War Crimes

[Shell B]

Visible weapons means nothing if they weren't being used. It was a war zone. People of all descriptions carry weapons in a war zone, for self-defence as much as anything else. Speculation as to the circumstances under which a man can achieve an erection would be best left to doctors, and men. Disagree that it would be' probably rather difficult'
Was obvious to me. He wasn't speaking that way about a group of 'actual' insurgents though, was he?
You may consider it 'stupid' to await incoming fire before returning, but we're not globally renowned for our gung=ho cowboy attitude to warfare. You don't actually know who your enemy is till they start shooting. As evidenced in the clip.
''Naturally his desire to shoot and kill him''...Gawdelpus.

Um, no.

Firstly, they have weapons laws in Iraq too. They are not only enforced by foreign troops, but by the Iraqi police too.

Luckily, right now I am sitting next to a war vet. He has concurred that an Apache during a firefight is not the time or place to maintain an erection. There, best left for men and clarified by a man who was in that position several times.

I do consider it stupid to await incoming fire before returning fire. People with guns standing around in the streets of Iraq are always insurgents. It is very rare for citizens to run around with AK's to defend themselves. Why? Because the insurgents will kill them and their entire fucking family, if they are caught. If you were at war, you would wait to be shot before you fire? Kind of hard to return fire when you are dead.

Yes, naturally his desire to shoot and kill them. In his eyes, those men were capable of killing him. He was right (as evidenced by the video). Also, you would kill them too, if your comrades were on the ground and you were charged with taking out men that could potentially kill them.