Opinions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20LkYvEZOZs

Opinions? And NOT of the war, not part of the discussion.

I kind of have mixed feeling, but the first thing I think of when I see this video is, why the fuck is that guy, an innocent civilian carrying a weapon in a warzone. Well, I'd suppose it makes sense sort of, if you think about it, but honestly, thats pretty stupid on his part. The best way to survive a war is to stay out of it.

And its not like the US guys were just like "TERRORISTS!!!!" and opened fire, they waited a good bit and thought about what they would do.

BUT, they did make shit up after awhile. And seemed to enjoy the killing...

And fuck, that shit with the van? I guess thats the price for trying to do something good.

And wtf? Not letting them into the hospital?

Well he's carrying a camera actually.

Anyways, yeah they did good with the waiting and all, it was not their fault to not know it was a camera cause to me it looked like a weapon aswell so yeah.

That is just a really bad mistake made by them.

But that shit with the van was messed up though, maybe they thought they were picking up their weapons or something but yeah.

Haven't seen the video. Won't see it until next week. Have read about it and considering it was from a gunship many things can be taken into consideration:

1) They (the target) didn't seem to pose quite a threat to the gunship. So it was not "preemtive strike".
2) The crew of the gunship was not fired upon so this was definitely not a "defensive strike".
3) Taking into account the kind of weaponry carried by gunships such as the AH-64, it was definitely an overkill furthering how few of a threat their target was.
4) Soldiers are under a lot of stress in a war, many do get traumatized and sometimes its even reasonable for them to think that a dog carries a potential hazard to their integrity, hence some paranoia and thus an offensive reaction might be expected.
5) We have seen before soldiers enjoying their job too much, to the point of furthering the whole scope of their job and blending it with personal interests like, say, sadism. So that the soldiers actually enjoyed and acted for fun is also quite probable.
6) It's a war zone, it's crazy out there. For many carrying a gun could mean the diference between life and dead. We, who have not been in a war and haven't seen firsthand how things in Iraq are could hardly imagine the situations in which people are there and couldn't quite understand why civilians would be carrying weapons. We could make a bunch of conjectures and still they could well be innacurate. Reasonably speaking, for all we know, they could have been carrying those weapons to prevent getting mugged or something similar, considering how chaotic things seem to be in a war. And, again, carrying some Ak-47s and cameras hardly justifies firing any of the weapons carried by an AH-64.

Um, Zeal, the point of the AC is to eliminate hostiles premtively to prevent soldiers on the ground getting hurt. So "defensive" and whether or not their weapons posed a threat to the gunship is moot.

Quote :

6

War zone. If you're carrying a weapon, sorry, you're a target. Sorry, but, well, sorry. Bang.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Um, Zeal, the point of the AC is to eliminate hostiles premtively to prevent soldiers on the ground getting hurt. So "defensive" and whether or not their weapons posed a threat to the gunship is moot.

It's not moot when some, and I've read and heard many, say that the soldiers were acting in self [preemptive] defense.

Then, they had no certainty that those guys posed a threat to soldiers in the ground.

And they were certainly not providing CAS.

TK wrote:

Quote :

6

War zone. If you're carrying a weapon, sorry, you're a target. Sorry, but, well, sorry. Bang.

I'm pretty sure this goes against their (hypocritical) rules of engagement considering they didn't confirm their target was a threat or whether there were civilians that could potentially get harmed by their actions.

Quote :

Then, they had no certainty that those guys posed a threat to soldiers in the ground.

People carrying guns in a war zone. They pose a threat in the future.

Quote :

And they were certainly not providing CAS.

If you saw an enemy patrol, you'd ignore them? And when that patrol in the future, abushes and kills your marines?

Quote :

I'm pretty sure this goes against their (hypocritical) rules of engagement considering they didn't confirm their target was a threat or whether there were civilians that could potentially get harmed by their actions.

That wasn't part of the peacekeeping operation, it was part of the war, so being fired upon is moot. in addition, the rules of engagement, that is only fire if fired upon, are suspended in regards to things like the AC. Besides, they did confirm. One was holding an RPG. MAYBE civilians might carry AKs, but NOT RPGs. I KNOW it was in actuality a camera, but you can't tell that. Fire control assumed it was an RPG, and most often than not, he'd be right.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

People carrying guns in a war zone. They pose a threat in the future.

That's just an assumption. And even so, they didn't just kill armed guys.

Also by this standard, if US was a war zone sometime in the future, the invader would be justified to literally cause a genocide.

TK wrote:

If you saw an enemy patrol, you'd ignore them? And when that patrol in the future, abushes and kills your marines?

They didn't have the possitive ID that those were an enemy patrol. Plus again, they didn't just target armed people.

TK wrote:

That wasn't part of the peacekeeping operation, it was part of the war, so being fired upon is moot.

So no rules of engagement during war?

TK wrote:

in addition, the rules of engagement, that is only fire if fired upon, are suspended in regards to things like the AC.

What's "AC" again?

TK wrote:

Besides, they did confirm. One was holding an RPG. MAYBE civilians might carry AKs, but NOT RPGs. I KNOW it was in actuality a camera, but you can't tell that. Fire control assumed it was an RPG, and most often than not, he'd be right.

They didn't confirm it was an RPG because well it turned out to be a camera. And, when your profession is being a soldier it's your obligation to be able to distinguish between a camera and an RPG which, by the way, don't look anything alike. So confusing an RPG with a camera, as a soldier, makes you an idiot and definitely doesn't help when trying to make your case that you were eliminating a threat.

And all this in top of the premise that absolutely no US shot since the first weapon shot in 2003 against Iraq had any justification meaning that any weapon used by the US soldiers in any way or circumstance were unjustified from non polemic actions like shooting an ATGM against a tank to launching a barrage of rockets at a market because two guys with RPGs were spotted. So exepect specially harsh criticism on any poleic action performed by US soldiers in which civilians somehow get hurt.

And more if they come with stupid excuses like "we thought the camera was an RPG".

As you put it it seems more like they were some trigger-happy psychos waiting for the slightest excuse to attack.

Quote :

That's just an assumption. And even so, they didn't just kill armed guys.

No, no, no. I'm not talking about THIS incident, I'm saying in all encounters like this.

Quote :

Also by this standard, if US was a war zone sometime in the future, the invader would be justified to literally cause a genocide.

If all the civilians are running around with RPGs, then yes.

Quote :

They didn't have the possitive ID that those were an enemy patrol. Plus again, they didn't just target armed people.

I'm not arguing these guys fucked up. I'm talking the situation in general, which is what I thought you were originaly talking about. Besides, one "looked" to be carrying an RPG. Basically, enough said. PRGs are a positive ID.

Quote :

So no rules of engagement during war?

For an AC-110? No. Is a sniper only supposed to fire on those firing on him? Same deal. Only with a plane.

Quote :

What's "AC" again?

Ac-110, the plane. That is the name, right? I forget.

Quote :

They didn't confirm it was an RPG because well it turned out to be a camera.

From that distance it could have been either. He made the call. It was the wrong one, but his actions there few would call into question. The problem was the OTHER stuff, like making up the weapons, though one DID have an AK, and the attitude, in addition to the van later. He saw someone carrying something that looks like an RPG, and another in the same group with an AK. He made the correct decision to fire, given the material conditions he had at his disposal.

Quote :

And, when your profession is being a soldier it's your obligation to be able to distinguish between a camera and an RPG which, by the way, don't look anything alike.

I couldn't tell. How do you know that soldier could?

Quote :

So confusing an RPG with a camera, as a soldier, makes you an idiot and definitely doesn't help when trying to make your case that you were eliminating a threat.

One had an AK, the other had an object that looked suspiscuoisly like an RPG. In hindsight he was wrong, but at the time he made the right call in that regard. Yes he made it up about the other guns. But that's not what you're arguing about.

Quote :

And all this in top of the premise that absolutely no US shot since the first weapon shot in 2003 against Iraq had any justification meaning that any weapon used by the US soldiers in any way or circumstance were unjustified from non polemic actions like shooting an ATGM against a tank to launching a barrage of rockets at a market because two guys with RPGs were spotted. So exepect specially harsh criticism on any poleic action performed by US soldiers in which civilians somehow get hurt.

The fuck does this have to do with anything?

Quote :

And more if they come with stupid excuses like "we thought the camera was an RPG".

One other was carrying an AK. Based on his material conditions at the time, he did what he thought was best. You can apprecate that, I'm sure.

Quote :

As you put it it seems more like they were some trigger-happy psychos waiting for the slightest excuse to attack.

Well yes, absolutely. No doubt there. But basically the camera could have been easilly mistaken for an RPG.

Ever played modern warfare two? Where you're driving by insugrents but you can't shoot at them until they shoot at you? If thats the kind of image they're setting up for US soldiers, they should at least keep it.

First, those are infantry, not AC-110s, second, it's a game. Third, it also depends on the mission.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

First, those are infantry, not AC-110s, second, it's a game. Third, it also depends on the mission.

AH-64 "Apache". Also, I will reply to your previous post, just not now. I currently don't have the capability of doing so without risking to lose everything for my computer freezing up.

Actually I don't think that was an apache, but a huey. But you're right, chopper, not plane.

But moot, as he was refering to the early Afganistan mission after blowing the bridge, not America.