Join The Army!

[Killzig]

its cause you're black.

[Forty-six & Two]

its cause you're black.

3. Flaming, or an insult directed at another poster (name-calling, put downs, slurs of any kind, etc.) is unacceptable. Also flame-baiting (posting a loaded comment that is intended to provoke a hateful response) is not appreciated. *Edit by Killzig, I don't mind if you're going at it on a subject but no personal attacks. Stay on topic. Example for OK flaming, "HEY ASS NINJA, Lionheart sucks because it's just a cheap diablo clone." Example of bad flaming, "Hey you filthy jew niglet!".

[Killzig]

i wasn't flaming, just stating a fact.

[Slave_Master]

its my opinion, i'm entitled to it, and my opinion is that its wrong.

Since you want to get into the "ITS JUST MY OPINYUN GAME" then it's just my opinion that you are wrong, and a moron too.

yours however is the opposite, plus you have the added fact of adding in additional insults to a debate which doesnt need them. Try making a point without insults,

Nice red herring. Since you have your opinion and you want to defend it, how about arguing my opinion, instead of complaining because I insulted you?

Make your point OR insult me Slave Master.

I did both -- I like to have my cake and eat it, too.

I will concede that my argumentative nature got the better of me and that OTB handled the issue with far more maturity and professionalism, but "its my opinion [and] i'm entitled to it", right?

Mercy kill? Again. They have no idea how wounded he is, but at the time of the order to shoot again, he is pacified and not a threat. Why shoot him again? I cant find a good reason besides "mopping up" for the sake of it. Thats pretty brutal, cold and not very honourable.

I'm inclined to agree with OTB here. Finishing the poor bastard off is far more humane than leaving him for dead when they are riddled with holes. I'd consider it pretty brutal, cold, and dishonourable to leave him for dead.

[Burnov]

That's U.S patriotic gooberism if I ever heard it. People don't necessarily have to do anything stupid to be shot by a U.S soldier. Innocent bystanders in Iraq could testify to that.

Secondly, why would you want to play Planetside CS or halo? I'd rather stick a cactus up my urethra.

Third. To equate gunning people down, unthreatening people no less, to a game is fucking sick.

He hides underneath the truck, and slides out near the door. He had a few places to hide; he could have dropped immediately the ground in the open to signal a surrender.

If you saw two people out of nowhere get blown to pieces, would you just stand out in the open waving your hands hoping whatever got them isn't going to get you? The guy was acting out of fear. That's something, any person would do in that circumstance.

Not to mention that considering that if you saw and or heard a helo and it would have to be close enough you'd think to hear and to be seen the guy might've done that. I'm more than certain this was done from an AC130U spectre, at night, with a 20mm gun or similar size.

So from the heights they orbit at it would be more than conceivable to think that literally from the person's standpoint. His buddies just all of a sudden had a hail of bullets rained on them.

[Menno]

If you saw two people out of nowhere get blown to pieces, would you just stand out in the open waving your hands hoping whatever got them isn't going to get you? The guy was acting out of fear. That's something, any person would do in that circumstance.

I wasn't commenting on the fact that because he ran he was guilty, not at all. And yes, I've seen guys do alot weirder things under fire instead of running for cover. It's akin to a cop approaching you even though you've done nothing wrong; do you run or do you stand in place [surrendering]. If he would have immediately stood in place out in the open making no threatening movements, he would have at the very least put the pilot in a tougher moral spot [he may have still killed him anyway]. Instead he goes behind the truck [doesn't stay there where he wouldn't be seen], then proceeds to move up the side of the truck [putting him at risk of being seen] towards the door. Was he hiding in complete fear? Maybe. Was he trying to get into the truck to get away? Maybe. Was he reaching for something in the front seat of the car? Maybe. If I were the pilot his bad decisions and location makes my actions a hell of alot easier to justify.

That's U.S patriotic gooberism if I ever heard it. People don't necessarily have to do anything stupid to be shot by a U.S soldier. Innocent bystanders in Iraq could testify to that.

Conversely, your enemy combatant doesn't always have to driving tanks or wearing uniforms to be "the bad guy". Soldiers who served in Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, and Afghanistan could testify to that.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

i have to agree with OTB's mercy kill point. after those bullets hit the truck id imagine he got wailed pretty bad. they might not have done it for that reason but they still ended up doing it.

Conversely, your enemy combatant doesn't always have to driving tanks or wearing uniforms to be "the bad guy". Soldiers who served in Panama, Haiti, Bosnia, and Afghanistan could testify to that.

shit even think of vietnam.


that whole honor in combat thing went out of style when long ranged weapons came into play. killing people with planes or tanks are just like crushing ants with your boots. very inpersonal and effective.
they couldnt leave the guy there just incase he happened to find a rocket launcher and place one into the helicopters tail.

EDIT: shit if i were in a position like that id definately be lookin for a gun or something for defense/offense.

[OnTheBounce]

OTB, you are without doubt the voice of reason once again on the boards.

Thanks Avenger, and thank you also for backing off from turning this thread into a flamefest w/SlaveMaster.

Your answer was informative and intelligent, even though i agree with some of your points, i disagree with others.(Same with you Menno)

To be quite frank I'm not sure I agree w/everything I wrote. Things like this leave me really ambivalent, on just about all points. For instance, take the Iraqis themselves. One one hand I want to say, "OMFG! Minions of an evil dictator!", because it's not like Sadam was all about peace, love, puppydogs and kittens. On another level I really don't enjoy seeing human beings shredded by autocannon fire. Finally, there's another part of me that admires and respects the Iraqi troops -- this voice is borderline treasonous in some people's opinion -- because they are taking on the most powerful military in the world, which takes a lot of balls/desperation/what-have-you. Far more so than looking through FLIR at people who don't know you're there, then hosing them down w/auto-cannon fire. (Which is one of the reasons I can't stand aviators: they act like their balls are bigger than the biggest wheelbarrow, yet what they do doesn't require half the balls of what an ordinary infantryman does.)

that whole honor in combat thing went out of style when long ranged weapons came into play. killing people with planes or tanks are just like crushing ants with your boots. very inpersonal and effective.

Well, I'd say it went out even before that. People just kept talking in those terms to convince themselves things weren't so bad; or -- in the case of the people who send other people off to do the dying -- to keep the stupid youngsters showing up for the slaughter.

There's no honor in crushing enemy positions w/a rolling artillery barrage, but then again, I don't think that there's any in pouring boiling oil on someone climbing up a ladder, either.

At any rate, that's my (last) $0.02 on the subject.

OTB

[jerman999]

Linky

A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

...

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have.

Edit: Irony

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Its just like what happen when we let the REpublic army of Iraq go back free, now they come out still fighting and shit should of wiped them out and saved us the trouble. THis is the same type of incident just on a smaller scale.

[Paladin Solo]

Forty Six, did you bother to read what I had posted? You can't just land your chopper to pick up a surrendering soldier. Second, the guy was wounded, and out in the middle of the desert where he would've almost certainly died anyway. Like I said, Saddam didn't give a damn, we aren't going to send an entire convoy (I say convoy because you need protection) to pick up a severly wounded guy who is out in the middle of the dessert who is definetely going to die anyhow, but it would take longer, and it would be more painful. I mean, they might go that far to get one of our guys, but that's obviously why, because he is one of ours. The only best option to the pilots, and their mission, kill them!

[avenger69ie]

its my opinion, i'm entitled to it, and my opinion is that its wrong.

Since you want to get into the "ITS JUST MY OPINYUN GAME" then it's just my opinion that you are wrong, and a moron too.

yours however is the opposite, plus you have the added fact of adding in additional insults to a debate which doesnt need them. Try making a point without insults,

Nice red herring. Since you have your opinion and you want to defend it, how about arguing my opinion, instead of complaining because I insulted you?

Make your point OR insult me Slave Master.

I did both -- I like to have my cake and eat it, too.

I will concede that my argumentative nature got the better of me and that OTB handled the issue with far more maturity and professionalism, but "its my opinion [and] i'm entitled to it", right?


Of course we both have opinions, i'm not disputing that fact, Jesus christ, between you and everyone else on these bloody topics, and it always seems to end the same way.
Look slave master, i havent got anything against you or anyone else here, and i wont resort to using insults to prove a point, no matter how intelligent i think you are or are not, i wont degrade myself by insulting you when i think your wrong. Fine if you think i'm wrong and a moron, yo ugo ahead and believe whatever you want, and yes that was a point i had made earlier, congratulations, you have a point of view.
I have mine, and it remains the same, you calling me a moron isnt going to change that, but maybe some constructive critisism would. As OTB has already proved.

[iohkus]

I've seen a video similar to this in what i think was a PBS documentary. I belive it was shown to us in our world issues class in high school last year.

Basically it was the same type of scenerio, however there were no trucks, just 2 iraqi infantrymen making a run for it out in the brush/open and it was a lot more disturbing than this video because i distinctly remember that both men were injured before being snubbed out. Details are sketchy but I vaguely remember one of the two being hit first, and maybe his friend turning around for a second and continue to run, then his turn came.

It seemed like such a video game with the heat imaging and reticle targetting...

Also, I agree with OTB when he says that videos like this NEED to make it out to the general public.

You wouldn't believe how many people will REFUSE to believe that war is like this... it's really depressing how disconnected mainstream society is from real issues like this. Not just wars, but a lot of people will refuse to accept this video as reality and that's exactly the problem.

and lmao at goose being perp. sdf, GOT WHAT U DESERVED SKAG!

[EvoG]

Lots of blah blah going on here, though OTB is smoking the knowledge. Gotta have the respect.

Some things to clear for you guys (this was a long read, sheesh) :

Attack Chopper ( someone said it was a Spectre; nope)

30mm yes....big as your forearm

Prior to this feed we're fed, the pilots confirmed they had weapons (seems it was a launcher; they were not aiming at the chopper[irrelevant]) and the they were instructed by their CO to engage after calling it in.

Those of you liberals that bleed horribly about war, just give it a flipp'in rest will ya? Yes its brutal and horrible but as you can with any rationale understand that YOU yourself cannot decide to lay down arms and expect the conflict to end and have the enemy say "yea you're right this is bad and we shouldn't shoot eachother", meaning, its easier said than done. Go ask some Israeli family that lost a loved one to a suicide bomber on a bus during morning rush hour. Fanatics that would kill themselves just to rid the world of Westerners and Zionists in their twisted interpretation of a religion that preaches peace? Be glad there are people who will fight so your yellow asses don't have to. When you're getting shot at, see your buddy die, you shoot back and kill said m'fers. With this said, that last guy had the best thing happen to him being turned to paste. Beyond that, not worrying about our iraqi insurgent pal here, we are NOT capable of completely containing the situation yet. The only real option to ensure incapacitation was to put him down, as these pilots aren't about to land and restrain him for capture. Anyone capable of reengaging as an enemy combatant indeed should be destroyed if its not possible to remove him from battle any other way(you know the US takes POWS quite eagerly, with astounding numbers for both wars). Anyway, you damn well would be kicking yourself if he happened to be the one to shoot you down weeks later because you 'felt bad' for him.

This is shocking footage to a lot of you, and I can totally understand. Unless you have any real competent knowledge of war, you're bound to view this in a very human way, motivating your feelings of perceived 'inhumanity'. If you think that this wouldn't happen if roles were reversed, then you're a fool.

Cheers


ADD: Transcript

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men.

When he rolls out from under the truck, one of the pilots says, "He's wounded."

The other pilot says, "Hit him," and the Apache opens fire again, killing the man.

The Apache fires nearly 100 30 mm cannon rounds in all.

[avenger69ie]

i'm not refusing to believe that war is a load of bollix, i'm annoyed that a video like that can make it to a public forum (the internet) for everyone too see, including children.
The scenes in that video clip are horrific, its basicly 3 guys getting cut down by cannon fire. Everyone knows this shit happens in war. and worse too. the events in the video are hardly an atrocity, but the atrocity is that anyone can view it, without any restrictions or warnings of what may be about to happen.
A safe place for that video clip and others like it in my opinion should be after a watershed hour on tv, or behind a secure website where nobody under a certain age should see it. Is that so unreasonable?
this is what i mean when i say censorship. restricted availability.

besides all that, i've already let you all know how i feel on it, i'm still very much against war of any kind like the one now, but thats another topic.
i do not have military experiance, but that doesnt mean that i cannot have a valid opinion on world issuses, and lets face it, if the US is at war with someone, the world knows it.

[Paladin Solo]

Children can see old documents of the Gulags and Concentration camps. They see blood all over the news after a terrorist, suicide bomber blows him/herself up. They see sex, death, war, crimes, rape, and lots of worse shit on t.v. that can sink in. This is much cleaner, and better than most of the things kids are exposed to in life.

[EvoG]

Well avenger I don't have an answer for you. I'm the last person to think anything should be censored, and if its about children...if a child is too young to see this and is 'able' to see this, you're a very irresponsible parent. No way in HELL can I justify laying the blame ANYWHERE but on the shoulders of the parents. I live in the same world as the rest, and I DON'T want to have my media manipulated in any way to simply placate those that are incapable of taking their roles as guardians seriously.

As for it 'making it to a forum' ( such as this ), hell this has been going on for a long time and this is quite tame. *shrugs*

Cheers

[OnTheBounce]

Here's some food for thought regarding the idea of bringing the realities of combat to people's attention:

Last year Omer Barton a professor of History at Brown University put his two cents in regarding the ideas some people have of creating "anti-war museums":

...Creating an effective antiwar war museum, or an antigenocide museum, is probably impossible. The Holocaust Museum presents genocide as horrific and something that must be prevented but obscures the fact that the Holocaust is not an aberration.

Displays of killing machines tend to exhilarate young men rather than repel them. Why are men attracted to such films as "All Quiet on the Western Front" (1930) or "Black Hawk Down"? Because even antiwar films, or books, or photographs, or old soldiers' tales about comradeship make you want to share that experience, or at least to imagine it.

Here's a link to the full article in the online edition of the NY Times (registration req'd).

Judging by some people's reactions to this footage I say Mr. Barton has a point, but I agree w/Iokhus that it may serve to help shake people out of the sanitized cocoon they're ensconced in.

Jerman999: Thanks for that link. I was unaware that this footage had been received by ABC News. Very interesting. I'd like to know how they got it, since keeping things like this for personal use is forbidden to soldiers.

Edit: A guy goes Googling for an article and the topic promptly out-runs him.

Gotta have the respect.

Cheers!

30mm yes....big as your forearm

This reminds me of something that I forgot to comment on earlier. Contrary to popular belief there is no provision in the Hague or Geneva Conventions restricting certain calibers of weapons from use against certain target types. It's admited over-kill to shoot a man w/a stream of 30mm HE rounds, but it's not against any law.

I bring this up because of the comment in the news article, as well as the fact that there are urban legends floating around, even in the US military, about not being allowed to use largish MG/auto-cannons against people. If this were the case artillery men on all sides would be tried for war crimes, since what they are lobbing (usually nothing smaller than 105mm, but 152/155mm being more common) far outweighs what that was done to those dismounts.

OTB

[avenger69ie]

Well avenger I don't have an answer for you. I'm the last person to think anything should be censored, and if its about children...if a child is too young to see this and is 'able' to see this, you're a very irresponsible parent. No way in HELL can I justify laying the blame ANYWHERE but on the shoulders of the parents. I live in the same world as the rest, and I DON'T want to have my media manipulated in any way to simply placate those that are incapable of taking their roles as guardians seriously.

As for it 'making it to a forum' ( such as this ), hell this has been going on for a long time and this is quite tame. *shrugs*

Cheers

do you have children? if you did, you'd know that you cannot keep watch on them 24 hours a day. anyway, that wasnt my main point.


Also on solo's point, yes thats true, but i dont know what US tv is like, here in ireland and the uk its quite tame, and there is a 9pm watershed for violent scenes, sex etc... also, before each program with a nature such as this there is a warning of some kind. even the discovery channel has these warnings. And any responsible adult with children would take the kids out of the room after the warning. Education is one thing, graphic scenes are another.

If yo uwere teaching your son or daughter about sex education, would you show them some crazy XXXX german hardcore porno or would you show them a lame ass "how to have sex for dummies" video? its the same choice to me with video clips such as this one.

[Paladin Solo]

Dude, why would young kids even go to such sites, or be ABLE to find them? They would probably go to Cartoonnetwork.com or something. If they are playing on the computer in the first place. Plus, ever hear of blocking certain sites? Evog is right, it's the parents fault, but the fact that eventually they will see those sites are true as well. But I think your kid would remain uninterested until at least he/she would go through puberty (porn). Which should be a bigger concern to you than war videos.

Avenger, on your point, I'll leave sex education for the most part up to schools, but I wouldn't show my kids some porn site for that kind of education. That is retarded to do something like that. War however is different.