The first engagement with the small group of guys with visible weapons was fine in my book. If they didn't want their kid to get wounded, why did they bring her into a warzone? The building attack was pretty uncalled for though, especially since when they launched the first missile there was a civilian right in front of the building.
I also think the van part was justified, if you're going to help a group of armed combatants you'd better expect to get shot at.
[QUOTE=Dclone2;21190134]31:12 ->
What the fuck.
[editline]06:00PM[/editline]
They fucking live there, goddamn.[/QUOTE]
IF YOU HEAR FUCKING GUN FIRE, DON'T BRING YOUR CHILDREN OUTSIDE, FIND THE NEAREST PIECE OF COVER WITH NO ONE ENGAGING. God...
Facts: The "weapon" was a camera taken by a famous journalist if you didn't know. I mean the first part of the video when they first opened fire on the "hostiles".
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190127]No they're right, it is their fault for bringing a child into a war zone.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's both of their faults.
Taking a child to an active warzone is a pretty big godamn risk, but them opening fire... Augh.
[QUOTE=Micr0;21190205]The first engagement with the small group of guys with visible weapons was fine in my book. If they didn't want their kid to get wounded, why did they bring her into a warzone? The building attack was pretty uncalled for though, especially since when they launched the first missile there was a civilian right in front of the building.
I also think the van part was justified, if you're going to help a group of armed combatants you'd better expect to get shot at.[/QUOTE]
There was no child among them. The child was killed from collateral.
[img]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2862/captureyl.png[/img]
the people they engaged
In occupied Iraq, loitering is punishable by death.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190217]IF YOU HEAR FUCKING GUN FIRE, DON'T BRING YOUR CHILDREN OUTSIDE, FIND THE NEAREST PIECE OF COVER WITH NO ONE ENGAGING. God...[/QUOTE]
There was no gunfire at the time.
[QUOTE=Micr0;21190205]The first engagement with the small group of guys with visible weapons was fine in my book. If they didn't want their kid to get wounded, why did they bring her into a warzone? The building attack was pretty uncalled for though, especially since when they launched the first missile there was a civilian right in front of the building.
I also think the van part was justified, if you're going to help a group of armed combatants you'd better expect to get shot at.[/QUOTE]
They were carrying shopping bags, and the journalists were carrying cameras.
Apparently a bag is an AK and a camera is an RPG now.
[QUOTE=SeamanStaines;21190256]In occupied Iraq, loitering is punishable by death.[/QUOTE]
Loitering with weapons and RPG ammo in a warzone is punishable by death.
ITT: no army isn't allowed to kill terrorists that have a fucking RPG
Crazy fucking fuckers! Im never joining the army! What is wrong with them! Is it just okay to shoot people because they have guns? I mean come on! And why the hell are they enjoying it!
"Cant we all just get along..."
Uh... wait, why did they even shoot the van? It was obvious they were civilians, and were just trying to help the wounded man (obviously without weapons).
Oh and guys, learn to read, those people were unarmed. The weapons were just cameras - some of them were journalists.
When your job is killing people the best way to deal with it is to enjoy it. they are fighting people that would kill them in a heartbeat they should be enjoying it.
War isn't simple, nor is the situation always clear. Taken out of context of the whole picture, and possible prior insurgency in those areas, it shows US military killing unidentified people, the majority of the time holding objects which are quite possibly weapons. The kill chain is adhered to in this filming. Soldier's jobs are to kill what they're told to kill, they got permission from their CO's, and described the situation, no wrong has been done by them.
[QUOTE=Dclone2;21190257]There was no gunfire at the time.[/QUOTE]
So they child just had a bullet wound in her stomach completely by coincidence?
[QUOTE=Janizaurd;21190340]Uh... wait, why did they even shoot the van? It was obvious they were civilians, and were just trying to help the wounded man (obviously without weapons).
Oh and guys, learn to read, those people were unarmed. The weapons were just cameras - some of them were journalists.[/QUOTE]
Think of it this way, If you were in WWII and you shot a group of people. And more people ran up to take them, wouldn't you assumed that they did so and reacted so because they too are blood sucking Nazis? And its hard to tell whats an RPG and whats a camera when not more than 400yards away there were insurgents.
Oh and this doesn't look suspicious...
[IMG]http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/6967/peak.jpg[/IMG]
Guy with camera looking like hes picking around the corner
[QUOTE=kittykaty;21190356]War isn't simple, nor is the situation always clear. Taken out of context of the whole picture, and possible prior insurgency in those areas, it shows US military killing unidentified people, the majority of the time holding objects which are quite possibly weapons. The kill chain is adhered to in this filming. Soldier's jobs are to kill what they're told to kill, they got permission from their CO's, and described the situation, no wrong has been done by them.[/QUOTE]
My thoughts exactly. There is prolly more footage then this and has more details. It isn't like they flew over and said "lol lets kill some shit." They've obviously been tipped off and had intel.
However I'm not defending them blindly, if someone wrong was done then they need to be held accountable.
But from the looks of the video they where clearing out the area (which isn't uncommon) for the strikers, it doesn't take much from a RPG to fuck up a APC, that is why they have that "fence" looking thing around it to catch the RPG rather then have it explode on impact.
It's also truly hard to tell from the video as well, seeing as it has most likely been compressed and quality has been lost. And it is uploaded on youtube too. But people just look for reasons to bitch about the military and all the time.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190127]No they're right, it is their fault for bringing a child into a war zone.[/QUOTE]
Because bringing a child to a pedophile's home gives the pedophile the right to rape the child.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190412]So they child just had a bullet wound in her stomach completely by coincidence?[/QUOTE]
They were not engaging with conventional weapons, they were engaging from the air. You cannot know where or when it is going to be fired at you. Also, shrapnel.
that is just sick.
[QUOTE=Dclone2;21190450]They were not engaging with conventional weapons, they were engaging from the air. You cannot know where or when it is going to be fired at you. Also, shrapnel.[/QUOTE]
The fucking apache didn't shoot at the child, the foot soldiers did.
Did you not watch the whole video at all?
Hey Sayid, nice AK man are you gonna shoot some infidels or someth- RATATATATATA
[QUOTE=Janizaurd;21190340]Uh... wait, why did they even shoot the van? It was obvious they were civilians, and were just trying to help the wounded man (obviously without weapons).
Oh and guys, learn to read, those people were unarmed. The weapons were just cameras - some of them were journalists.[/QUOTE]
They had firearms, one of the guys clearly has an AK, yes there were journalists, but they should have known how to react in a situation of multiple people with at least one caring a gun. It would look bad, to anyone, like something was happening, and then could clearly see the helicopter, one of the guys tried to take the picture which looked to the gunner than he was aiming an RPG, it's a mistake yes.
They also shot the van because it was aiding the enemy, if they were taliban you wouldnt let the van come in and pick up all the wounded guys in an unmarked vehicle just so they can fight again tomorrow and ambush the mechanized unit that was entering the town, it was really stupid to bring your kid along in the van too, despite where you live why would you want to expose them to more bloodshed, there was no way the gunner of either of the helicopters (there was two) could have seen the girl in the van, unless you are specifically looking for a little girl, you wouldnt see one.
It would have been worse if the helicopter did it's job wrong and dismissed the situation had they actually been enemies, they would have destroyed those bradleys and humvees, causing multiple american casualties, resulting in a worse situation, more would have died, civvies and soldiers.
In war shit happens, civilian casualties happen all the time unfortunately.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190495]The fucking apache didn't shoot at the child, the foot soldiers did.
Did you not watch the whole video at all?[/QUOTE]
I cant tell if your trolling or not, but the girl was in the passenger side of the van, the soldiers took her to the US hospital where she was later transferred to an Iraqi one.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;21190495]The fucking apache didn't shoot at the child, the foot soldiers did.
Did you not watch the whole video at all?[/QUOTE]
I watched the whole 39 minute video. I don't know what you watched. I just heard 11 dead, one wounded child that needed evac. They didn't say how she was wounded they just said she was wounded and the only firing I saw was the shots that they put down the kill the 9 guys and the van with 2 other guys in it.
"Please note: This is a full uncut version of the video primarily intended for research purposes. See [url][b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrf[/b][/url]... for a short and concise version with added context."
broken link op
The hellfire missiles at the end were bad because those killed a walking by pedestrian, the fire in the first minutes were needed.
Well atleast they had a better purpose.
[QUOTE=KillerCarrot;21190526]They had firearms, one of the guys clearly has an AK, yes there were journalists, but they should have known how to react in a situation of multiple people with at least one caring a gun. It would look bad, to anyone, like something was happening, and then could clearly see the helicopter, one of the guys tried to take the picture which looked to the gunner than he was aiming an RPG, it's a mistake yes.
They also shot the van because it was aiding the enemy, if they were taliban you wouldnt let the van come in and pick up all the wounded guys in an unmarked vehicle just so they can fight again tomorrow and ambush the mechanized unit that was entering the town, it was really stupid to bring your kid along in the van too, despite where you live why would you want to expose them to more bloodshed, there was no way the gunner of either of the helicopters (there was two) could have seen the girl in the van, unless you are specifically looking for a little girl, you wouldnt see one.
It would have been worse if the helicopter did it's job wrong and dismissed the situation had they actually been enemies, they would have destroyed those bradleys and humvees, causing multiple american casualties, resulting in a worse situation, more would have died, civvies and soldiers.
In war shit happens, civilian casualties happen all the time unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
They never said where the girl was
Thread title seems to suggests that the "civillians" were unfairly engaged.
But, as we clearly see in this video, they're not "civillians" at all.
[QUOTE=darkheadcrab;21190556]Thread title seems to suggests that the "civillians" were unfairly engaged.
But, as we clearly see in this video, they're not "civillians" at all.[/QUOTE]
1 little girl
1 or more pedestrians walking by the building near the end
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
