Wow, Just Wow...
-
From all I've seen and heard about flying the Apache, it's an awesome machine, equipped with some of the very best avionics and weaponry. It can target and prioritize targets by the threat they offer, destroying tanks or buildings. The 50mm cannon attached to its underbelly is an effective weapon against most targets, and is controlled by the gunner looking at the target and pressing the trigger. All that technology amounts to two human beings, with feelings, fears (whether they be irrational or not) making a judgement call as to whether the people on the ground pose a threat to their or any persons safety. Those guys are trained to be in that helicopter, they are trained to identify weapons and whether they did see or they believe they saw weapons, they deemed there to be a threat. They acted. Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them. No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission.
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission. Quote Selected Text
True, but the cover-up was pretty intense for this one... If I remember the news stories right, Wikileaks announced that they would be posting it, and found themselves being detained and harassed by government agencies (As in, one of them spent something like 28 hours in a holding cell)... Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
A video is worth a thousand pictures, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Two phrases that don't in any way address my point.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission. Quote Selected Text
True, but the cover-up was pretty intense for this one... If I remember the news stories right, Wikileaks announced that they would be posting it, and found themselves being detained and harassed by government agencies (As in, one of them spent something like 28 hours in a holding cell)... Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That's a big overreaction on said government agencies part. I'm happy to accept that there are things that happen that a government doesn't want it's citizens to know about. I'm sure CWPs thought that Americans would be under fire next is his only concern (fits with his general views), not the innocent people that were murdered. Well, these are American pilots in a combat zone taking action. A little different to that gunship being deployed to home soil I'm sure.
-
That's a big overreaction on said government agencies part. I'm happy to accept that there are things that happen that a government doesn't want it's citizens to know about. I'm sure CWPs thought that Americans would be under fire next is his only concern (fits with his general views), not the innocent people that were murdered. Well, these are American pilots in a combat zone taking action. A little different to that gunship being deployed to home soil I'm sure.
Agreed. I don't think the government should have tried to draw attention to it, but once it was discovered, a simple "Sorry, these things happen in war" (Or the equivalent political posturing) would be more appropriate. I would, however, expect them to do an internal investigation, to make sure that it was an accident and not one of our guys snapping.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
A video is worth a thousand pictures, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Wrong, a picture wrenched from context can be worth a thousand lies.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Entire post is one big link, instead of the link being on a few relevant words - FAIL No original content (That's all a copy-paste from the site) - FAIL Only two fails. You're improving, and you're posting information that isn't just anti-propaganda propaganda. Keep at it, and you may be allowed to rejoin society. On a side note, I've seen this posted elsewhere, and though I haven't been able to watch it (Firewalled at work), I'm under the impression that it's legit. Though this post is only two fails for little Pillowpants here, the military cover-up on this incident is well beyond EPIC failure. Supposedly (From what I've read), the Apache pilots thought the people were armed with assault rifles and RPGs. Assuming the video shows otherwise, I could attribute that to the honest mistake of a bunch of soldiers stuck in the desert for months on end. Mistakes happen in war, unfortunately. There are, however, two main crimes... 1) They fired on the van, trying to evacuate the wounded. I need to see the vid for myself, but that sounds pretty unforgivable. 2) The military covered this up instead of just apologizing. That's the epic fail... There should have been an open investigation, to see if it would be plausible for the gunners to have "seen" weapons in the crowd, and to see if they used good judgment in firing instead of calling in ground forces (Who could be much more careful and selective).
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)It was clear the two reporters were carrying something that could have been weapons - they were big cameras. There were armed men in the group, probably body guards, but how do you tell the difference? The group hid behind a corner, pointing something towards an approaching US force, if I read the subtitles correctly. After the fact, we know it was a camera with a long lens. The first gun run was justified. They did not shoot the second, wounded, reporter, they waited for him to meet the ROE. He did not, and they didn't shoot. I would have to see the ROE to know if the attack on the van was justified. The fact that there were kids in the van who were identifiable after the fact was bad, but you only know what you know when you act. They should have come clean as soon as they knew what happened. They should prosecute anyone who tried to hide the facts from investigators.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Wrong, a picture wrenched from context can be worth a thousand lies.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Agreed. I don't think the government should have tried to draw attention to it, but once it was discovered, a simple "Sorry, these things happen in war" (Or the equivalent political posturing) would be more appropriate. I would, however, expect them to do an internal investigation, to make sure that it was an accident and not one of our guys snapping.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
to make sure that it was an accident and not one of our guys snapping.
It is clear from the video that they followed procedure. My only bitch with the pilot was that he passed on that the van was taking wounded and weapons. I didn't see anyone taking weapons, and he paused before saying it, but it could be a stock phrase. But when the hell will people learn cover-ups make it worse, not better?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
It was clear the two reporters were carrying something that could have been weapons - they were big cameras. There were armed men in the group, probably body guards, but how do you tell the difference? The group hid behind a corner, pointing something towards an approaching US force, if I read the subtitles correctly. After the fact, we know it was a camera with a long lens. The first gun run was justified. They did not shoot the second, wounded, reporter, they waited for him to meet the ROE. He did not, and they didn't shoot. I would have to see the ROE to know if the attack on the van was justified. The fact that there were kids in the van who were identifiable after the fact was bad, but you only know what you know when you act. They should have come clean as soon as they knew what happened. They should prosecute anyone who tried to hide the facts from investigators.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
He is paranoid, schizophrenic and deluded. :sigh: I don't doubt that he believes the stuff he reads, when he can understand it. It is sad what drugs can do to a mind.:mad: I knew a couple of people who went that route. But they chose to become the pricks they became, whether they realized it or not. CSS is a real, sad, prick.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
And the fact that someone is involved in a front line engagement does not in fact mean that they not just a fuckwit with a gun
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Personal Music Player[^]
-
CSS seems to me like the perfect example of someone who sits at home and judges the actions of people who are putting their lives on the line.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
In this instance I think you're being a bit hard on him. It is shocking footage and some of the comments made by the soldiers are also shocking. In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human. Also, just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement; it's clear who's lives were on the line in this footage. I don't have enough information to judge as things stand, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out.
Steve
-
From all I've seen and heard about flying the Apache, it's an awesome machine, equipped with some of the very best avionics and weaponry. It can target and prioritize targets by the threat they offer, destroying tanks or buildings. The 50mm cannon attached to its underbelly is an effective weapon against most targets, and is controlled by the gunner looking at the target and pressing the trigger. All that technology amounts to two human beings, with feelings, fears (whether they be irrational or not) making a judgement call as to whether the people on the ground pose a threat to their or any persons safety. Those guys are trained to be in that helicopter, they are trained to identify weapons and whether they did see or they believe they saw weapons, they deemed there to be a threat. They acted. Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them. No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission.
hammerstein05 wrote:
Now, if there are consequences, I'm sure they'll deal with them.
I don't think they are the ones who should have to deal with the consequences. But they will have to. I'm not talking about court martial or anything like that. I mean the new insurgents that get created by this sort of indiscrimitate killing. Unfortunately this is kind of killing is not the exception, it is the norm.
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public.
The only place it isn't public is here in the US. The Iraqis are all too familiar with it.
hammerstein05 wrote:
It's damaging to the overall mission.
Of course it is. And the damage occurs, not when the Pentagon's coverup is revealed, but when the killing happens.
-
It was clear the two reporters were carrying something that could have been weapons - they were big cameras. There were armed men in the group, probably body guards, but how do you tell the difference? The group hid behind a corner, pointing something towards an approaching US force, if I read the subtitles correctly. After the fact, we know it was a camera with a long lens. The first gun run was justified. They did not shoot the second, wounded, reporter, they waited for him to meet the ROE. He did not, and they didn't shoot. I would have to see the ROE to know if the attack on the van was justified. The fact that there were kids in the van who were identifiable after the fact was bad, but you only know what you know when you act. They should have come clean as soon as they knew what happened. They should prosecute anyone who tried to hide the facts from investigators.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I don't enjoy snuff films. You should watch this because its the real world,
It is a video recording of people being killed. You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur. Do you like car wrecks too?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its war, the war we are fighting right now.
Invasion, rather than war.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Americans might find themselves in the view of a helicopter just like this one.
Better get back under the bed with your thumb and num-num blanket. THEY ARE COMING!!!
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
You are not a journalist, you are not a lawyer, you have no reason to watch it, you are a voyeur.
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it. We are responsible for this. We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it.
No, you don't. Unless you are a professional (military, legal, ...) investigating the events. Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Carbon12 wrote:
We are responsible for this.
The USA held a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, and the people voted in favour of it? No. Even if you, personally, were shouting "Go Bush, Go!", you still do not have any responsibility for this action, all decisions were made without reference to you. Nobody cared what your opinion was.
Carbon12 wrote:
We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
In this instance I think you're being a bit hard on him. It is shocking footage and some of the comments made by the soldiers are also shocking. In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human. Also, just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement; it's clear who's lives were on the line in this footage. I don't have enough information to judge as things stand, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out.
Steve
Do you have any military experience? I was never shot at, but what they say isn't out of the norm.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In short, it's a normal reaction to be shocked after watching something like this; if you're not you're not human.
I do know what happens when people are shot: they come apart. It can be saddening, but if you are shocked by it, it is because you are sheltered. In any case, I hope you would be just as shocked by US or terrorist bodies coming apart.
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
just because someone is "putting their lives on the line" doesn't necessarily mean they are above judgement
No, it does not. But the actions that are acceptable are different from what we apply to ourselves in front of our computers.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Carbon12 wrote:
As an American, everyone of us has an obligation to watch it.
No, you don't. Unless you are a professional (military, legal, ...) investigating the events. Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Carbon12 wrote:
We are responsible for this.
The USA held a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, and the people voted in favour of it? No. Even if you, personally, were shouting "Go Bush, Go!", you still do not have any responsibility for this action, all decisions were made without reference to you. Nobody cared what your opinion was.
Carbon12 wrote:
We should be aware of the consequences of our actions.
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Otherwise, you are a voyeur.
Hogwash. You may choose to stick your head in the sand, I choose not to.
Bob Emmett wrote:
you still do not have any responsibility for this action
Of course we do. We are all collectively responsible.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Civilians + Civilian Insurgents + Military. Hmm, I wonder, now, what might be the consequence of that?
Indiscriminate and wanton murder?
-
hammerstein05 wrote:
No organisation or military entity would want something like this public. It's damaging to the overall mission. Quote Selected Text
True, but the cover-up was pretty intense for this one... If I remember the news stories right, Wikileaks announced that they would be posting it, and found themselves being detained and harassed by government agencies (As in, one of them spent something like 28 hours in a holding cell)... Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Kind of hard to keep something like this quiet.
That's only true when you have people willing the spend the time investigating these types of occurances and not simply being stenographers to whatever the Pentagon says. It took 3 years for this story to come out.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
The first gun run was justified.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Men with guns in Bagdad, by itself, is not justification for killing. The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
Carbon12 wrote:
The behavior of the group does not seem to be threatening.
The had weapons, could have had an RPG. It seemed they hid around the corner from a patrol, then pointed the (could be camera, could be RPG) around the corner. They were not friendlies, based on troop locations. If they are armed and not friendly, what are they? Do you always have to wait until they shoot at you first? Don't base your judgment on knowing what the outcome was, base it on the situation on the ground/air. Again, there was not excuse for the cover-up.
Opacity, the new Transparency.