video of Civilians killed in Baghdad. - General

[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=919173[/url] Yeah, This Guys A Troll...

[QUOTE=SergeantDead;21204524]Jerking off to it, well that's a different story.[/QUOTE] It's your story. [QUOTE=LeonS;21204535]That makes no sense whatsoever so I won't even bother. GOOD DAY SIR[/QUOTE] Cheerio ol' chap. [QUOTE=Parrrky;21204563][url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=919173[/url] Yeah, This Guys A Troll...[/QUOTE] Oh, haha, I forgot to check up on that thread. Ty for reminder.

[QUOTE=XCIV;21204564]It's your story. Cheerio ol' chap. Oh, haha, I forgot to check up on that thread. Ty for reminder.[/QUOTE] So are you trolling or not???

[QUOTE=Parrrky;21204576]So are you trolling or not???[/QUOTE] No one takes the furry forum seriously, its all spam. Speaking of which 100% of your posts in this thread are also spam/unrelated to the topic. But by all means continue to mirror what I say and use cheap and obvious troll tactics to rage me into oblivion and beyond while you slowly clutter the thread and coincidentally bore me to death with poorly written posts.

XCIV, why are you even arguing with idiots?

[QUOTE=Sporkfire;21204695]XCIV, why are you even arguing with idiots?[/QUOTE] Sleep deprivation makes you find entertainment in stupid shit I guess. Night.

[QUOTE=XCIV;21204630]No one takes the furry forum seriously, its all spam. Speaking of which 100% of your posts in this thread are also spam/unrelated to the topic. But by all means continue to mirror what I say and use cheap and obvious troll tactics to rage me into oblivion and beyond while you slowly clutter the thread and coincidentally bore me to death with poorly written posts.[/QUOTE] Excuse me, most of my posts have been relevent the others being questioning your motive to avoid answering my relevant posts in the first place! [editline]07:43AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sporkfire;21204695]XCIV, why are you even arguing with idiots?[/QUOTE] Excuse me, if you're willing, elaborate what he's trying to say taking into consideration my questions...

[QUOTE=Marlowe;21204407]XCIV, [LIST] [*]you're a little bitch for caring about terrorists. [*]they clearly fucking had automatic rifles. [*]they weren't reporters. [/LIST] [/QUOTE] ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Oh my god, I swear I will, oh my god

[QUOTE=Wakka;21204880]ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Oh my god, I swear I will, oh my god[/QUOTE] What's your problem?

[QUOTE=Wakka;21204880]ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Oh my god, I swear I will, oh my god[/QUOTE] Here we have it ladies and gents. The single greatest post on the internet. War is a terrible thing. I don't know if they had guns or not, but that is what war is. Its not some imaginary good vs evil battle. Its the human race fighting for scraps of the Earth. People will get hurt, and sometimes innocent people die. Its a sad truth, but these men have orders to fulfill or die themselves.

[QUOTE=XCIV;21204337]Here, you're too near sighted to figure anything out so I'll lay it out for you: The weapons where judged from a distance and confirmed in a very quick manor by a "footman" who wasn't equipped with optical or sight enhancing equipment (binoculars, scope, ect). They also where sighted as having an RPG which is fucking bullshit because no one was carrying anything remotely similar to an rpg obvious from the footage. [/quote] In that situation, their equipment COULD be mistaken for weapons. The camera tripod could easily be an unloaded RPG. I'm not so sure about the small arms, but looking at low-res footage under pressure, those three black pixels could look like an assault rifle. [quote] Go to the collateral murders sight and find out there where many innocents killed in that group as well as two children who where fired on even quicker than the group of people with even less verification [/quote] If you mean the Hellfire part, that I couldn't see since Youtube fucked up. I'll just take your word for it. [quote] The soldiers behaved as if they didn't care about killing and showed an obvious disregard for human life.[/quote] They voluntarily joined the military, it's not like they're pacifists or anything. Not to mention most youth today is like that. [quote] The group they fired on was not a threat even if one of them where carrying light arms [/list] [/quote] If one of them had carried a RPG it could have dropped the chopper. They did what was appropriate in the situation and engaged them. [QUOTE=XCIV;21203881]I don't want to see member's of our nation's military gunning down innocent people for sport, it gives me an unnerving feeling like there's this uncontrolled power these people have over other people's lives.[/QUOTE] "For sport". Yeah. They asked for permission to engage, they got it. They described the situation from their perspective, and that was enough to merit them the permission. Yes, it was a camera tripod. So what? If someone leaves a bag in the subway, the whole place could get evacuated. If someone receives white powder in the mail, the neighborhood will get closed down due to an Anthrax scare. If you poke a metal pole out of a window facing the president having a speech, don't be surprised when SWAT busts down your door and may shoot you just because they had a suspicion that you might be a sniper. It's called early prevention. Acting on a suspicion. If everyone would always simply react, there'd be more dead people. So you see someone who is clearly psychotic, and you let him buy a gun from your store? Then he climbs to a clock tower and shoots 13 people before the police take him down with after taking a casualty? Yeah, sure, the guys in the Apache should have waited until the RPG fired and the Bradley crew got roasted. [QUOTE=XCIV;21204512]Watching anime is an emergent result of a particular type of perspective and mindset. Not a specific or absolute mindset, but a general one. In general, people who associate with anime very frequently seem to consistently be oddballs and are never in tune with normal social behavior and normal societal values. Often lack common sense too.[/QUOTE] Everyone who has ever watched Pokémon is a creepy pervert stalker gun nut who has no compassion for others and is a social outcast who is planning a school bombing.

[QUOTE=Sonicdude;21205063]Here we have it ladies and gents. The single greatest post on the internet. War is a terrible thing. I don't know if they had guns or not, but that is what war is. Its not some imaginary good vs evil battle. Its the human race fighting for scraps of the Earth. People will get hurt, and sometimes innocent people die. Its a sad truth, but these men have orders to fulfill or die themselves.[/QUOTE] Still doesn't justify it. [editline]12:31AM[/editline] @Zezibesh: He clearly was trigger happy and eager to kill Reuters employee who was struggling to live. He was saying, "Come on, all you have to do is pick up that gun" "Permission to kill him" Seriously.

[iMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/14jt5pc.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205098] @Zezibesh: He clearly was trigger happy and eager to kill Reuters employee who was struggling to live. He was saying, "Come on, all you have to do is pick up that gun" "Permission to kill him" Seriously.[/QUOTE] Yeah he was. Doesn't really make it wrong though. He was given permission to kill them. [editline]10:38AM[/editline] Not to mention he didn't know it was a journalist. [editline]10:39AM[/editline] Sir_takeslot's .gif is pretty clear, by the way. RPG is vague, but I don't see how the AK could be anything else.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;21205177]Yeah he was. Doesn't really make it wrong though. He was given permission to kill them. [editline]10:38AM[/editline] Not to mention he didn't know it was a journalist. [editline]10:39AM[/editline] Sir_takeslot's .gif is pretty clear, by the way. RPG is vague, but I don't see how the AK could be anything else.[/QUOTE] One man with an AK. Could have been a personal bodyguard. [editline]12:42AM[/editline] Small arms. He wasn't even wearing a tactical vest.

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205206]One man with an AK. Could have been a personal bodyguard. [editline]12:42AM[/editline] Small arms. He wasn't even wearing a tactical vest.[/QUOTE] Because Bodyguards need RPGs.

By the looks of it, Western garb. There was no article of clothing that indicated that they belonged to a militant faction.

Their ROE probably says that you can engage a suspected insurgent target if they have small arms with them. Yes, they might be morally fucked up if they shoot with such vague intel but from what I see they did everything according to the rules. Doesn't make it right, but they shouldn't be prosecuted for that. [editline]10:48AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Wakka;21205249]By the looks of it, Western garb. There was no article of clothing that indicated that they belonged to a militant faction.[/QUOTE] That's just stretching it. There's nothing to say they couldn't have been disguised, or just lacking in gear.

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205249]By the looks of it, Western garb. There was no article of clothing that indicated that they belonged to a militant faction.[/QUOTE] Stripped shirt and tan pants it looks like, That's total Western garb. Because no other people in the world has anything, ANYTHING that looks like it. Even if it is Western clothing, Doesn't mean they aren't insurgents, A insurgent can pick up a M-16, Does that make him a American soldier because he is using American weapons?

[release] [B]U.S. Military ROE[/B] The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows: [LIST] [*]Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply. [*]Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply. [*]Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points. [*]Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows. [*]Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm. [/LIST] Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by battle-space commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. In order for this to be accomplished, battle-space commanders must manufacture rules of engagement that will not violate the trust of the local population, but will instead foster a relationship of respect and understanding.[/release] ROE were broken. Even if there were two people with weapons, they're legally only allowed to engage those two targets. Not the entire group. Also, those men were isolated and would have not been able to engage any American soldier. [editline]12:52AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;21205283]Stripped shirt and tan pants it looks like, That's total Western garb. Because no other people in the world has anything, ANYTHING that looks like it. Even if it is Western clothing, Doesn't mean they aren't insurgents, A insurgent can pick up a M-16, Does that make him a American soldier because he is using American weapons?[/QUOTE] Because Sunnis and Shiites should be able to distinguish themselves to be able to combat the opposing faction. You could see this in the type of head turban they might wear.

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205298] [editline]12:52AM[/editline] Because Sunnis and Shiites should be able to distinguish themselves to be able to combat the opposing faction. You could see this in the type of head turban they might wear.[/QUOTE] Your implying their one of those two factions, For all we know they could be one of the many militant factions in the middle east. I think your scraping the bottom of the barrel here for some shit.

Nevertheless, I feel as though ROE was broken.

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205365]Nevertheless, I feel as though ROE was broken.[/QUOTE] It might have been, I didn't watch the entire video, If they killed some innocents, Shame on them they should be in trouble. Shame on the innocents for staying around also, Really, If something is shooting at your or in your generally area, You don't stay around and try to help anyone if you don't want a chance at dying, You should get the fuck out of there, Regardless if it's your home or not.

[QUOTE=Wakka;21205298][release] [B]U.S. Military ROE[/B] The 1999 Marine Corps Close Combat Manual (MCRP 3-02B) presents a “Continuum of Force” broken down as follows: [LIST] [*]Level 1: Compliant (Cooperative). The subject responds and complies to verbal commands. Close combat techniques do not apply. [*]Level 2: Resistant (Passive). The subject resists verbal commands but complies immediately to any contact controls. Close combat techniques do not apply. [*]Level 3: Resistant (Active). The subject initially demonstrates physical resistance. Use compliance techniques to control the situation. Level three incorporates close combat techniques to physically force a subject to comply. Techniques include: Come-along holds, Soft-handed stunning blows, Pain compliance through the use of joint manipulation and the use of pressure points. [*]Level 4: Assaultive (Bodily Harm). The subject may physically attack, but does not use a weapon. Use defensive tactics to neutralize the threat. Defensive tactics include Blocks, Strikes, Kicks, Enhanced pain compliance procedures, Impact weapon blocks and blows. [*]Level 5: Assaultive (Lethal Force). The subject usually has a weapon and will either kill or injure someone if he/she is not stopped immediately and brought under control. The subject must be controlled by the use of deadly force with or without a firearm. [/LIST] Rules of engagement are most often decided upon by battle-space commanders and are created to carry out and fall in line with over-arching orders or goals from higher command. In order for this to be accomplished, battle-space commanders must manufacture rules of engagement that will not violate the trust of the local population, but will instead foster a relationship of respect and understanding.[/release] ROE were broken. Even if there were two people with weapons, they're legally only allowed to engage those two targets. Not the entire group. Also, those men were isolated and would have not been able to engage any American soldier. [editline]12:52AM[/editline] Because Sunnis and Shiites should be able to distinguish themselves to be able to combat the opposing faction. You could see this in the type of head turban they might wear.[/QUOTE] Alright, but don't blame the gunner. He got the permission to engage, so blame the person who gave it.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;21205385]It might have been, I didn't watch the entire video, If they killed some innocents, Shame on them they should be in trouble. Shame on the innocents for staying around also, Really, If something is shooting at your or in your generally area, You don't stay around and try to help anyone if you don't want a chance at dying, You should get the fuck out of there, Regardless if it's your home or not.[/QUOTE] There was no time to hide. Everybody pretty much died all at once. They were all taking cover beside a wall, presumably to stay out of view of the helicopter. [editline]01:03AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Zezibesh;21205399]Alright, but don't blame the gunner. He got the permission to engage, so blame the person who gave it.[/QUOTE] The gunner was reporting what he determined were insurgents. He begged his superior to engage the man who was helping the victim... he's just as guilty as his officer.

That's marine corps ROE and outdated.

I would think that air units have different ROE from ground forces but im not sure.

[QUOTE=Marlowe;21204407]XCIV, [LIST] [*]you're a little bitch for caring about terrorists. [*]they clearly fucking had automatic rifles. [*]they weren't reporters. [/LIST] [/QUOTE] One of the groups were reporters, 2 or 3 people later in the video did have automatic rifles though.

They were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

AK-47s are legal in Iraq... you can walk down the street carrying one, much like a protester over here can have a gun on him at a protest. Having an AK-47 doesn't make you a terrorist. It's a shame that the reporters had their cameras mistaken for RPGs, and a shame that one of the reporters was on the phone with the van driver, which alerted him to get over there and try to help them, ending his life also... This video explains more of it than the one by the OP [media] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0[/url][/media] theres also more information about the incident here: [url]http://www.collateralmurder.com/[/url] Including the 2006-2007 US ROE for Iraq which a few of you are disputing.