Nine Afghan boys collecting firewood killed by NATO helicopters
233 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;28432136]I don't know if you do, but I've yet to meet a single person that has expressed any support for the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
Cuntsman, but he said he forfeited his US citizenship and wanted to live in Russia or North Korea, so I'd take anything he says with the entire gross output of the all world's desalinators.
[QUOTE=redBadger;28411033]I agree, I was about to say something similar. The first post made it seem like they have HD camera's when they don't. In fact, the cameras they use to spot targets from a helicopter have a very poor quality video feed, so it would be very easy to mistake a strange black shape (roughly the same size as a weapon) as a firearm or explosive device.[/QUOTE]
If they are unsure about their targets, don't fucking fire. This is basic logic.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;28432136]I don't know if you do, but I've yet to meet a single person that has expressed any support for the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
Because you don't live in a war torn country, genius.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;28431278]Usama bin Laden?
[editline]4th March 2011[/editline]
How old would you say this guy on top of the mountain is? Because that is how the gunners see pretty much everything...
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/xOgzR.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
I see a techpriest with an overly large gasmask standing on a giant deformed face
if this is what gunship operators actually see, they must shoot at [I]everything[/I].
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
btw, that's not actually what they see.
This isn't the first time this has happened.
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to3Ymw8L6ZI[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=K3inMitl3id;28433598]This isn't the first time this has happened.
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to3Ymw8L6ZI[/MEDIA][/QUOTE]
Pretty sure everyone's aware of this.
[QUOTE=GhostSonic;28433659]Pretty sure everyone's aware of this.[/QUOTE]
Yea I kinda thought they would be.
[QUOTE=XanaToast.;28401311]US airforce kills
targets: plenty
opfor: loads
allied forces: minimal
civillians: few
US army airforce:
targets: practically none
american troops: 6000
british servicemen: 400000
civillians: 50000
US Navy airforce
targets: 6000
allied forces: very little
american troops: virtually none
Nato airforce:
targets 3000
friendly's: 67
civillians: 6+9
RAF
Targets: 7067
Friendly's: minimal
opfor: 5000
civillians: minimal
Libya
Targets: 0
Friendly's: 600
Civillians: 4000
most airforce pilots are very trigger happy . and usually are fed misleading intel.
whatever they see that they can't identify, they blow it up
this is a tragedy, but however we should expect these kinds of accidents involving the air force.
also the wood they were carrying could have been passed of as disposible rocket launchers, they can't be perfectly projected on the thermal sights as logs[/QUOTE]
You do realize that in this situation it would most likely be the Army rather then the Air Force providing Apache support, correct? Calling Bullshit on all of your stats as well.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28406708]Being outraged at trigger happy gunman killing children is not cause for ANY alarm?
[editline]3rd March 2011[/editline]
Well fuck me, I wonder why.
[editline]3rd March 2011[/editline]
The UK is significantly lower in military presence there. Brits have their share of fuckups, but the US military seems to take the cake in constant colossal fuckups.
[editline]3rd March 2011[/editline]
Then you don't shoot. Making inferences with peoples lives is bullshit.
[editline]3rd March 2011[/editline]
You fucking fail to do this on your own military apologist end. While you have to be more careful looking for enemies in the middle east, you seem to fucking forget there are MORE civilians then combatants there and you have to watch out for civilians. Can you for once admit that the military is fucking trigger happy and cares little for the lives of civilians?
in ALL cases of things like this. You always hear shit like "well they had something that LOOKED somewhat like a weapon" without giving any consideration to the fact these guys A: WANT to shoot because they're bored or whatever and B: act quickly, irrationally and don't question if the people they're going to kill are children or journalists or what have you.
[editline]3rd March 2011[/editline]
I saw the clip, lol, looked like a tripod and a camera. Stop defending it.[/QUOTE]
While you make some valid points, you have to realize that these guys have a job to do, and many of them out there do care for the lives of civilians, but they also have to follow protocol and orders, it's just a part of war.
[QUOTE=Daedulas;28399759]Holy shit, I can understand if they accidentally Think the 15 year old ones were Insurgents (Still bloody wrong) But to mistaken a 9 year old for one? how the hell did they fuck up that hard?[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm not saying they're right in any form - this is incredibly fucked up, and very disgusting - but you'd be surprised how young some of those insurgents are.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28433534]
Because you don't live in a war torn country, genius.
[/QUOTE]
I haven't met a single Afghani who likes the Taliban. Probably because they're all refugees - abducting your elder brother and taking your business when you finally refuse to pay harsh taxes doesn't do much for PR. Get out the "we're foreign invaders all Afghans support the local taliban hero resistance movement" stereotype. When the Taliban were in power, they were a regime which brutally enforced strict Sharia law to the point of public executions, as well as genocide and other barbarities. Now they've been ejected from the seat of power, they spend their time massacring civilians and shooting at coalition troops in an attempt to regain control. Tl;dr - NO-ONE likes the Taliban.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28435260]I haven't met a single Afghani who likes the Taliban. Probably because they're all refugees - abducting your elder brother and taking your business when you finally refuse to pay harsh taxes doesn't do much for PR. Get out the "we're foreign invaders all Afghans support the local taliban hero resistance movement" stereotype. When the Taliban were in power, they were a regime which brutally enforced strict Sharia law to the point of public executions, as well as genocide and other barbarities. Now they've been ejected from the seat of power, they spend their time massacring civilians and shooting at coalition troops in an attempt to regain control. Tl;dr - NO-ONE likes the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
Also the main reason the civilians don't completely comply with NATO requests is the Taliban will probably kill them if they help the foreigners. As much as they would love to tell them where the IEDs are, they'll be riddled with holes if they try.
It's a tough spot for them. NATO forces often do stupid shit, the Taliban frequently do stupid shit, the Afghan government is one giant stupid piece of shit, they haven't got a lot to choose from.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;28435310]Also the main reason the civilians don't completely comply with NATO requests is the Taliban will probably kill them if they help the foreigners. As much as they would love to tell them where the IEDs are, they'll be riddled with holes if they try.
It's a tough spot for them. NATO forces often do stupid shit, the Taliban frequently do stupid shit, the Afghan government is one giant stupid piece of shit, they haven't got a lot to choose from.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It's not out of friendship, but out of fear - unlike NATO, the Taliban have no issue with murdering everyone who gets in their way.
I can't really say too much, given I've never actually been in the situation. However, if I was an Afghani civilian, I'd throw my weight behind NATO and the Afghan government. NATO can fuck up (see OP), and the Afghan government still has a shitload of internal/external problems to work out, sure. But, with these guys, at least there's hope, and the intention of something better. The Taliban don't have this - how the hell could a Taliban-run Afghanistan actually survive as a nation?
But there are afghan civilians who prefer the taliban, because they are afraid of getting killed by the ISAF forces. Actually, they seem more indifferent. They simply doesn't want to be bothered by coalition or the taliban.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28399707]How the fuck did fucking helicopter gunners with high resolution gun cams manage a fuck-up this colossal?[/QUOTE]
Have a fucking look at the displays they get.
Gon on, fucking do it!
It's an inch squared screen that floats in front of one eye about an inch or two from the eye, target identification can be pretty difficult.
This shouldn't have happened but you can't expect perfection all the time everytime, they're fucking human at the end of the day.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;28401158]Last time when I checked, this is also a deviate version of the AK47
[img_thumb]http://i.fosfor.se/i07/070707_3a.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Nah man thats an RPG.
And British Scimitars are flatbed trucks carrying weapons.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;28438544]Nah man thats an RPG.
And British Scimitars are flatbed trucks carrying weapons.[/QUOTE]
Hah, "weapons." That RARDEN cannon is a joke. I have no idea what the designer was thinking of when he designed that gun.
It should really be replaced with the M242 bushmaster. That cannon has proven itself repeatedly. The thing can automatically swap between HE and AP belts through an unusual gearbox system. Plus it fires over twice as fast as the RARDEN and is belt fed, rather than fed with 3 round clips.
[QUOTE=shian;28435416]But there are afghan civilians who prefer the taliban, because they are afraid of getting killed by the ISAF forces. Actually, they seem more indifferent. They simply doesn't want to be bothered by coalition or the taliban.[/QUOTE]
Got proof?
[QUOTE=GunFox;28439527]Hah, "weapons." That RARDEN cannon is a joke. I have no idea what the designer was thinking of when he designed that gun.
It should really be replaced with the M242 bushmaster. That cannon has proven itself repeatedly. The thing can automatically swap between HE and AP belts through an unusual gearbox system. Plus it fires over twice as fast as the RARDEN and is belt fed, rather than fed with 3 round clips.[/QUOTE]
They're more likely going for a bigger bore in a replacement (Maybe 35mm Bushmaster? 40mm Bofors like the CV90?) rather than going with something smaller.
[url]http://www.defencemanagement.com/article.asp?id=297&content_name=Land%20Vehicles/%20Military%20Transport&article=8688[/url]
[url]http://top-achtung.blogspot.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28435260]I haven't met a single Afghani who likes the Taliban. Probably because they're all refugees - abducting your elder brother and taking your business when you finally refuse to pay harsh taxes doesn't do much for PR. Get out the "we're foreign invaders all Afghans support the local taliban hero resistance movement" stereotype. When the Taliban were in power, they were a regime which brutally enforced strict Sharia law to the point of public executions, as well as genocide and other barbarities. Now they've been ejected from the seat of power, they spend their time massacring civilians and shooting at coalition troops in an attempt to regain control. Tl;dr - NO-ONE likes the Taliban.[/QUOTE]
So you met all 28 million Afghans? Nice, you should work for the census bureau.
The Taliban is also now a disorganised insurgency. Barely having ANY remnants of the original Taliban government. The US at this point is just occupying a country they have no right to be in. The United States wasn't even supposed to target the fucking Taliban. They kept pushing for war to attack the people who orchestrated 9/11.
Then they invaded and occupied two countries, one only mildly was involved with 9/11. Which after their involvement was completely done, your dear Bush fucked up twice and stayed the course.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;28439527]Hah, "weapons." That RARDEN cannon is a joke. I have no idea what the designer was thinking of when he designed that gun.
It should really be replaced with the M242 bushmaster. That cannon has proven itself repeatedly. The thing can automatically swap between HE and AP belts through an unusual gearbox system. Plus it fires over twice as fast as the RARDEN and is belt fed, rather than fed with 3 round clips.[/QUOTE]
Arguing over which machine kills people better doesn't really put you in a good light.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28435347]Exactly. It's not out of friendship, but out of fear - unlike NATO, the Taliban have no issue with murdering everyone who gets in their way.
I can't really say too much, given I've never actually been in the situation. However, if I was an Afghani civilian, I'd throw my weight behind NATO and the Afghan government. NATO can fuck up (see OP), and the Afghan government still has a shitload of internal/external problems to work out, sure. But, with these guys, at least there's hope, and the intention of something better. The Taliban don't have this - how the hell could a Taliban-run Afghanistan actually survive as a nation?[/QUOTE]
If this is hope, killing 9 Afghan children collecting firewood and bombing the shit out of civilians with predator drones, I wouldn't exactly have hope in NATO.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
And if my government was a corrupt and weak regime being fed support and money by the Western governments, I still wouldn't exactly have faith in EITHER.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28443344]The US at this point is just occupying a country they have no right to be in. The United States wasn't even supposed to target the fucking Taliban. They kept pushing for war to attack the people who orchestrated 9/11.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, our government asked the Taliban government of Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden, and they told us to go fuck ourselves. They were asked multiple times, and warned of military action if they didn't turn him over. The war is 100% their fault.
I'd have thought that it would have been easy getting hold of him, considering he was the go-between man of the Mujahideen and CIA when they gave them all those weapons which are now killing NATO troops.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28443344]
Arguing over which machine kills people better doesn't really put you in a good light.
[/QUOTE]
I never mentioned its killing power at all.
The bushmaster, unlike the RARDEN, can suppress positions properly. Seeing as the targets on the other end of an armored assault by UK forces are likely going to die one way or the other, minimizing friendly casualties by suppressing the enemy position would make the bushmaster better at saving lives.
It frustrates me that our British allies insist on using dated technology in many of their IFV's, putting their infantry in unnecessary risk. The more people who buy into a weapons program, the cheaper it becomes and the better compatibility on the field we have.
A tech increase in this case would likely save money in the long run and improve both the effectiveness and the safety of British troops in a modern combat situation.
That is my logic train here anyways. If you have another, I'd be happy to hear it.
[QUOTE=XanaToast.;28401311]US airforce kills
targets: plenty
opfor: loads
allied forces: minimal
civillians: few
US army airforce:
targets: practically none
american troops: 6000
british servicemen: 400000
civillians: 50000
US Navy airforce
targets: 6000
allied forces: very little
american troops: virtually none
Nato airforce:
targets 3000
friendly's: 67
civillians: 6+9
RAF
Targets: 7067
Friendly's: minimal
opfor: 5000
civillians: minimal
Libya
Targets: 0
Friendly's: 600
Civillians: 4000
most airforce pilots are very trigger happy . and usually are fed misleading intel.
whatever they see that they can't identify, they blow it up
this is a tragedy, but however we should expect these kinds of accidents involving the air force.
also the wood they were carrying could have been passed of as disposible rocket launchers, they can't be perfectly projected on the thermal sights as logs[/QUOTE]
What the fuck is the US Army Airforce? This isn't WWII.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;28411668][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655[/url]
Iranian airliner actually. Shows that advanced military technology can and will go wrong.[/QUOTE]
Ah I had heard of that, your mention of Iraqi instead of Iranian got me confused.
(Its okay, lots of people get Iran/Iraq confused :rimshot:)
Crazy situation really, good example of why computers should not be relied on that heavily.
[QUOTE=Jsm;28446984]Crazy situation really, good example of why computers should not be relied on that heavily.[/QUOTE]
Well, unfortunately that's how the United States military and furthermore to my knowledge the typical Western-style army is headed - using technology as a solution rather than a tool. It's a byproduct of whatever society they belong to. I've read some time ago how a USAF F-15C flight was beaten by Indians in dogfighting at Red Flag since they always relied on BVR weapons like AMRAAMs and support like AWACS to work in their favor everytime.
[QUOTE=Ridge;28444627]Yeah, our government asked the Taliban government of Afghanistan to hand over bin Laden, and they told us to go fuck ourselves. They were asked multiple times, and warned of military action if they didn't turn him over. The war is 100% their fault.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5[/url]
sure about that, mate?
[editline]6th March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;28445785]I never mentioned its killing power at all.
The bushmaster, unlike the RARDEN, can suppress positions properly. Seeing as the targets on the other end of an armored assault by UK forces are likely going to die one way or the other, minimizing friendly casualties by suppressing the enemy position would make the bushmaster better at saving lives.
It frustrates me that our British allies insist on using dated technology in many of their IFV's, putting their infantry in unnecessary risk. The more people who buy into a weapons program, the cheaper it becomes and the better compatibility on the field we have.
A tech increase in this case would likely save money in the long run and improve both the effectiveness and the safety of British troops in a modern combat situation.
That is my logic train here anyways. If you have another, I'd be happy to hear it.[/QUOTE]
You do remember that people DIE in war right.
War is not a bitch fest of suppressing the enemy. You're still talking about a war machine in the grand scheme of things which is a huge colossal fuck up of a war.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28450125]
You do remember that people DIE in war right.
War is not a bitch fest of suppressing the enemy. You're still talking about a war machine in the grand scheme of things which is a huge colossal fuck up of a war.[/QUOTE]
I suppose I phrased that poorly. What I'm saying is that a force which has opened fire on a Scimitar is going to die. That scimitar isn't alone and the UK military isn't incompetent. They will move to neutralize the enemy position. Whether they are falling back to designate the area for aircraft to deal with, or advancing on the position, either way the end result is the same. With superior suppression capability, the opposing forces are less able to engage your side while you pursue or retreat and, as a direct result, less able to cause further death, whether it be the vehicle operations themselves, or friendly infantry.
Or if you really want to be optimistic, and I'm not saying this is likely, suppressing an enemy position and allowing infantry to advance on it, makes it more likely to both preserve your own lives, and potentially take enemy forces captive, instead of killing them outright.
Conflict isn't quite as black and white as you might imagine. Superior firepower does not always result in more deaths.
You're trying to argue for lives being saved in a warzone. Do you NOT realise how ridiculous that sounds.
[QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28443344]So you met all 28 million Afghans? Nice, you should work for the census bureau.
The Taliban is also now a disorganised insurgency. Barely having ANY remnants of the original Taliban government. The US at this point is just occupying a country they have no right to be in. The United States wasn't even supposed to target the fucking Taliban. They kept pushing for war to attack the people who orchestrated 9/11.
Then they invaded and occupied two countries, one only mildly was involved with 9/11. Which after their involvement was completely done, your dear Bush fucked up twice and stayed the course.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
Arguing over which machine kills people better doesn't really put you in a good light.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
If this is hope, killing 9 Afghan children collecting firewood and bombing the shit out of civilians with predator drones, I wouldn't exactly have hope in NATO.
[editline]5th March 2011[/editline]
And if my government was a corrupt and weak regime being fed support and money by the Western governments, I still wouldn't exactly have faith in EITHER.[/QUOTE]
If you've got a shred of evidence that the Taliban, responsible for the large majority of civilian casualties of 2009, has the backing of the general population, I'd really like to see it.
Also; the Taliban isn't just some random insurgent group. It's the remnants of the former despotic government, possessing the same ideologies and brutal, oppressive tactics it always had. Don't try and pretend they're really just some Viet-cong-style nationalist insurgency that everyone loves (not that the VC were that honorable anyway).
Why did the US attack Afghanistan? Harboring and supporting the instigators of 9/11, plus providing a support base for any other anti-US terror group. It's not all about 9/11 - you think the Taliban wouldn't prove a future problem? Besides, is there really an issue with removing the Taliban from power EVEN IF they personally weren't responsible for 9/11 (despite the fact they then offered shelter)?
Don't try and shift the topic; this isn't about Iraq, this is about Afghanistan and the Taliban. In case it hasn't occurred to you, it's generally not good strategy to enter a country, blow it to hell and then promptly exit - all hell could, and probably would, emerge afterwards. You really think the US should have destroyed the Afghani government and then left a huge power vacuum?
Please tell me you've realised this was a mistake
a mistake
not standard NATO policy
not common NATO actions
not a rule
not something to judge the entire NATO forces in Afghanistan by. Taliban insurgents commit far greater atrocities than this by design, and you don't raise a word. Seriously, if you really think the Taliban was better for Afghanistan than the current situation, you're a damned fool.
That entire post was one huge strawman.
go back and show me where i said the Taliban were better for Afghanistan.
before going on a rant, learn what you're arguing
[editline]6th March 2011[/editline]
For the record, Iraq and Afghanistan were connected by the government several times - so yes, it is an important part of it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.