The Iraq Thread 2

[ozanzac 0]

Yeah, the exhaust of a tractor. Look, you can see the heat signature from the earth that the tractor was plowing.

This was plain and simple. Murder.

[theavonlady 2]

Yes,  I'd say so. AA missiles (russian at least) have in general liquid oxygen based fuel. It burns with a very bright flame. RPG's use solid rocket fuel wich burns much longer and produces a lot of smoke. Mortars won't burn, they'll just explode and spread shrapnel around the place.

Actually, I've only seen a weapons cache being burned once, but this is what I think. I may be wrong. Ask Ran, he's a former UXO engineer.

The reason I asked is because about 2 years ago, we had a bout of carbombs here that contained mortars piled on and alongside the main charge. While some of the mortars may have exploded, most of them just flew intact in every direction, without exploding.

Again, I don't see how you can say anything much for certain from this video.

Quote[/b] ]when the shooting started, the men were unarmed and did not return fire in any way.

Did this occur at night? How far were the men from the chopper? It looks as if they were unaware of the chopper's presence.

Quote[/b] ]The issue is killing a wounded man

I mentioned before why the wounded man might still have been a risk potential.

[theavonlady 2]

This was plain and simple. Murder.

Another expert eyewitness!

[theavonlady 2]

Looked at the video again, this time at 200%. Can't see any weapons but then I have no idea how these would look at this distance with this imaging (thermal?).

The guy who ran to the tractor went around it and pulled something out. After the shooting of the man in the middle of the road, the image swings back to the man at the tractor and it seems as if he's hastily unwrapping something packed in fabric or paper. It must've been really important the way he was going at it after the shooting began. Any ideas?

How does such footage get released by the military? Is this an official public release? Is there a US military spokesman to direct questions to?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It must've been really important the way he was going at it after the shooting began. Any ideas

Disagreed. We see the back of tractor here. Attached to tractor you see seeding machine. You also see thast tractor already did some rows as traces are visible on ground. The driver hops off as soon as man runs up to tractor. The other man rounds tractor and goes to engine from the left. camera now fixes on man going away from tractor and he gets killed. Now the camera swings back and what you see is that the man who went to left side of tractor pulls a blanket or jacket from the drivers cabin of  the tractor. In my opinion it is understandable that if there was an issue with the tractors engine the mechanic would have placed a blanket under the tractor to avoid the dirt and make a comfortable working place. Why he pulls it out will remain his secret, but maybe he didnt see the consequences of firing on other man and wanted to get the blanket to put out fire caused by 30 mm and wanted to aid the other man. Remember, it was night and the man at tractor didnt see that the other one literally exploded.

Edit:

Another interesting thing: The pickup truck is not manned there is noone in. After big truck got hit you see a heat signature in the left window of pickup. This is only the heat reflection from burning big truck. Pilot falsely assumes that a person is in truck after that.

Another question I´d like to ask. If there were any missiles why didnt the pilots destroy them ? Does not make much sense to kill the people and leave the supposed weapons untouched.

2nd edit: watched it again and you see man at left of tractor already pulling jacket or blanket out of drivers cabin before the first man gets shot. Watch it again. You see it for a short moment.A stored AA or RPG in the cabin is unlikely if you know the measure of that rockets.

[ran 0]

orders received, beliefs, "what am I going to eat tonight ?" ... when you're trained to, you just don't give a fuck

That's explanation did not work in the Nürnberg trials. "I was obeying orders." Is no excuse. And I'm sure that you've heard it as many times as I that as a soldier it is your duty to disobey illegal orders.

Quote[/b] ]You don't get it because you yet haven't faced a situation were you were behind the screen or the scope.

If you mean that I have never picked off defenceless people one by one from a distance, then you are right. If you mean followed orders and fired in combat, then you're wrong. This was not combat and they were not following orders, but they requested to shoot the people down there that posed no threat.

Quote[/b] ]If i get orders, even if they are illegal, if there is nobody to denounce me, if i'm covered by my superior and if i feel what i am doing is right ..... i'll press the button or pull the trigger.

Now i now this is wrong, but your conscience simply takes a break at times, and you choose the "easy way".

So you're saying that you would for instance execute POW:s? Of my now (2004-1997)= 7 years in the military (service,kfor,reserves) I have met very few soldiers who I think would be capable of comitting such war crimes under 'normal' (war) circumstances.

And I would 'normal' circumstances never ever give such an order to my men. (I can't guarantee 100% always that I would never ever give such an order because you can construct any number of radical and extreme situation. It is however extremely improbable)

if i had to do something like that i'd make it that way so there's no witness, proof or report of my acts and that the few people who know about my acts either completely shut up or cover me

i don't have any problem with illegal orders as long as they don't cost me my head or go against my feelings, the nasty job has to be done by someone.

i wouldn't kill POW's since this would go against my principes, but this doesn't mean the POW's would be completely safe with me around .....

when in command, i think i would never issue this kind of order, but who knows ......

-edit-: french army has set precedents over this ....

Algeria .....

i agree with you that in this case, this was a pure and simple execution

[ozanzac 0]

Of the entire 1 min 7 second sequence. The only activity that was even remotely suspicous on the victims behalf, was of the person who hid under the truck, and poked half his body out from underneath the truck. Look at this part closely in full screen mode, and you see what looks to be his hand come up to his face while he's locating the chopper. His hand is there for a less than a second, perhaps taking aim at the chopper with nothing more than a pistol, then quickly roles back under the truck?

Exactly what if anything the man had in his hand is too hard to tell, but if the man did weapon, I doubt it would have been effective at 370-380 yards/meters................. *sighs* If only the full ABC video worked for me.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The reason I asked is because about 2 years ago, we had a bout of carbombs here that contained mortars piled on and alongside the main charge. While some of the mortars may have exploded, most of them just flew intact in every direction, without exploding.

The ammo type used by Apache for 30mm gun is either

HE or HEDP (high-explosive dual-purpose) ammunition.

Both ammunition types have high explosive capacity. If there were any rockets, mortars AA´s on back of pickup truck you would have seen that by ignition or partial burst or high heat emission. None of that could be seen.

I´ve seen several trucks, pickups, technicals pumped by Apaches in Somalia live. They looked pretty different when they got hit and carried RPG or heavy ammo types. Firearms ammo crackles up maybe not instantly but it will. There was no trace of all that in video. Even a slight ammo explosion would have been very visible. This goes for the men hit also.

The temperatures caused on impact of HE ammo no matter if HE or HEDP is extremely high.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]His hand is there for a less than a second, perhaps taking aim at the chopper with nothing more than a pistol, then quickly roles back under the truck?

I wonder where you have seen that. Really. He glances out and moves back. To see a weapon here is impossible. At least for me it is.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]The reason I asked is because about 2 years ago, we had a bout of carbombs here that contained mortars piled on and alongside the main charge. While some of the mortars may have exploded, most of them just flew intact in every direction, without exploding.

The ammo type used by Apache for 30mm gun is either

HE or HEDP (high-explosive dual-purpose) ammunition.

Both ammunition types have high explosive capacity. If there were any rockets, mortars AA´s on back of pickup truck you would have seen that by ignition or partial burst or high heat emission. None of that could be seen.

I´ve seen several trucks, pickups, technicals pumped by Apaches in Somalia live. They looked pretty different when they got hit and carried RPG or heavy ammo types. Firearms ammo crackles up maybe not instantly but it will. There was no trace of all that in video. Even a slight ammo explosion would have been very visible. This goes for the men hit also.

The temperatures caused on impact of HE ammo no matter if HE or HEDP is extremely high.

I only see the front of the truck being hit. The back looks relatively unscathed.

And according to your assessment, the car bombs I mentioned should certainly have triggered the enclosed mortars but they didn't.

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]His hand is there for a less than a second, perhaps taking aim at the chopper with nothing more than a pistol, then quickly roles back under the truck?

I wonder where you have seen that. Really. He glances out and moves back. To see a weapon here is impossible. At least for me it is.

I'm talking repeatedly going over that second that he rolled out from the truck. I notice that after he rolls out from the truck, his left hand, signified by a white glow, comes up to his face for a split second, enough to get mayby a shot off if he had a weapon, but I can't tell if he has a weapon or not. Only that he's in a position that if he had a weapon, he could get a single shot off.

Replay seconds 36 to 38 to see if you see what I see.

[theavonlady 2]

Replay seconds 36 to 38 to see if you see what I see.

I see what you're referring to but, like so much else in the film, you can't really tell.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I only see the front of the truck being hit. The back looks relatively unscathed.

And according to your assessment, the car bombs I mentioned should certainly have triggered the enclosed mortars but they didn't.

The big truck is not the one i am talking about. If you check back of big truck you cant see any load on it.

I am talking about pickup truck that got hit by 30mm

No Avon regular explosives or self built bombs don´t reach that high temperatures needed to ignite ammunition at the initial blast.

You should have come to that conclusion on your own if you read my post about HE and HEDP ammo properly

Quote[/b] ]I'm talking repeatedly going over that second that he rolled out from the truck.

I know what you think but even after editing in premiere and making a huge stretch on the sequence I could not see a gun, nor could I see the man aiming at helo. What got visible is that the man literally must have sit under the truck and bows back turns left lying on his back towards helo bows up and gets under truck again. His hands go to his head on both sides. Understandable if you try it on your own. Lie down on the floor and try to bow up fast. You will also move your hands toward your head to get up faster.

[ozanzac 0]

Replay seconds 36 to 38 to see if you see what I see.

I see what you're referring to but, like so much else in the film, you can't really tell.

That's right. In these specific conditions, you can't tell.

Could the pilots really tell what was going on at the tractor. I think not. Do you fire at something that your not at least 85% sure of, also I think not.

[Cephalid 0]

can somebody please pm me a link of that apachi footage. i can't seem to find it.

yep me to please, I can't find the videotape with google.

Thx

Edited 17:56

I found it, this guys where really not carring any weapons. Scarry.

[theavonlady 2]

Could the pilots really tell what was going on at the tractor. I think not. Do you fire at something that your not at least 85% sure of, also I think not.

To quote the original ABC News item:

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

[theavonlady 2]

can somebody please pm me a link of that apachi footage. i can't seem to find it.

yep me to please, I can't find the videotape with google.

"I can't tell you............................... Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

- Noah the ark builder, to a neighbor, as conveyed by Bill Cosby

[Longinius 1]

Never been to war. Never fired a weapon in anger. However...

The situation is as follows. We have apache helicopters looking at a target, quite a distance away. Target consists of a tractor on a field, currently equiped for farm work, an open truck and a pickup. Three unarmed people, one of which has carried / carries a tube shape object. No CONFIRMED weapons visible.

First off... Arent soldiers supposed to confirm their targets? If the apache pilots were under fire, I'd understand if they were rather safe than sorry. But they had plenty of time to react if one of those guys went for a weapon. Long enough to blast the guy to bits, thats for sure.

Secondly. Didnt the thought ever enter their minds that this could actually be farmers? Tractor... field... farm equipment. Ring a bell?

Third. The guy is wounded, then executed. This IS against the Geneva Convention and cannot be denied.

Fourth. They could have taken out the vehicles without specifically targeting the people. That would have destroyed any weapons and forced the people into cover. If the people then tried to produce weapons, they would still have the option to blast them to bits.

Defending actions like these are sad, but not totally unexpected.

[theavonlady 2]

First off... Arent soldiers supposed to confirm their targets?

I quote ABC News again:

"He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles."

Quote[/b] ]Fourth. They could have taken out the vehicles without specifically targeting the people.

Assuming they knew who their targets were, they were legitmate, like combatants in any war, let alone if they were not in uniform.

Quote[/b] ]That would have destroyed any weapons and forced the people into cover.

And let them get away to kill again some other day?

Quote[/b] ]Defending actions like these are sad, but not totally unexpected.

I think the same of jumping to conclusions with no guarantee of knowing all the facts.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]"He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles."

Key word being "would" not "did".

Quote[/b] ]And let them get away to kill again some other day?

If they are not fighting back, yeah. Or atleast confirm the fact that they were indeed enemies.

Quote[/b] ]I think the same of jumping to conclusions with no guarantee of knowing all the facts.

Atleast my actions dont end up killing people who might be innocent.

[Crazysheep 1]

I quote ABC News again:

"He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles."

Note the "would have had." Denoir has already mentioned how Americans idolise their soldiers.....it's obvious that whoever ABC News was quoting would either want to defend the soldiers or would simply refuse to believe that they could do something wrong.

If the man had said "they had intelligence about the identity of the men...." then your point would be valid, but I can't see why else he would say "they would have had intelligence" unless he didn't know for sure.

[Crazysheep 1]

Quote[/b] ]"He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles."

Key word being "would" not "did".

Damn you beat me!

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Denoir has already mentioned how Americans idolise their soldiers.....it's obvious that whoever ABC News was quoting would either want to defend the soldiers or would simply refuse to believe that they could do something wrong.

Please come to America, get a whiff of the prevailing ideals about our soldiers, and revise your thinking.

[Crazysheep 1]

Please come to America, get a whiff of the prevailing ideals about our soldiers, and revise your thinking.

Sorry if that offended you or anything...:(

But Denoir has already explained it well enough a few pages back. Take a look.

ADDED: And the fact that nearly every American on these boards has defended it proves my point well enough....sincere apologies if my post sounded like I was making big generalisations.

[m21man 0]

And Denoir doesn't live in the US. From my personal experience, there is very little idolizing going on. We've got plenty of people here screaming "No Blood for Oil!" and hoping that the US is kicked straight out of Iraq.