Leaked video of U.S. Military killing civilians and Reuters journalists.

[amoverlord]

Trigger happy? Did you even watch the entire 40 minutes? I doubt it because if you did watch the entire 40 minutes, you would have seen the pilots were quite deliberate before they fire. So if you chose to use the provocative phrase \'trigger happy\', may we inquire as FROM what military experience do you draw upon that involve even personal sidearms that you can justify that provocative phrase?

As for the comment made by one pilot about the wounded children...What do you expect him to say when there is no 21st century technology that would endow him the ability to see through obstacles to discern adults from children? There are plenty enough news on how women, even pregnant women, and children were recruited to be human bombs. So should we be surprised that children would be callously used by insurgents precisely for the hope that children being wounded or even killed in combat zones?

well...i have no combat experience,whatsoever.....u found the term trigger happy provocative,well then what about the part when the aviator justifies his action for shooting children(knowingly or unknowingly),n shrugs of by saying \"there fault\".....and as for being plenty of news about woman n children being used as bombs,yes its true......but how does it justifies this particular incident.....n even then if u said they did nothing wrong then tell me whats the difference between terrorists n us armed forces.......

 

[gambit]

well...i have no combat experience,whatsoever.....u found the term trigger happy provocative,well then what about the part when the aviator justifies his action for shooting children(knowingly or unknowingly),n shrugs of by saying \"there fault\".....and as for being plenty of news about woman n children being used as bombs,yes its true......but how does it justifies this particular incident.....n even then if u said they did nothing wrong then tell me whats the difference between terrorists n us armed forces.......

To 'justify' something mean to find a reason and/or cause to say that so-and-so action or words cannot be morally condemned...

Justify | Define Justify at Dictionary.com

–verb (used with object)
1. to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right: The end does not always justify the means.

2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded: Don't try to justify his rudeness.

3. Theology. to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit.

5. Law.
a. to show a satisfactory reason or excuse for something done.
b. to qualify as bail or surety.

So in order for me or the pilot to 'justify' shooting children, the pilot and I MUST know the nature and characters of the target in the first place, in other words, we MUST KNOW that we are shooting at children. Same thing with the provocative word 'murder'. A killing is not 'murder' unless the killer is FULLY AWARE of the identity of the victim. Else any use of the word 'murder' constitute nothing more rhetorical convenience.

So no one is trying to 'justify' or make morally acceptable this instance where children were shot at and wounded. No one can 'justify' it precisely because no one knew there were children in the area until either during the fight or after the fight.

 

[amoverlord]

To \'justify\' something mean to find a reason and/or cause to say that so-and-so action or words cannot be morally condemned...

Justify | Define Justify at Dictionary.com

So in order for me or the pilot to \'justify\' shooting children, the pilot and I MUST know the nature and characters of the target in the first place, in other words, we MUST KNOW that we are shooting at children. Same thing with the provocative word \'murder\'. A killing is not \'murder\' unless the killer is FULLY AWARE of the identity of the victim. Else any use of the word \'murder\' constitute nothing more rhetorical convenience.

So no one is trying to \'justify\' or make morally acceptable this instance where children were shot at and wounded. No one can \'justify\' it precisely because no one knew there were children in the area until either during the fight or after the fight.

yes ,i\'ll not argue with u on that matter,because i have very less knowledge on the situation the aviators were presented with.........
but as u said the pilots were not fully aware of the identity of there targets,even then they were reluctant to shoot......may be this is the case in war,may be such incidents are bound to happen.....even then its wrong n sir,ur stand in this matter is wrong too.....at the end of the day they killed innocents.....
yes u have seen a lot of combat in iraq,germany n other places....n according to u this incident will be a mistake(may be it is).....u said in some thread that u r a product of cold war.......it seems the cold war has made u inappreciable of human life......

 

[Forrest Griffin]

I take it you speak from considerable combat experience or even as a civilian rescue pilot on finding and identifying people from several hundreds ft altitude?

I take it you have considerable military knowledge and were a military analyst for the Pentagon, The White House or CIA?

 

[gambit]

I take it you have considerable military knowledge and were a military analyst for the Pentagon, The White House or CIA?

Am going to ask YOU, for the readership's benefits, the same question that I asked the other gent.

When you said this...

I still believe the aviators could have exercised better judgement.

An experienced veteran aviator would not have done this.

...The word 'experienced' is important. One cannot speak from 'experience' unless one has: Either the experience of the task in question. Or very similar experience in RELATED tasks.

A bus driver have no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?

So if you demand that these helo pilots exercise greater deliberation and that they seemed to be 'inexperienced' in terms of identifying WHAT type of humans are on the ground, it is only fair that we lay aside your demands for now and inquire as upon what experience do you have that would make you eminently qualify to make that demand and judgment?

News helo pilots would qualify. They often fly in urban environment fraught with physical dangers to their aircrafts and their human charges. Bad weather make their tasks doubly difficult and dangerous. They have to be aware of these dangers and still must make many ground identifications, humans or else, to carry their cameras to newsworthy events. Is this your qualification?

Rescue pilots, fixed or rotary wings, would qualify. They often fly in urban areas after some kind of disasters that require airlift capability. They also fly in mountainous terrain or over the ocean's vastness. Identification under these environment are extremely difficult, even when they are only a few hundreds ft altitude. Why do you think neon glowing orange is the preferred color for these pilots? Is this your qualification?

You opened this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon YOUR plate. Bon apetit.

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Am going to ask YOU, for the readership's benefits, the same question that I asked the other gent.

When you said this...


...The word 'experienced' is important. One cannot speak from 'experience' unless one has: Either the experience of the task in question. Or very similar experience in RELATED tasks.

A bus driver have no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?

So if you demand that these helo pilots exercise greater deliberation and that they seemed to be 'inexperienced' in terms of identifying WHAT type of humans are on the ground, it is only fair that we lay aside your demands for now and inquire as upon what experience do you have that would make you eminently qualify to make that demand and judgment?

News helo pilots would qualify. They often fly in urban environment fraught with physical dangers to their aircrafts and their human charges. Bad weather make their tasks doubly difficult and dangerous. They have to be aware of these dangers and still must make many ground identifications, humans or else, to carry their cameras to newsworthy events. Is this your qualification?

Rescue pilots, fixed or rotary wings, would qualify. They often fly in urban areas after some kind of disasters that require airlift capability. They also fly in mountainous terrain or over the ocean's vastness. Identification under these environment are extremely difficult, even when they are only a few hundreds ft altitude. Why do you think neon glowing orange is the preferred color for these pilots? Is this your qualification?

You opened this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon YOUR plate. Bon apetit.

A ground soldier has no standing on analyzing a 747 pilot. A bus driver has no standing on criticizing the 747 driver. A crop duster pilot is a little closer. An F-15 pilot closer still. And other than another 747 captain, the best candidate to criticize a 747 pilot would be either an AWACS, air refueler or a Fedex-type pilot. Get the picture?

Do you have experience to analyze the actions of the aviator? According to your argument you listed above, the only person in a position to analyze/judge the aviator's actions are those with constant flight experience.

You constricted this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon YOUR plate. Bon apetit.

 

[gambit]

You constricted this 'experience' can of worms and now it is served upon YOUR plate. Bon apetit.

I have, as served 10yrs in the USAF and part of an EC-130 crew, sufficiently related experience to say that I am more qualified than you are and ever will be. It was YOU who asserted that based upon 'experience' that those helos pilots were in error. So try not to do anymore tap-dancing and explain to the readers as to how you can make that judgment. If neither a ground soldier nor I can criticize those helo pilots, then who are you to make those criticisms? This is not about the morality of the situation but about the MECHANICS of identification. So get to it, tell us what are your qualifications to say that the helo pilots were in the wrong?

 

[booo]

I have few things to say, in my opinion that could've saved few lives. (lets not judge if they were innocent or not) and I am not really sure about the rules of engagement of American military.

Americans always say that they use precision while making a kill, but I could see here that it was just brute force.

1. I can figure out from from the video that one guy was carrying an rpg.
2. may be one guy had an AK.
3. one guy was hiding behind the wall. probably reloading his gun/rpg but cant really say.
4. They did not retaliate or fire any weapon during the entire video.

now what could've been done in a different way.
1. the apache crew could've fired warning shots instead of killing them instantly.
2. They could've directed the ground crew properly to make positive identification before killing anyone.
3. they should've fired some warning shots at the van that came to rescue the injured guy instead of toasting it.
4. by the conversation during the operation, I felt that the apache crew were eager to user their weapons.

 

[gambit]

I have few things to say, in my opinion that could've saved few lives. (lets not judge if they were innocent or not) and I am not really sure about the rules of engagement of American military.

Every military has rules of engagement. The insurgents have the most liberal.

Americans always say that they use precision while making a kill, but I could see here that it was just brute force.

Every killing is brute force. What you mean as 'precision' is actually discrimination between what is wanted and unwanted and direct the firepower on what is wanted. In this incident, what we wanted and believed we found them, were insurgents. We have no controls if Reuters journalists were among them.

1. I can figure out from from the video that one guy was carrying an rpg.
2. may be one guy had an AK.
3. one guy was hiding behind the wall. probably reloading his gun/rpg but cant really say.
4. They did not retaliate or fire any weapon during the entire video.

Ground troops under fire usually FIRST seek cover, unlike what the movies often portrayed. But even after they have cover, they must find the direction of whoever attacked them before they can respond.

now what could've been done in a different way.
1. the apache crew could've fired warning shots instead of killing them instantly.
2. They could've directed the ground crew properly to make positive identification before killing anyone.
3. they should've fired some warning shots at the van that came to rescue the injured guy instead of toasting it.

In a combat zone, warning shots are absurd. The goal is to kill the enemy. To direct friendly ground forces to make positive IDs is an unrealistic demand. As of now I can make the same demand for any military.

4. by the conversation during the operation, I felt that the apache crew were eager to user their weapons.

Why should they not?

 

[Forrest Griffin]

I have, as served 10yrs in the USAF and part of an MC-130 crew, sufficiently related experience to say that I am more qualified than you are and ever will be. It is YOU who asserted that based upon 'experience' that those helos pilots were in error. So try not to do anymore tap-dancing and explain to the readers as to how you can make that judgment. If neither a ground soldier nor I can criticize those helo pilots, then who are you to make those criticisms? This is not about the morality of the situation but about the MECHANICS of identification. So get to it, tell us what are your qualifications to say that the helo pilots were in the wrong?

Well since you failed to qualify to be apart of the MC-130 flight crew, explain how does being apart of the ground maintenance crew make you an "expert" on these matters?

 

[WAQAS119]

shame on USA

 

[gambit]

Well since you failed to qualify to be apart of the MC-130 flight crew, explain how does being apart of the ground maintenance crew make you an "expert" on these matters?

Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of YOUR military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

shame on USA

Like your opinion mattered...

 

[forcetrip]

Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of YOUR military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------


Like your opinion mattered...

I dont see how you are deciding to have more knowledge of defending the airmen when we just saw the same video feed. The pilots gave information that does not match up with the video in many instances. You are also assuming that they were not getting the same gun feed that we just saw. If you think you were seeing AK47's in that feed and we wernt then there is no argument that can convince you of your blind convictions.They acted irrationally and from what i gather both the pilots and attack controller jumped the gun, not to mention the overkill that ensued after.

http://www.dodccrp.org/events/10th_ICCRTS/CD/papers/149.pdf

 

[Forrest Griffin]

Did I say that? Try to read it again. Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike. The readers can see by now your evasion. Until you can present the readers with some of YOUR military experience and explain how that experience related to the problems in this incident, you are now dismissed as irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 01:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------


Like your opinion mattered...

Stop trying to act like a Marine.

I have read your previous posts, you were an enlisted member and not an officer so you were NOT apart of the flight crew. Most likely you joined USAF right out of high school and never went to college (which is apparent when reading your posts).

You were a USAF personnel on the ground and NOT a combat soldier. You most likely never seen nor engaged in combat.

So you answer is:

Still...As someone who have to post-Saddam Kuwait and moved among much of the rubble that was part of Kuwait City, I can see how difficult it would have been for airborne humans to have difficulty making positive IDs between terrorists and journalists, especially when they can dress and move alike.

This is the most absurd justification for your analysis of the Apache pilot's actions.

You Ground Pounder are now dismissed as irrelevant.

 

[Frankenstein]

Why aren't any of the big US news sites reporting the Wikileaks release?

CNN: http://i.imgur.com/LQqdI.png
Fox News: http://i.imgur.com/f7UQL.png
MSNBC: http://i.imgur.com/H6sqz.png
New York Times: http://i.imgur.com/SL3rX.png

I guess Tiger Woods and the iPad is more important.

, why wud they