which is something that you can tell does not actually happen on that video on top of being something you can logically deduce as being incredibly unlikely (since when do highly skilled war-time photographers, or any photographer, use flashes when taking photos outside, in the middle of a clear day?).

After the squad gets to the scene, with intentions to retrieve and look after the wounded kids, the pilots stress they fired on the first group because they saw an RPG and AK-47's yet no one who arrives at the scene finds them according to the comms. The closest you get to a confirmation of weapons is someone saying they see what looks like a live RPG round beneath a corpse but they can't tell. Then the reports come out and say they found two RPG's and an AK47 and reference photographs, that for some reason the Army hasn't made public after a Freedom of Information request from Reuters.

Couple all that with numerous allegations from former Marines and Army personnel like the following -

Jason Washburn said:
"Something else we were encouraged to do, almost with a wink and nudge, was to carry 'drop weapons', or by my third tour, 'drop shovels'. We would carry these weapons or shovels with us because if we accidentally shot a civilian, we could just toss the weapon on the body, and make them look like an insurgent"

At one point, Washburn’s commander called the unit together to praise Marines for accurate shooting, his pride apparently undiminished by the fact that the victim was not an insurgent but the local mayor.

Sources:https://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-v...t-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378
http://www.ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony/rules-engagement-part-2/jason-washburn/video
Click to expand...

- and the fact that U.S. Government refused to release the tape for 3 years until it was leaked, basically what I'm saying is I have little reason to trust anything the U.S. officially states about those people having weapons without actually seeing the photographs referenced and even then, there will still be lingering doubt about what actually happened given obviously contested content of the video.

But even then, like I said before, I can still why they fired upon them because it was a tragic set of circumstances.

Still, none of that justifies mowing down the people in the van, who clearly had no weapons nor were they picking them up or near anything resembling a weapon at all and even if they were armed, it's still a war crime to kill them while they attempt to retrieve their wounded.

It would be the equivalent of Russia or someone firing on the soldiers as they retrieve the children from the van. Only the soldiers were armed there.
 
No Limit said:
I call them how I see them. Sorry. If I believed for a second a rational discussion with him was worth the effort I might not resort to that, but in this case idiot or dumbass is well justified.
Click to expand...

Words.

It's interesting that you believe yourself to be different from those who would make deadly assumptions with a gung-ho attitude.
 
Shooting at the van was a huge mistake and violation of all kinds of international laws, military protocols, and basic morality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sulkdodds
Another 400,000 juicy documents
Replies
19
Views
2K
Mr. Djees
Mr. Djees
K
Italians Victims of US Friendly Fire Incident
8 9 10
Replies
393
Views
13K
No Limit
No Limit
hasan
Al Fallujah
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
FatCombine
FatCombine
Back
Top