1. Post #1401
    Gold Member
    dryer-lint's Avatar
    May 2006
    2,021 Posts
    Well it looks like the people screaming "murder" have had all their arguments taken apart, so I'm just going to go ahead and accept their apology to the nice gunner on their behalf.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  2. Post #1402
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,984 Posts
    People are also forgetting, it's a city, not just a warzone.
    Then I'm sorry but any civilian who lacks the common sense to go outside with an object that might resemble a weapon and hang around in a group with other people with similar amounts of common sense doesn't deserve my sympathy.

    It's all about battlefield etiquette, folks.

    Edit:

    Well it looks like the people screaming "murder" have had all their arguments taken apart, so I'm just going to go ahead and accept their apology to the nice gunner on their behalf.
    I shall join you.

  3. Post #1403
    Gold Member
    Dennab
    June 2005
    15,081 Posts
    Then I'm sorry but any civilian who lacks the common sense to go outside with an object that might resemble a weapon and hang around in a group with other people with similar amounts of common sense doesn't deserve my sympathy.

    It's all about battlefield etiquette, folks.
    It's pretty standard for journalists to have armed escorts.

    It's the Apache that didn't follow battlefield etiquette.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  4. Post #1404
    Actually a cool guy
    David29's Avatar
    June 2005
    2,984 Posts
    It's pretty standard for journalists to have armed escorts.

    It's the Apache that didn't follow battlefield etiquette.
    Ugh, did you read my original post?

    I shall restate the point since you missed it:

    Point: If a gunner sees a group of people acting suspiciously and equipped with objects that look like weapons, it really is in his - and other soldiers - best interests for him to open fire. It's common sense of the battlefield and it is what keeps you from getting shot up.

    If the people hadn't been carrying weapons, or objects that appear to be weapons, then I would be able to understand. The military cannot be blamed for the incompetence of the journalist if they failed to inform anyone of their presence.

    I ask you this: would it be any different if it had been a soldier shooting someone with a toy AK-47?

  5. Post #1405
    Dennab
    April 2010
    5,256 Posts
    It's pretty standard for journalists to have armed escorts.

    It's the Apache that didn't follow battlefield etiquette.
    It's also pretty standard for journalists to wear identification (specifically, IR tabs) and to alert friendly forces in the AO to their presence, or embed themselves with a unit.

    Reuters did neither of these things.

    Edited:

    Look at how they walk in the beginning, would soldiers do that ?
    Believe it or not, not everyone walks around in a tacti-cool half crouch like a tiger ready to pounce in a warzone. Take a look at some video firefights, especially the ones filmed by insurgents, unless they are directly under fire or engaging, most of those guys look pretty casual. Besides majority of them aren't veteran fighters, alot were students taking up the jihad.

  6. Post #1406
    i enjoy sucking pony dick
    Wolfie13's Avatar
    November 2006
    1,545 Posts
    Because it has the distinctive RPG shape to the end of it? Let's not forget that what we could see is all that the gunner could see too, so it's not like we're only getting half the truth.

    Still made me laugh..

  7. Post #1407
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    As Makol stated, everyone is ignoring the fact that they were hanging around with insurgents which classifies them are insurgents.
    cool

    sorry bro, but they weren't insurgents, they were journalists

    Edited:

    alot were students taking up the jihad.
    uh...

    you don't know what a Jihad is lol

    Edited:

    also, Reuters is not American. They weren't rolling with American's either.

    and no journalist I met that's been there ever wore a IR tag or whatever.

    Edited:

    Then I'm sorry but any civilian who lacks the common sense to go outside with an object that might resemble a weapon and hang around in a group with other people with similar amounts of common sense doesn't deserve my sympathy.

    It's all about battlefield etiquette, folks.

    Edit:



    I shall join you.
    They were in the open around the time the shooting started... like 3 miles away.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  8. Post #1408
    Gold Member
    Morcam's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,537 Posts
    cool

    sorry bro, but they weren't insurgents, they were journalists
    Guess what? The pilots didn't know this.

    uh...

    you don't know what a Jihad is lol
    Jihad :an Islamic term is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle."

    Uh, what? Insurgents/Terrorists/Whatever the hell you want to call them are most definitely on a jihad.

    Ah hell, you're completely ignoring everything we're saying anyways.

  9. Post #1409
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    uh, yeah, that's the problem, they dropped the ball and acted preemptively.


    It's an internal struggle, pretty much religious.

  10. Post #1410
    Gold Member
    Morcam's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,537 Posts
    uh, yeah, that's the problem, they dropped the ball and acted preemptively.


    It's an internal struggle, pretty much religious.
    How did they act preemptively? There were friendly units in the area, reports of fire, and there was a group of people walking around on the ground with weapons. The pilot didn't know that they were reporters, nor that they may or may not have been weapons. There was no reason to suspect that they were reporters.

    How does religion have anything to do with this?

  11. Post #1411
    Dennab
    October 2009
    2,552 Posts
    And to everyone in that last thread about it, I fucking told you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #1412
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    How did they act preemptively? There were friendly units in the area, reports of fire, and there was a group of people walking around on the ground with weapons. The pilot didn't know that they were reporters, nor that they may or may not have been weapons. There was no reason to suspect that they were reporters.

    How does religion have anything to do with this?
    they weren't even near the soldiers. They were also out in the middle of the fucking open.

    and they didn't fucking have weapons

    A jihad is a religious term.

  13. Post #1413
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    All the people claiming victory seem to be forgetting that most of us were only concerned about him fucking up a van of unarmed people, because insurgent or not you don't just do that until they pose an immediate threat.

  14. Post #1414
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    And to everyone in that last thread about it, I fucking told you.
    told us... what?

  15. Post #1415
    ejonkou's Avatar
    October 2009
    5,097 Posts
    The US Military uses the Predator UAV with attached guns on it. They wont fire unless they are 100% sure about the shot. Dont be a dipshit, ofcourse those were armed extremists.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  16. Post #1416
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    The US Military uses the Predator UAV with attached guns on it. They wont fire unless they are 100% sure about the shot. Dont be a dipshit, ofcourse those were armed extremists.
    that was an Apache

  17. Post #1417
    Gold Member
    Morcam's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,537 Posts
    they weren't even near the soldiers. They were also out in the middle of the fucking open.

    and they didn't fucking have weapons

    A jihad is a religious term.



    1. They're still surrounded by buildings. Also, they could have walked into and around said buildings to the troops in the area. They called in close air support, after all...
    2. Even Reuters has stated that they probably had weapons. This was also a highly trained pilot who has certainly seen his fair share of RPG's and AK47s.
    3. A Jihad is a religious term... Okay? I'm still not sure how that's related...

    All the people claiming victory seem to be forgetting that most of us were only concerned about him fucking up a van of unarmed people, because insurgent or not you don't just do that until they pose an immediate threat.
    They just picked up insurgents who had weapons. The chance that they are armed or have weapons in the vehicle is insanely high. Terrorists also wear civilian clothes, and as such there is no real way to decide for sure whether they are insurgents or not. Regardless, you shouldn't be blaming this on the pilot. This isn't the first time an innocent person has been killed by an American soldier. I would hope you realize that this is the goal of the insurgents in Iraq. You should be angry at them, not the pilot.

  18. Post #1418
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    They just picked up insurgents who had weapons. The chance that they are armed or have weapons in the vehicle is insanely high. Terrorists also wear civilian clothes, and as such there is no real way to decide for sure whether they are insurgents or not. Regardless, you shouldn't be blaming this on the pilot. This isn't the first time an innocent person has been killed by an American soldier. I would hope you realize that this is the goal of the insurgents in Iraq. You should be angry at them, not the pilot.
    Durr you think I don't condemn dirty tactics by the insurgents?

    Anyway my point is the military is supposed to avoid lethal force until there is an obvious threat, and guys in a van assisting someone are not a threat, even if they possibly have weapons. You keep clutching on to this "no the guy is justified" but you don't even realize that most of the rest of the military would agree with me.

  19. Post #1419
    Gold Member
    Sleepy Head's Avatar
    August 2006
    2,452 Posts
    but you don't even realize that most of the rest of the military would agree with me.
    what makes you say this?

  20. Post #1420
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    what makes you say this?
    The fact that the general policy is strictly against it.

    On top of that I got these blog posts from soldiers if that means anything.

    http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/0...ateral-murder/

    http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/20...important.html

  21. Post #1421
    Gold Member
    Sleepy Head's Avatar
    August 2006
    2,452 Posts
    The fact that the general policy is strictly against it.

    On top of that I got this blog post from a soldier if that means anything.

    http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/0...ateral-murder/

    well, i still think it's a far fetched claim, imo.

  22. Post #1422
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    well, i still think it's a far fetched claim, imo.
    What, that shooting at a van of people who don't appear to be armed is unacceptable to the military? How is that far fetched? You realize they try as hard as possible to prevent civilian casualties, and when someone breaks the rules and causes a scene like this you can expect their ass to be punished. The military is extremely concerned about it's public image, especially when invading a foreign state while trying to maintain a good relationship with the citizens.

  23. Post #1423
    Gold Member
    Sleepy Head's Avatar
    August 2006
    2,452 Posts
    What, that shooting at a van of people who don't appear to be armed is unacceptable to the military? How is that far fetched? You realize they try as hard as possible to prevent civilian casualties, and when someone breaks the rules and causes a scene like this you can expect their ass to be punished. The military is extremely concerned about it's public image, especially when invading a foreign state while trying to maintain a good relationship with the citizens.

    you just made this that much more complicated.

  24. Post #1424
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    you just made this that much more complicated.
    Here I'll make it simple:

    shooting that van was a fuckup, the military agrees, I'm right, you're wrong

  25. Post #1425
    Gold Member
    Morcam's Avatar
    September 2008
    1,537 Posts
    Durr you think I don't condemn dirty tactics by the insurgents?
    I never said that, nor do I assume that you do.

    Anyway my point is the military is supposed to avoid lethal force until there is an obvious threat, and guys in a van assisting someone are not a threat, even if they possibly have weapons.
    There is a threat. Primarily, terrorists in a van that suddenly arrived at the scene right after the shooting. It's not as if the pilots dropped a few rounds into the survivor after they saw him move. And as stated before, terrorists like to pick up their dead to keep the loss numbers down. It's not the first time that a vehicle has arrived to a scene that has been fired upon, it's just that the pilots were wrong this time.

    You keep clutching on to this "no the guy is justified" but you don't even realize that most of the rest of the military would agree with me.
    And that's just a baseless statement.

  26. Post #1426
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    There is a threat. Primarily, terrorists in a van that suddenly arrived at the scene right after the shooting. It's not as if the pilots dropped a few rounds into the survivor after they saw him move. And as stated before, terrorists like to pick up their dead to keep the loss numbers down. It's not the first time that a vehicle has arrived to a scene that has been fired upon, it's just that the pilots were wrong this time.
    You don't shoot them even if you think they're insurgents unless they're being hostile, I've already made this clear. Who cares if that guy lives. Send in some ground units or let them go.

    And that's just a baseless statement.
    Read my newer posts.

  27. Post #1427
    Gold Member
    Sleepy Head's Avatar
    August 2006
    2,452 Posts
    Here I'll make it simple:

    shooting that van was a fuckup, the military agrees, I'm right, you're wrong
    now you're just being a jackass.

    there's nothing that says that most of the military agrees that it was wrong, you can't just say that you're right without any sort of backup
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  28. Post #1428
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,227 Posts
    They shouldn't need to pose an immediate threat to be fired upon, if they are an enemy and appear to be carrying weapons, then common sense dictates that you take them out before they have a chance to ambush your guys or plant an IED or something. Basically, don't wait to be fired upon when you can be reasonably sure that the person is an enemy(carrying what looks like an AK is a pretty good way to appear to be an enemy).
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  29. Post #1429
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    The US Military uses the Predator UAV with attached guns on it. They wont fire unless they are 100% sure about the shot. Dont be a dipshit, ofcourse those were armed extremists.
    ok, so you didn't watch the video, read the article, read the thread... read the title... uh

    what are you doing?

  30. Post #1430
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,227 Posts
    You don't shoot them even if you think they're insurgents unless they're being hostile, I've already made this clear. Who cares if that guy lives. Send in some ground units or let them go.



    Read my newer posts.
    How are a couple of blog posts an indication of what the entire military thinks? And doctrine is no representation of the people actually doing the fighting anyway. You may remember Vietnam, when the soldiers couldn't fire until fired upon, leading to some anger among them at being forced to wait for somebody to potentially die before taking out an obvious threat.

  31. Post #1431
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    now you're just being a jackass.

    there's nothing that says that most of the military agrees that it was wrong, you can't just say that you're right without any sort of backup
    If the Marine Corps manual, the Counter-insurgency manual, and testimony from two soldiers isn't good enough I'm not going to waste my time digging up more shit for you. Especially when you have even less proof to justify it.

    They shouldn't need to pose an immediate threat to be fired upon, if they are an enemy and appear to be carrying weapons, then common sense dictates that you take them out before they have a chance to ambush your guys or plant an IED or something. Basically, don't wait to be fired upon when you can be reasonably sure that the person is an enemy(carrying what looks like an AK is a pretty good way to appear to be an enemy).
    Uh yeah when they appear to have weapons then they are a threat. We're not talking about that we're talking about the van people, who were clearly unarmed.

  32. Post #1432
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts



    1. They're still surrounded by buildings. Also, they could have walked into and around said buildings to the troops in the area. They called in close air support, after all...
    2. Even Reuters has stated that they probably had weapons. This was also a highly trained pilot who has certainly seen his fair share of RPG's and AK47s.
    3. A Jihad is a religious term... Okay? I'm still not sure how that's related...



    They just picked up insurgents who had weapons. The chance that they are armed or have weapons in the vehicle is insanely high. Terrorists also wear civilian clothes, and as such there is no real way to decide for sure whether they are insurgents or not. Regardless, you shouldn't be blaming this on the pilot. This isn't the first time an innocent person has been killed by an American soldier. I would hope you realize that this is the goal of the insurgents in Iraq. You should be angry at them, not the pilot.
    you pretty much like created your own spin on the story lol

    did you even try?

  33. Post #1433
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    How are a couple of blog posts an indication of what the entire military thinks?
    I think that military policy, which I've also pointed out plenty of times, and which the blog posts themselves have referenced (which of course you didn't read) are a pretty good indication of how the majority of the military thinks.

    And doctrine is no representation of the people actually doing the fighting anyway. You may remember Vietnam, when the soldiers couldn't fire until fired upon, leading to some anger among them at being forced to wait for somebody to potentially die before taking out an obvious threat.
    Remember that time where I was only talking about the van

  34. Post #1434
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    And that's just a baseless statement.
    as opposed too...

  35. Post #1435
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,227 Posts
    If the Marine Corps manual, the Counter-insurgency manual, and testimony from two soldiers isn't good enough I'm not going to waste my time digging up more shit for you. Especially when you have even less proof to justify it.



    Uh yeah when they appear to have weapons then they are a threat. We're not talking about that we're talking about the van people, who were clearly unarmed.
    Being unarmed does not mean that you are not an enemy, it just means that the media jumps to conclusions. The insurgents will remove weapons from the dead, whether to reuse or make it appear as if the person was a civilian, it doesn't matter. That's just their tactics. Whether they have a weapon or not, they could be an enemy. Seeing as they drove to the area of a shooting, they were either stupid reporters or insurgents.

  36. Post #1436
    Gold Member
    Not Tishler's Avatar
    February 2008
    491 Posts
    Being unarmed does not mean that you are not an enemy, it just means that the media jumps to conclusions. The insurgents will remove weapons from the dead, whether to reuse or make it appear as if the person was a civilian, it doesn't matter. That's just their tactics. Whether they have a weapon or not, they could be an enemy. Seeing as they drove to the area of a shooting, they were either stupid reporters or insurgents.
    wow... you generalize, make uneducated claims with no source AND defend the murder of children

    fuck me, you're in it for the win aren't you?

    Edited:

    i like your "either or" superficial arguments,

    smooth

  37. Post #1437
    Gold Member
    dogmachines's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,227 Posts
    I think that military policy, which I've also pointed out plenty of times, and which the blog posts themselves have referenced (which of course you didn't read) are a pretty good indication of how the majority of the military thinks.
    I am somewhat of a military buff, and know a few ex-military people. There is a huge disconnect between the people in Washington(who write the doctrine) and the people pulling triggers and doing the fighting. I'll say it again, a couple of blog posts are not a representation of the thoughts and opinions of the military. The people who tend to speak their minds ( a handful of blog posts) are the ones who are unhappy with something. The people who are fine with it(everyone else) accepts it a moves on to other things, such as the media raking our soldiers over the coals as they risk their lives for the country.

  38. Post #1438
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    Being unarmed does not mean that you are not an enemy, it just means that the media jumps to conclusions. The insurgents will remove weapons from the dead, whether to reuse or make it appear as if the person was a civilian, it doesn't matter. That's just their tactics. Whether they have a weapon or not, they could be an enemy. Seeing as they drove to the area of a shooting, they were either stupid reporters or insurgents.
    Even if they're the enemy and they wrote "We are insurgents" in red paint on the roof, we don't fire until there's a weapons threat.

  39. Post #1439
    Gold Member
    Sleepy Head's Avatar
    August 2006
    2,452 Posts
    If the Marine Corps manual, the Counter-insurgency manual, and testimony from two soldiers isn't good enough I'm not going to waste my time digging up more shit for you. Especially when you have even less proof to justify it.


    i have nothing that i need to prove, you're trying to prove that the majority of the military would be against this. i haven't seen anything that proves this, other than manuals and blog posts.

  40. Post #1440
    Mexican's Avatar
    July 2009
    5,753 Posts
    I am somewhat of a military buff, and know a few ex-military people. There is a huge disconnect between the people in Washington(who write the doctrine) and the people pulling triggers and doing the fighting. I'll say it again, a couple of blog posts are not a representation of the thoughts and opinions of the military. The people who tend to speak their minds ( a handful of blog posts) are the ones who are unhappy with something. The people who are fine with it(everyone else) accepts it a moves on to other things, such as the media raking our soldiers over the coals as they risk their lives for the country.
    Yeah there's a reason helicopter pilots don't get to make the rules. It's the same reason your janitor doesn't pick your curriculum. Also the Iraq war is fucking our country not protecting it, but I digress.

    Edited:

    i have nothing that i need to prove, you're trying to prove that the majority of the military would be against this. i haven't seen anything that proves this, other than manuals and blog posts.
    Manuals are kind of a big deal to the military homes.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)