• Nine Afghan boys collecting firewood killed by NATO helicopters
    233 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;39683560]Ahahahaha, no buddy, its not "slightly" higher. Its a fuckton higher.[/QUOTE] I don't have the numbers in front of me and I don't feel like digging for them, so I'd rather understate it than overstate it. Regardless, my point remains.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39683411]For one, I'd be willing to bet that the pilot and co pilot weren't let back out into the field for a while after the incident. And do you honestly think throwing money at the families would fix the issue? The reason they were operating in that area was because of the Taliban, if those families accepted money from the NATO and the Talibobs found out, they'd probably be made an example of. You're also not seeing the whole picture when it comes to these pilots and gunners, or how they operate. They operate from [i]very[/i] far away from their targets. This is done for their own safety, but because of it it doesn't let their cameras see everything it needs to. Look at this video [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TZOxlTwAvA[/media] As you can tell, it's hard to distinguish targets at times and see who's carrying what type of weapon. You can also tell they took very careful measures not to hit civilians. They were able to tell who was carrying a rifle and who was carrying a child, but as you can see it's not easy. A long stick will look exactly like a long rifle at that range with those cameras. Issues like this aren't as simple as just throwing money at it. I'm not saying what happened in this issue (which happened [i]2 years ago[/i] and I haven't heard of another once since) is justifiable, but getting mad at NATO press because they fucking apologized is silly.[/QUOTE] what grinds my gear about this really is that, although I don't know much about war technology or camera technology in general, but can we not afford better fucking cameras or surveillance technology instead of trying to spending incredible amount of money on the failed F-35 project?
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;39684140]what grinds my gear about this really is that, although I don't know much about war technology or camera technology in general, but can we not afford better fucking cameras or surveillance technology instead of trying to spending incredible amount of money on the failed F-35 project?[/QUOTE] I heard that the recordings are of much lower quality than what the gunner and pilot can see.
[QUOTE]Nine Afghan boys collecting firewood killed by NATO helicopters[/QUOTE] Without punctuation, I thought 9 Afghan boys were collecting some firewood that the NATO killed.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;39684140]what grinds my gear about this really is that, although I don't know much about war technology or camera technology in general, but can we not afford better fucking cameras or surveillance technology instead of trying to spending incredible amount of money on the failed F-35 project?[/QUOTE] the issue isn't as simple as throwing money at darpa and hoping they produce a better camera that has a better IR system in it thats worth spending tons of time and money to replace an entire fleet of helicopter cameras.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39681168]actually this video shows how gunners see things, where the hell is that image even from? [video=youtube;is9sxRfU-ik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik[/video][/QUOTE] In defense of the Helicopter crew, a couple of those people DID have AK-47's
[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] Maybe this: Corrupted Governments (Bankster mafia) Target: Freedom and Justice Scapegoat: Al-quaeda, sars, avian flu, carbon dioxide, programmed assassins(eg. school shooters,JFK) People Killed: 260 million Goal: Domination people just go like: [img]http://caribgamer.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/500x_reggie_not_my_problem.jpg[/img] (in a sarcastic way, for me, because you can do something about it not just stand and watch hopeless)
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39683411] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TZOxlTwAvA[/media] [/QUOTE] Shit at 4 minutes you can see a guy running away with his hands behind his head surrendering and still getting shot
[QUOTE=Clark21;28401247]This one of many incidents. And people write comments on here in an attempt to try and defend people who murder other people? Pathetic. Also how can some of you say people are overreacting? What is this was one of your family members? How exactly would you fucking feel? Pull your heads out of your arses and stop defending murderers. Sorry is simply not enough.[/QUOTE] Fully agreed, this happens way too much to be acceptable
[QUOTE=Stewox;39687487]Maybe this: Corrupted Governments (Bankster mafia) Target: Freedom and Justice Scapegoat: Al-quaeda, sars, avian flu, carbon dioxide, programmed assassins(eg. school shooters,JFK) People Killed: 260 million Goal: Domination people just go like: (in a sarcastic way, for me, because you can do something about it not just stand and watch hopeless)[/QUOTE] Are you being serious or? [editline]23rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Hiccuper;39687501]Shit at 4 minutes you can see a guy running away with his hands behind his head surrendering and still getting shot[/QUOTE] the gunner had already fired by the time he "surrendered", and he was still running to where other insurgents were.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39687121]In defense of the Helicopter crew, a couple of those people DID have AK-47's[/QUOTE] Why would carrying an 'AK47' automatically be a death sentence? Especially when local media often have armed guards anyway.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28399707]How the fuck did fucking helicopter gunners with high resolution gun cams manage a fuck-up this colossal?[/QUOTE] Let's not forget about the other time an American gunship mowed down the innocent journalist, along with some of his buddies that drove in a van, and the child in the van, in order to get the shredded up journalist out of there ...
[QUOTE=Chickens!;28400778][img]http://www.homesandgardenjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/firewood.jpg[/img] Clearly an Ak47 if ever i've seen one. Do these guys even receive target recognition training?[/QUOTE] by firewood they probably meant branches which from a distance could look like guns but then again it means nato fears a group of gun welding midgets
How can 9 yo boys be confused with mature people? Are they athletes or basketball players, so high in height? That's fucked up for real.
[QUOTE=lekkimsm;39689470]Let's not forget about the other time an American gunship mowed down the innocent journalist, along with some of his buddies that drove in a van, and the child in the van, in order to get the shredded up journalist out of there ...[/QUOTE] Well in that case the journalist had a camera with a long lens and tripod that the chopper pilot mistook for an RPG (and thus feared they were about to get shot out of the sky), and was travelling with armed men, so at least in that case its easier to understand the confusion.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39690055](and thus feared they were about to get shot out of the sky)[/QUOTE] I dislike people who like to add their own little revisions. They were well outside of a reasonable distance and they gave no indication what so ever that they feared ground fire - at all.
Apaches fly insanely high. They were under zero threat from any RPG or rifle fire. Instead, they were trying to eliminate a threat to the ground forces in the area. An RPG is very dangerous for the guys on the ground. The helicopter providing support is solely there to support the ground force commander and provide the elements on the ground freedom to maneuver while denying the enemy the same. So, whatever aircraft do is totally at the behest of the ground force commander. Just a little "The more you know" thing.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39691268]I dislike people who like to add their own little revisions. They were well outside of a reasonable distance and they gave no indication what so ever that they feared ground fire - at all.[/QUOTE] I recall hearing on the tape "They've got a fucking RPG!1..." really sounded to me like they felt it was a big danger to them.
[QUOTE=irukandji;39690039]How can 9 yo boys be confused with mature people? Are they athletes or basketball players, so high in height? That's fucked up for real.[/QUOTE] It's not at all uncommon for Taliban or other insurgent groups to use children or teenagers as soldiers.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39691781]I recall hearing on the tape "They've got a fucking RPG!1..." really sounded to me like they felt it was a big danger to them.[/QUOTE] Let me just go out here and say that some apache pilots are pretty paranoid, even though they fly beyond the RPG's range anyways.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;28450492]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.[/QUOTE] The fact that any civilians die is horrendous and to say that 'oh it's war' is disgusting, people like that have never even come close to the suffering that families have to go through. People focus more on NATO forces killing civilians because NATO forces aren't expected to go around killing at random. The US has the means to make sure civilian casualties don't happen, but they don't and I will criticize them for it always.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.