[VID]Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants

[<RJMC>]

I dont want to read the entire thread and I am not expert in combat stuff but

when a helicopter or other air vehicles shoot a weapon there is a time beetwen the weapon fires and the amonution hits,in tons of video you can hear when the helicopters shoot and time after the amo hits

so problably the gunner just shoot at the car before the surrender,since you can see the guy gets out and lift his arms up in some miliseconds before the explotion

 

[Sulkdodds]

But until someone in recognized authority via the command chain can determine the status of a detainee, a ground soldier is obliged to afford them those very rights, which still basically pisses on your whole argument from a big height.

What on earth are you talking about? Can you name a few sources you are getting this nonsense from?

How about here?

Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.

Or here?

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

 

[Tyguy]

Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.

I don't recall seeing any detainees in the video.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You understand what a surrender is?

 

[Vegeta897]

If this happened in the old days nobody would even bat an eye.

This thread is a perfect example of one of the problems of such fast and easy media distribution, being freely available to any old sap who is just dying to make judgements.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Nobody except silly kerberos is saying there was definitively a war crime, Veg.

Tyguy is apparently arguing that it'd all be hunky dory even if the pilot went "oh look a surrendering dude I guess I will shoot him".

 

[Vegeta897]

Did I say saps?

I haven't been following this debate, 'scuse my ignorance.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Your mum.

 

[15357]

The thing is, guys, no matter how much you get all worked up about this, nothing's going to happen, nothing's going to change. The US will keep blowing up people, people will keep getting blown up, others will keep getting offended, and I'll keep supporting the policy of blowing things up even though I don't understand why.

So let us comply and be happy.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Hehe Numbers, apathy is the simplest remedy for violence

 

[Tagaziel]

The thing is, guys, no matter how much you get all worked up about this, nothing's going to happen, nothing's going to change. The US will keep blowing up people, people will keep getting blown up, others will keep getting offended, and I'll keep supporting the policy of blowing things up even though I don't understand why.

Because you're a lobotmized Korean propaganda drone, that's why.

 

[15357]

Because you're a lobotmized Korean propaganda drone, that's why.

I don't get it. When I get comments like this, I brush them off because I assume them to be in good nature - taking the mickey, as you guys call it. But with you I'm not so sure. Sometimes you seem like you're deliberately trying to make offense unto people (namely, me), and I haven't a clue why. I'm pretty sure that I have never offended you in the past, yet you make comments that are borderline racism, like the "Koreans have their genitals rotten away from too much starcraft" thing a few months ago. I never try to offend people, even in the politics section if I can help it. But I don't get the hostility. I simply can't understand why you continue to make comments that are directed towards me with the intent of causing offence. I'm pretty much immune towards insults, but if you make the kind of racist comment that you make oftentimes (not this thread, though), I'm not sure I can tolerate it.

You're prolly a nice guy irl, but you.... well, I dunno. What did I do wrong?

 

[lefty]

It's because he's a furfag.

 

[Kadayi]

You realize you are now trying to defend yourself by citing an HBO show, right?

Did the bit about it being based around actual military events and the input of the soldiers and officers who were engaged in those operations skip your notice? Lt Nathan Fick one of the Officers involved wrote up his time in the marine core and all about 1st recons operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and goes into a hell of a lot of detail about the nature of the command structure. However I suppose as it's merely a book we should class it as fiction then? :dozey:

Really wish you didn't have the memory of a goldfish because then I wouldn't have to keep explaining the same thing over and over again. If your not going to show me the courtesy of reading my posts then im not going to extend you the courtesy of answering your stupid questions again.

So deflective personal insults aside, you basically don't have an answer as to when it's not acceptable to shoot civilians as counter point to your argument. By your generous rationale to military culpability a bored soldier could on their own initiative, flick the safety off their M16 and casually walking through the busy streets of Baghdad pump round after round into men, women and children as they flee in terror, and they wouldn't remotely be accountable for their actions as a war crime. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. :dozey:

 

[Tyguy]

Did the bit about it being based around actual military events and the input of the soldiers and officers who were engaged in those operations skip your notice?

I'm simply stating the fact that trying to back up an argument by mentioning a tv show is absurd. Im sure the majority of people here would agree. Furthermore, I haven't even seen it. Are you expecting me to purchase this just to get a better understanding of what the hell you are talking about? I asked you to give me some sources online but that's not going to happen, is it?

So deflective personal insults aside

Your first post started with a personal insult. You're a hypocrite, nice try.

By your generous rationale to military culpability a bored soldier could on their own initiative, flick the safety off their M16 and casually walking through the busy streets of Baghdad pump round after round into men, women and children as they flee in terror, and they wouldn't remotely be accountable for their actions as a war crime. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. :dozey:

You can't POSSIBLY be serious. I have to assume you are asking a rhetorical question because if not you really need reading comprehension help. You are equating the video with an entirely different situation to try and make some kind of point, im just not sure what it is right now.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm simply stating the fact that trying to back up an argument by mentioning a tv show is absurd. Im sure the majority of people here would agree. Furthermore, I haven't even seen it. Are you expecting me to purchase this just to get a better understanding of what the hell you are talking about? I asked you to give me some sources online but that's not going to happen, is it?

TV show or not, it's does illustrate in great depth how the modern US Military machine functions (or not at times as the case may be) . That you've not seen it is a moot point. Other Sources? well I recommend you buy the book:-

http://www.amazon.com/Generation-Ki...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220388614&sr=8-1

you might also try:-

http://www.amazon.com/One-Bullet-Away-Making-Officer/dp/0618773436/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

As that's the version from the Officers viewpoint.

You might find your local library has them in stock also. Please feel free to furnish us all with some examples of factual warfare operations that support your assertions in the interim though.

Your first post started with a personal insult. You're a hypocrite, nice try.

A personal insult would be me randomly calling you a retard, a spastic, a forum pest or some such, me saying 'wake up fella you're making a fool of yourself because you've a flawed argument' is me being quite helpful tbh. We've had 10 pages of you digging your forum reputations grave now, when will it end? How far are you prepared to debase yourself with your arguments? You've had umpteen people going 'you're wrong'. Isn't it about time you re-evaluated your position, perhaps it is you that's out of step and not the rest of the band?

You can't POSSIBLY be serious. I have to assume you are asking a rhetorical question because if not you really need reading comprehension help. You are equating the video with an entirely different situation to try and make some kind of point, im just not sure what it is right now.

I'm merely asking, when is it not ok to shoot civilians? because based on your arguments it seems that civilians have no rights whatsoever and therefore the scenario I proposed would be entirely legitimate. Now are you going to find yet another excuse for not answering the question in your next post, or are you going to address it in detail? The consensus in Steam chat is your going to bail again. Prove them wrong

 

[Tyguy]

Now I have to go to the library in order to better understand your position? Im right cause so and so said so? Were they pilots? You see what I'm getting at? I'm happy to read anything you can supply me with, but as far as spending money on a book...not going to happen. It's actually quite a pathetic attempt to convey your opinions. What's next, are you going to quote your parents about the matter? Here, I found a great book on amazon that you might also like: A rule for Arguments

An insult is an insult. An attack on someones integrity is still an insult. Instead of giving me reasons you think im wrong you felt the need to act like an ass. I can play that game too.

You asked me when is it not ok to shoot a civilian. It's never ok to shoot a civilian. Was the guy in the video a civilian? Well, I stated SEVERAL times that I was operating under the assumption that he was an insurgent, and that all of my opinions were based on that assumption. Just like you made the automatic assumption that he was a civilian. Do you understand this concept? I don't think you do because you keep trying to make it sound like I think its ok for pilots to strafe and fire at the ground killing everybody in sight. I'm still not sure that you have actually read the entire discussion.

To be honest, im tired of you and your lame insults. I can't even believe you made comment on my reputation either!!! I literally laughed for a good minute after reading that. I thought for a second you might act like an adult but clearly I was mistaken. You supply zero sources to back yourself up. You are a rude douche who relys on petty insults to carry your point instead of actual facts. All of us are now dumber for having listened to your feeble attempt to make a case. God have mercy on your soul.

I'm done with this, I'm with nuri and pes when I say this video creates more questions then it answers. Jesus, im still in disarray that you are talking about me in the steam chat...you're pathetic.

If you would like to continue this discussion via private messages that would be great. Im done with this thread.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Nobody except silly kerberos is saying there was definitively a war crime, Veg.

So, you think it was an accident?

With no indication that he posed any direct danger, whether personally or via unseen hidden ambush friends, one cannot assume that killing him (or people like him) is neccessity. You can't bank on facts which aren't there.

No, sounds like you think it was a warcrime too.

How about here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.

Or here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Third Geneva Convention, Article 5
The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Get back to me Sulkdodds.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Get back to me Sulkdodds.

When you start reading, boyo.

Quote one is trying to rebut the argument of "necessity", which some have alleged to go beyond law.

Quote two is answering the objective, isolated question of what the legal requirements are when you capture someone whose status as a lawful combatant is in doubt.

I have said that 'there isn't very much information to go on, but if the pilot did knowingly shoot after he saw the man surrender, then this would have been a war crime. I am chiefly arguing about international law itself, because people are saying things about it which are simply not true.

You have said "Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants". Hello trolly thread title.

See the difference?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You have said "Apache Crew Murders Surrendering Combatants". Hello trolly thread title.

See the difference?

Do you believe his, "killing" was accidental?

 

[Sulkdodds]

I believe personally that it might well be on purpose, but I also believe that there are too many plausible alternatives* to say this with any certainty. Without any confirmation of the incident other than the testimony of the video, I can't responsibly allege that a war crime happened - although I think that further investigation would be desirable.

*If you're wandering what these plausible alternatives are I guess you should read the thread?

Discussion about the video has blossomed into a wider argument about international law, and whether, if the pilot had fired knowingly, that would have been necessary or defensible.

EDIT: I have to say I find it surprising how unequivocal you are about the evidence of 'your own' eyes, in comparison to how doubtful you were previously about the evidence of an entire professional judicial committee.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I believe personally that it might well be on purpose, but I also believe that there are too many plausible alternatives* to say this with any certainty. Without any confirmation of the incident other than the testimony of the video, I can't responsibly allege that a war crime happened - although I think that further investigation would be desirable.

If it helps any, because this is what I noticed:

1. The Camera had no audio. (Why? They're supposed to record Channel Audio)
2. The Video appears to have a 120 - 200 Frame Jump before the shells hit. So we don't know how long he was stopped. Which means to me, we don't know how long they where deciding to engage him. (Not counting the fact all Gun Camera's have electronic disturbances from the 30mm Discharging and there usually is a difference of about 1 or 2.5 seconds after firing for the shells to hit their mark -- that's the average)
3. We know it's a drone flying over the target, because after the frame jump, the camera doesn't appear to vibrate. (I'm surmising that the shooter is of course, in the same vicinity as the Drone -- because its bouncing in frame with the shots until the last one can be seen hitting the ground)
4. The angle of the shots is facing the lens, with the shock clouds blowing to the right or center, towards as I hypothesized. Leading me to believe that an Apache was out of sight.

I'd say, without a doubt, the audio would be the biggest clue to see if something was cut. Since the video is muted, we can't tell. Which means you can splice the video clips or cut them without people being able to notice there was a difference, unless the focus on the action switched dramatically, or if the audio clipped.

Without those available, I'm of the belief this crew of Pilots engaged and shot him after he surrendered. Yet, that's my belief. Review what I stated and see if it matches up.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, the pilot had clearly already engaged him (he fires before the car even stops). But shot, okay.

What do you mean by frame jump? The clock in the top-right corner continues seamlessly.

How do you know the shooter was using a 30mm, or indeed an Apache gunship?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Sulkdodds, what tells you he fired before the car even stops? If that was the case, the shells would be hitting the car as soon as it stopped, before the driver got out (my observations).

The Frame Jump -- notice when the Camera instantly zooms in?

About the 30mm, the shots, the driver, etc.:

30mm Shots usually appear bigger on Grey Screen Heatmaps because the blast kicks up dust or dirt; the actual impacts however appear smaller in this video because the electronic lense is not tracking where the heat dissapates (sp) to. Also, the actual shockwaves where bigger on this video, but they just traveled in another direction (my explanation on this towards the conclusion -- I'm just writing this out now so people can get all the 411 or know what to look for) That's because the dust plumes from the shots stood around 10 to 12 feet within around a second (I estimate that by the mans height; and I estimate the mans height by the size of the car by observing the vehicles shadow. Cars total height is around 5 feet) and thats because I feel the blast was limited when it's carrying munitions pierced the road and concrete, limiting the heat and energy only one route to escape (up.)

Also, about the ammunition: you ever see a 5.56mm bullet create a plume like that? I thought maybe a .50 Calibre would, but drones aren't armed with .50 Calibres and about the only thing I'd think would be is an Apache. Yet, even I'm in doubt about that being the ammunition used because of the plume, spark, and violence of the hits ... (for Redudancy!)

... which where also hitting the paved road and concrete, which reduced the plume size outwardly (the usual shockwave of a mike mike) because not enough debris could be kicked outward because the shots blast was trapped when the munitions burrowed into the gravel and concrete (so the shockwave travels up because the road and concrete are a bigger mass, forcing the energy of the shots to escape back the way they came in; hence the plumes shooting up.)

The shots aren't also horizontal, otherwise, we wouldn't see the shots travel as dots or sparks, but lines instead. So, that tells me the shooter was in a gunship of some kind.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I mean that the pilot had already fired some shots (which missed) earlier in the video. Unless the smoke puffs from 01-08 seconds are from some other source.

The crosshairs stay on the same point when the 'frame jump' occurs - just 'above' the car' - which seems to imply it could actually be an instant zoom. Also, before the 'frame jump' happens, you see the man beginning to get out of the car, and after it, he continues getting out from where he left off. If, say, five seconds were cut out, he would have had to be struggling to get out of that door for quite some time. Even after the 'jump', we see him raise his hands, and see that he has his hands raised. For any length of time in which he was surrendering to have been cut out, it seems like he would have had to raise his hands, lower them, and then raise them again.

We see a helicopter actually fly over, and it doesn't look very much like an apache.

I personally think that the most likely possibility is that this was a mistake, but a very stupid mistake which the pilot could easily have avoided. The car is evidently slowing down for quite a while, and there's no way the pilot could have fired before the car began to slow but hit after the man got out. You know, there he are is a helicopter, chasing some dude on the ground - he is not going to escape very quickly by running, and the pilot is not in a vulnerable position. Yet he shoots, even after his target is evidently slowing down his car, getting out, whetever.

Perhaps the pilot believed that the man might have been getting out of the car so that he could fire a missile at the helicopter, but he clearly doesn't wait to find out whether there is any actual weapon or not. So as far as I can see, while it's unsure whether the pilot actually saw the surrendering gesture, you could with more grounding say that he fired unnecessarily, and was reckless as to whether the man might be surrendering or not.

PS: Combatants? What's with that?
There's a reason people assumed that your thread title was picked more for shock factor rather than for objectivity.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

We see a helicopter actually fly over, and it doesn't look very much like an apache.

There were two attack helicopters, that's the other helicopter that was attacking him, that helicopter strafes the car with it's gatling guns at the end of the video. It looks like one of these: http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/ah-67.jpg

 

[K e r b e r o s]

There's a reason people assumed that your thread title was picked more for shock factor rather than for objectivity.

Are you insinuating it wasn't objective of me to call them combatants?

Because they where still killed while surrendering; and I have to assume they where killed because of their status as combatants. Since we still have no audio of the Pilot's to the Mission Observer, I wouldn't call this a mistake.

 

[Sulkdodds]

No, I'm not insinuating anything. There was only one person. Where did the plural come from? Why 'combatants'?

There were two attack helicopters, that's the other helicopter that was attacking him, that helicopter strafes the car with it's gatling guns at the end of the video. It looks like one of these: http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/ah-67.jpg

Why do you say there are two helicopters? The video may well be taken from a UAV. It seems apparent that whatever aircraft is carrying the camera does not itself take any shots.
I guess also two helicopters for one white car would seem slightly odd.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Where did the plural come from? Why 'combatants'?

Because he got out from the passenger side door.

Well, the pilot had clearly already engaged him (he fires before the car even stops).

Your question should be Sulkdodds; if one of the Helicopters had already fired at the Car, then why did the shots hit the man instead?

Also, notice the large black plume next to the one made of sand? The black smoke and small explosion preceeding it insinuates an explosive tipped munition was used; hence why I also referenced 30mm as a possibility.

Because a .50 Calibre shot doesn't start a fire unless it hits something that can catch fire. Even then, you're relying on the friction, ballistics and transfer of energy to start a fire (that's if the round isn't explosive tipped.) Ever watch concrete burn from a bullet? I haven't.

Here's what tells me that a potential explosive tipped .50 Calibre shot wasn't fired; the blast radius is the size of the car.

 

[unozero]

why is this thread still open? As long as there is investigation or Interview with pilots further discussion is rather pointless.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Because there's an interesting debate on international law to be had as well.
Oh hey, welcome to the politics forum, where we can't ever actually change anything except other people's opinions, and usually not even those.

Your question should be Sulkdodds; if one of the Helicopters had already fired at the Car, then why did the shots hit the man instead?

I would like you to actually start reading posts in this thread:

I mean that the pilot had already fired some shots (which missed) earlier in the video. Unless the smoke puffs from 01-08 seconds are from some other source.

As for the passenger-side, good point (for us in the UK that's the drivers' side) but considering we don't see a single other human being in the video, I don't think that really shows us much - especially considering that although Iraqi drivers drive on the right side of the road, this does not always imply that the driver sits on the left. So it's all a bit of a sketchy basis on which to allege that there were not one, but two, "surrendering combatants".

EDIT: Did you really think carefully about all of this before you posted the video, or is this retroactive justification for the title?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

As for the passenger-side, good point (for us in the UK that's the drivers' side) but considering we don't see a single other human being in the video, I don't think that really shows us much - especially considering that although Iraqi drivers drive on the right side of the road, this does not always imply that the driver sits on the left. So it's all a bit of a sketchy basis on which to allege that there were not one, but two, "surrendering combatants".

True. I edited my post a bit just to clear a few things up and explain the munitions part a bit.

I would like you to actually start reading posts in this thread:

Still a relevant question, I believe. If at the car, how did they hit the man?

EDIT: Did you really think carefully about all of this before you posted the video, or is this retroactive justification for the title?

Of course I gave it some thought.

Isn't it ironic inbetween the time you and I where having a debate in another thread about questions and atrocities, that this magically popped up? The tragedy, I thought, was that this little gambit of mine was going to give our earlier clashing of words away (and this would now obviously appear as another form of rebuttal.) Now, before you get me wrong and see this as me using the death of someone to cowardly barter my argumentative position with you, read below:

Sulk, this isn't really to justify the title; more or less, to justify my position that I'm an equal oppertunity bastard and believe our government is capable of atrocities. The, "Our Government Does Wrong Too", isn't a role I'm acting out either. Here, I'm practically forced to be the Devil's Advocate; but from time to time, I would like to appreciate more realistic standards and not rant or rave with, "The enemies everywhere!" gobbledigook. It's been my fear, "that if our government can treat our prisoners of war like animals, then they can also treat its citizens similiarly." I sincerely thought you wouldn't believe me if I told you that our government was capable of atrocities; like you'd take it more or less as, apolgetica. Sometimes, I also worried that you thought my questioning of your rhetoric was all for the sake of being a smart ass or some Conservative mouth piece who believes that his party, "Could do no wrong." Yet, it's in this video here thats it's own case, solved; and emphasizes what I hate our government:

That when situations like these come up, there's not enough information about them to be sure.

I already asked my questions before posting here. The information I've been posting here is a resource I've had available to me since starting this thread. I'm just not copying and pasting what I actually wrote.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I should say now that I am generally unconvinced of the utility of these discussions, where unqualified internet ameteurs without very much concrete information on the situation (even the number of helicopters has to be assumed on shaky grounds) pore over a short, grainy video.

EDIT: What are you asking me? Because it sounded like you thought I was claiming that the shots that hit the man were themselves aimed at the car.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I should say now that I am generally unconvinced of the utility of these discussions, where unqualified internet ameteurs without very much concrete information on the situation (even the number of helicopters has to be assumed on shaky grounds) pore over a short, grainy video.

You want a still picture from the video?

Check the attachements later.

What are you asking me?

Questioning why if, as you said, the shots where fired at the car ... then how did they hit the man instead?

Watch it again.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

No, I'm not insinuating anything. There was only one person. Where did the plural come from? Why 'combatants'?

Why do you say there are two helicopters? The video may well be taken from a UAV. It seems apparent that whatever aircraft is carrying the camera does not itself take any shots.
I guess also two helicopters for one white car would seem slightly odd.

Because it kind of looked like two helicopter shadows went past the car at the beginning, but I guess that was just that low flying helicopter and it's shadow.

The helicopter that strafed the car at the end does not look like an Apache, it looks too short/tall/etc. That and there seems to be two different sized bullet impact/explosions, you have the larger explosions that could be 30mm that you see hitting around the car at the beginning of the video and killing him towards the end. Then the line of much smaller impacts you see when that helicopter strafes the area next to the car at the end of the video.

From what I've seen/read/etc. before, though it's possible, it's not normal for an Apache to carry smaller caliber guns (instead of rockets/etc.) in addition to it's 30mm gun.

The helicopter in the video: http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/7181/helicopterto3.jpg

An Apache Longbow: http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y114/creamontop/choppers/Apache_25_rd.jpg

 

[Sulkdodds]

You could be right D:
But look at this, this is exactly my point. Anyone reasonable would go and find out what this incident was, how many helicopters there were. But we can't, because the video is put up on livelink bereft of context, identification or anything else. Which is why I think perhaps it might have been a little more sensible to avoid making any claims about exactly what the helicopter was, and just say "helicopter", which we can at least be sure of.

Questioning why if, as you said, the shots where fired at the car ... then how did they hit the man instead?

No, because, see, I didn't actually say that. Shots were fired, and hit, long before the car even stopped.

You seem to find communication very difficult, and it is very difficult to communicate with you, as you appear to operate in a different arena of intelligibility than any of the rest of us. In your hands, the simplest question becomes a trap where meaning is lost.

Case in point: "You still want a picture from the video?"
What are you talking about?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

No, because, see, I didn't actually say that. Shots were fired, and hit, long before the car even stopped.

No, because then where talking about two different things.

The car was stopped when the man stepped out of it. It did not keep moving.

Did you see that in the video?

Anyone reasonable would go and find out what this incident was, how many helicopters there were. But we can't, because the video is put up on livelink bereft of context, identification or anything else. Which is why I think perhaps it might have been a little more sensible to avoid making any claims about exactly what the helicopter was, and just say "helicopter", which we can at least be sure of.

Check the Attachements -- also, one of the vehicles in pursuit doesn't look like an Apache but a AH Cobra.

 

[Sulkdodds]

What is "then where talking"?

You said: "this crew of Pilots engaged and shot him after he surrendered".

I said that the helicopter pilot had already "engaged" in combat because he had already fired some shots near the beginning of the video. But these were not the shots that hit the man. These were different shots. Earlier in the video. You can see them at around 0:05. They hit the road. They do not hit the man. They are different shots.

This in mind, I would like to know why you keep asking me nonsensical questions about "shots fired at the car hitting the man instead".

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You said: "this crew of Pilots engaged and shot him after he surrendered".

I said that the helicopter pilot had already "engaged" in combat because he had already fired some shots near the beginning of the video.

Your statement was a little vague; still, if this is what you meant, then there is no question about the shots fired later, which is what I was talking about. About those shots: The pilots specifically targeted the combatant who surrendered, instead of the vehicle he got out of; did you notice that? I'm sure everyone did but that's my problem with this whole fiasco. They shot after he surrendered and right at him. Also, the distance of the helicopters was not that far.

If you can see the shadow of a helicopter, its within 500 meters of you (depending on the time of day).

Also, check the attachements above yours (thought it would compound what you dont already know)

 

[Sulkdodds]

my initial statement was vague, but you completely ignored the clarification:

I mean that the pilot had already fired some shots (which missed) earlier in the video. Unless the smoke puffs from 01-08 seconds are from some other source.

so...whatever?

Sulk, this isn't really to justify the title; more or less, to justify my position that I'm an equal oppertunity bastard and believe our government is capable of atrocities. The, "Our Government Does Wrong Too", isn't a role I'm acting out either. Here, I'm practically forced to be the Devil's Advocate; but from time to time, I would like to appreciate more realistic standards and not rant or rave with, "The enemies everywhere!" gobbledigook. It's been my fear, "that if our government can treat our prisoners of war like animals, then they can also treat its citizens similiarly." I sincerely thought you wouldn't believe me if I told you that our government was capable of atrocities; like you'd take it more or less as, apolgetica. Sometimes, I also worried that you thought my questioning of your rhetoric was all for the sake of being a smart ass or some Conservative mouth piece who believes that his party, "Could do no wrong." Yet, it's in this video here thats it's own case, solved; and emphasizes what I hate our government...

This is reasonable, but it doesn't really change how silly you were being in the other argument. I never thought you were just being blindly conservative, since you're not exactly a Republican mouthpiece, but your arguments did not stand up. That was all.