War Crimes

[RedFish]

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.

[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.

[Ace Otana]

I think the americans can be a little too trigger happy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olTD-i_yY...re=related

It would pay to check your targets.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP

It's so terrible. This is what the world can be like, indeed. That disgusting truth is evermore clear the more you just take a look at the world around you and think about it.

EvF

[RedFish]

''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.'' You have no idea what I would do. They were not 'charged with' anything. They made the circumstances suit their desires.
We'll have to agree to differ. I stand by my first analysis of the video. As Ace says..''Too trigger happy.''
Many more instances can be found of the same kind of gung-ho bullshit. No wonder the US makes so many enemies, is all I can say.

[Dotard]

Me thinks Kuwait is our friend because of our 'gung-ho bullshit'.

I would venture to say roll the clock back about 50 years and you would find Americas "gung-ho bullshit" was much loved by Europe, and most of the world, also.

Ya, bitch out America when they are doing their thing elsewhere but when they are ridding your land of hostile forces..... that's different.

(not you personally Fish, it's a general statement.)

I can think of one war in Americas history where the 'gung-ho' Americans were kept on a rein and what happened? We failed at protecting and defending those we came to protect and defend.

'Tis my contention in war, if you are not gung-ho, you're dead.

I say; "Quick, send RedFish into the war so he can 'go first' and see who shoots at him."

We'll call it "Operation RedFish Shield"

Problem with that though is I think we'll run out of RedFish pretty damned quick.

[Shell B]

''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.'' You have no idea what I would do. They were not 'charged with' anything. They made the circumstances suit their desires.
We'll have to agree to differ. I stand by my first analysis of the video. As Ace says..''Too trigger happy.''
Many more instances can be found of the same kind of gung-ho bullshit. No wonder the US makes so many enemies, is all I can say.

You're right, I don't have any idea what you would do. I shouldn't have stupidly assumed that if you were in the military, you would follow orders.

Yes, they were 'charged with' protecting the men on the ground. Why the hell else do you think they were there? I get the sense that you are completely misunderstanding military protocol.

I do agree that I differ with you. I would never make such a vague generalization. No wonder the US makes so so many enemies? Wow. Just make a false assumption about a video and then go on to label all US soldiers because of 'gung-ho' bullshit that you see on the internet, coupled with the poster's agenda, ahem, I mean opinion. I'm glad they're gung-ho. Better than pissing their pants and running away, or worse, waiting until their enemy shoots them and hoping they're still alive to return fire.

[tavarish]

''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.'' You have no idea what I would do. They were not 'charged with' anything. They made the circumstances suit their desires.
We'll have to agree to differ. I stand by my first analysis of the video. As Ace says..''Too trigger happy.''
Many more instances can be found of the same kind of gung-ho bullshit. No wonder the US makes so many enemies, is all I can say.

Wow.

They made the circumstances suit their desires.

So they just wanted to shoot something, and they saw a bunch of people, and went for it? Who cares if they were armed enemy combatants? The army should work the way you say they should.

The truth is, the US makes enemies for all kinds of reasons. When you're a socioeconomic superpower, people will dislike you, it's the law of averages. This video is an example of mistakes being made in war. It happens. It doesn't justify it or make it right, but in such a tense situation, these things are nearly unavoidable. There aren't any red markers separating enemy from friendly, this isn't Call of Duty, and the immediate threat of danger is very real on both sides.

I haven't been to war, nor do I ever plan to, but a few close friends have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have definitely earned my respect and made me realize that war changes a person. Don't think for a second that the people in the helicopter don't regret opening fire on kids, even if it was justified. They're going to have to live with that for the rest of their lives, in addition to comments from those who have no idea what the hell it is to fire a gun at a moving target and go to sleep later that night.

[RedFish]

I support our troops in Afghanistan. I would much rather they weren't there at all. Instead of tearing what I've said apart because of some imagined criticism of the armed forces(or the US) in general, how about just reading my original post? You lot are apologising for the mindless brutal things that are done to innocents in war. And looking for conflict where there is none. Paranoia rules where 'Black Hawks' are involved, victims of the emotive press, and previous well documented incidents. OK when it's 'insurgents' 'terrorists' or whoever on the receiving end, not OK for them to shoot back. Perfectly understandable to let emotions rule when it's 'our boys'.
Soldiers CHOOSE to enlist. They receive PAY for putting themselves at risk. They deserve my respect. They don't deserve to be worshipped.
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebook...nd=ucpress
http://genderacrossborders.com/2010/01/1...re-of-war/
There are many reports detailing the phenomena, the more detailed ones require a fee to download. I'm not willing to pay for them just to prove a point to you. Got better things to spend my money on. Like YRF donations...
@ Dotard...Well lets just nuke the fkn lot then, eh? As to the 2nd WW, was a long time ago now. Get over it. How many of us actually understand who our enemy is in Afghanistan and other places? Why is there a conflict between 'the West' and Mohammedan Islam? Why 'we' will never win? There are 1.2Billion muslims in the world, not counting Jews and Christians and those of other faiths who also submit to the will of One God and are therefore also Muslim. Will you bomb them all into submission to the God Of Capitalism? If 'we' put as much effort into dissembling the Koran as 'we' do bitching with each other over the rights and wrongs of WAR, and propagating that war against an -ism, we might actually get somewhere. Till then, the waste will continue, on both sides. I'm up to sura 21.

[Violet]

It would pay to check your targets.

^
This is the simplest summation of my entire opinion on the matter. The carrying of weapons does not automatically make a person a terrorist (or other 'villain'). Even supposing those cameramen had been terrorists, the civilian death count around them was completely ridiculous and unacceptable. They could have taken three targets out with 'sniper' (here meaning specifically targeted) fire... instead they mowed down more civilians than they did terrorists for nothing but being in the same vicinity. It's a city... and the units deployed in the helicopters either didn't seem to grasp that in the city there are lots of people, most of them 'innocent'... or they didn't understand why they are killing the terrorists in the first place (to protect civilians). Any way you slice it... even had the ones with cameras been terrorists, the unit entirely mishandled the entire situation.

Further... they fired upon people for attempting to save the wounded. That was so ridiculous in its own right that had i been their commander I would have immediately suspended them pending investigation. But if this is indeed the way the American military works... then I will have lost whatever respect may still remain regarding the American military. There is absolutely no rational that could defend such an action. None.

Finally, wounded is almost always better than dead. Targeting the arms and legs will as soundly incapacitate them as would death... but you get access to information and don't completely waste lives in the process. I honestly can't see what there is to defend about that military unit. All they have earned as far as I can see is a suspension for mistaking cameras as weapons, firing with no apparent immediate danger, slaughtering an unacceptable number of civilians to take out not even a handful of 'terrorists', firing upon the wounded and people trying to save the wounded alike, not checking targets, the "just pick up a weapon" comment, and perhaps other lesser transgressions.