Originally posted by Moongoose
The simple fact that it was covered up is what makes it a big deal. That its been going on for 0 years makes it a huge deal. That there were over 100k civilian casualties there makes it a big ing huge deal.
Also, when they are eagerly begging for the permission to shoot and giggle like schoolgirls when they get it...thats not trying their hardest to make sure stuff like this doesnt happen.
It wasn't covered up though... The videos just weren't released. They don't release a lot of gun-cam footage because there is no point. Its not like Reuters didn't know two of their people were killed... Kinda hard to cover up like that.
There are tons of videos where it looks like the people are not armed and they are being killed. You do not know the situation surrounding the events in most of these videos. Its complex, often chaotic, and there is very little time to make decisions and the decisions have to be made quickly and with the info available at the time.
Also, yea, they get a kick out of wasting people, but again, its their job. If they sat there and got all melancholic about it then they'd not be able to perform as well.
War sucks, but it still happens.
Sushipunk
Nou, I nearly agreed with everything you had to say, up until:
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Also, yea, they get a kick out of wasting people, but again, its their job.
No. Really, really, no.
:wtf:
Joss Weatherby
quote:
Originally posted by Sushipunk
Nou, I nearly agreed with everything you had to say, up until:
No. Really, really, no.
:wtf:
It is their job though, you can not deny it. You get a kick out of destroying the enemy because its a way to make a horrible task at least somewhat bearable. It doesn't work, but for the moment it keeps you sane (as sane as you can be in that situation).
I've talked with a number of Apache pilots/gunners about operations very close to this, and like any other combat job in the military you have to cope with the fact that you are killing people, otherwise you might get killed. Its a ty job...
Ian
quote:
Originally posted by Meat187
So wait, this war thing is actually not that great and even kills people? Gee, who would have thought? :rolleyes:
this is what gets me when you hear the parents of people who've died in there, the majority of whom joined the army after the war began. It's not like a video game, you idiots.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
I am being realistic.
No, you are not being realistic.
It is not realistic to think that combat helicopter pilots, who themselves are not in any immediate danger, and therefore have plenty of time to think before they act, are not even doing anything wrong in assessing a van full of unarmed people trying to save dying people away from a battlefield are dangerous and must be killed. This has nothing to do with realism.
quote:
Insurgents will often try to collect their wounded in vehicles
And you think that is ... wrong? :conf:
quote:
Its only people tossing a bitch fit about it when its published in such a context to make this sound like some one off occurrence.
Quite the contrary. I do not in any way whatsoever want to make this sound like some one off occurrence. I have no idea where you get that from. I want a general focus on our own, or at least our allies, military behavior, so we as people can demand that they should behave better than those we are trying to call terrorists and "evil ".
But it is also a total contradiction on your part. First you claim that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable and understandable, and then you can easily see it is something ""- direct quote - but thinks that one is focusing too much on one event?
Meat187
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
this is what gets me when you hear the parents of people who've died in there, the majority of whom joined the army after the war began. It's not like a video game, you idiots.
I guess in Europe you have a grandpa in most families who was in WW2 and will beat the stupidity out of anyone who even considers joining the army for a combat. In the US you have a bunch of veterans, but the majority has never experienced a war on their own territory. Seeing bad images on TV and fighting some pissed off Russians who kill and / or rape everything on their way is quite a different thing. ;)
Capitalizt
posting this just cuz it's cool.
gazelles
the fact people argue about things like this is why wars should have died out circa 1500AD
Joss Weatherby
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
No, you are not being realistic.
It is not realistic to think that combat helicopter pilots, who themselves are not in any immediate danger, and therefore have plenty of time to think before they act, are not even doing anything wrong in assessing a van full of unarmed people trying to save dying people away from a battlefield are dangerous and must be killed. This has nothing to do with realism.
Again you did not have the same situational awareness that the combined forces operating in that neighborhood did. You do not have the full story. Because the pilot and gunner of the Apache are not in danger doesn't mean that troops on the ground could be. Like I said its complex and chaotic and its obvious you aren't grasping that.
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
And you think that is ... wrong? :conf:
Wrong or not, it is legal, these are non-uniformed illegal combatants. They do not fall under treat obligation to protect the wounded.
In my opinion it is not wrong. They would have come back to fight another day, and the only way to get through to religious extremists is to make them dead ones. It sucks, but thats what history has shown. You can not argue with blind faith like that. It is a mental illness.
quote:
Originally posted by Znack
Quite the contrary. I do not in any way whatsoever want to make this sound like some one off occurrence. I have no idea where you get that from. I want a general focus on our own, or at least our allies, military behavior, so we as people can demand that they should behave better than those we are trying to call terrorists and "evil ".
But it is also a total contradiction on your part. First you claim that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable and understandable, and then you can easily see it is something ""- direct quote - but thinks that one is focusing too much on one event?
You are getting confused about three things.
What is right.
What is legal.
What is needed.
Is it right to make mistakes? No.
Is it legal in these cases? Yes.
Is it needed? In the over all picture yes, it sadly is.
Believe me when I say that if you think this compares to the the enemy does on a daily basis then you need to get your priorities in order and really look at what you are shocked by, because if this is "shocking" to you then you obviously do not understand the type of people we are fighting.
kevin shawn
The big american war machine still rolls on...
It's sad these people died but honestly I feel that we do not need any journalists in the war zones. Yea it looks cool on CNN and your resume but it looks even cooler when it's you getting turned into liquid goo from a multi-million dollar attack helicopter and we can watch it on youtube.
God bless America :rolleyes:
Joss Weatherby
quote:
Originally posted by kevin shawn
The big american war machine still rolls on...
It's sad these people died but honestly I feel that we do not need any journalists in the war zones. Yea it looks cool on CNN and your resume but it looks even cooler when it's you getting turned into liquid goo from a multi-million dollar attack helicopter and we can watch it on youtube.
God bless America :rolleyes:
Don't need journalists in war zones? :wtf:
Sorry, but war needs to be covered, and combat journalists are doing humanity a favor by risking their lives.
Znack
quote:
Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Because the pilot and gunner of the Apache are not in danger doesn't mean that troops on the ground could be.
In danger of unarmed non-combatants who are trying to rescue wounded? Oh yes, it is a realistic possibility. What would they do, throw medicine after the troops?
Firstly, you apparently do not understand that it is us who are the aggressors here. We attacked a country - in this case, even based on a lie, but that does not matter. When you do attack, you simply can not afford to shoot people without being absolutely sure they've done something wrong.
It is not okay to kill someone to be be on the safe side because they might have had weapons. It could have been if we defended our own country against an attack.
Either you have completely overlooked these things, or you have the most insane, murderous mindset i have experience in a long time, and it would scare me that someone as bloodthirsty roams freely.
quote:
the only way to get through to religious extremists is to make them dead ones.
So now you are arguing that we must execute all strongly religious people because they might pose a danger one day?
quote:
Is it legal in these cases? Yes.
So you also think witch burnings in medieval times were good? They were legal. Torture of infidels? To keep slaves? It was all legal once.
The law is irrelevant in this context. It is made by humans and is thus an expression of what some people consider to be right. What we are discussing here is exactly about that, if it is defensible that some people find it to be right.
The argument of legality is circular. You really are just saying, because we do it, it is right to do it.
