The Iraq Thread 2

[Crazysheep 1]

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.

Fair enough, you know more about it than me.

But the protestors are in the minority, and....

*takes a glance at TIME magazines person of the year*

[theavonlady 2]

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".

No problems there. That means that neither you nor I know, what background lies behind this footage.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

Same as above. Maybe it was confirmed.

Quote[/b] ]

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.

You're not fighting in a war in a real battlefield are you? Might be? Yes. Might not be? Yes.

Though sometimes words can kill, too.

[denoir 0]

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.

One quick comment: I'd like to question the competence of the ABC "military advisor". This is from the article:

Quote[/b] ]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.

This is factually wrong. This was at night and FLIR doesn't have much higher resolution than the recording we saw. So from a visual point of view, the pilots would have not have had a much better view of things than we.

Quote[/b] ]

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?

Who is now jumping to conclusions with no guarantee of knowing all the facts?

Quote[/b] ]

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.

They knowingly and on purpose killed an unarmed wounded man that was barely able to drag himself on the ground. We know that without any doubt. The footage shows it and the pilots acknowledge on tape that they are aware of the guy's situation. This is by any standard, military or civilian, despicable.

And after seeing that, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they had a good reason to kill those men in the first place. There is nothing on the video segment that shows that the men did anything wrong and we know the pilots killed an unarmed wounded man.

[theavonlady 2]

Note the "would have had." Denoir has already mentioned how Americans idolise their soldiers.....

Did he also mention that Europeans idolize anti-American accusations?

I can make broad and vague assumptions, too.

Quote[/b] ]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.

They could do plenty wrong. They could also do plenty right.

But from this footage and without knowing what the crew did and didn't know, I don't know how anyone can come to definitive conclusions of a guilty verdict.

However................................ I personally do not understand the killing of the last person who was wounded. I can think of some extreme scenarios but again this is all assumptions and nothing else.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Maybe that's the norm?

[NavyEEL 0]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

As I said before, it is wrong to just make assumptions. Many of you are so quick to post your Anti-American nonsense and assume that we are at fault. You should at least give us a chance, or wait for the full truth to be revealed. American soldiers are not bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers, nor are we out for world domination as many of you believe. I hope this clears up the situation regarding this incident, but somehow I know it will not. There will still be those who are in doubt, and who will continue to bash the United States and our military simply for the sake of argument. Either way, at least now you know what really happened.

[ran 0]

Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released.

As I said before, it is wrong to just make assumptions. Many of you are so quick to post your Anti-American nonsense and assume that we are at fault. You should at least give us a chance, or wait for the full truth to be revealed. American soldiers are not bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers, nor are we out for world domination as many of you believe. I hope this clears up the situation regarding this incident, but somehow I know it will not. There will still be those who are in doubt, and who will continue to bash the United States and our military simply for the sake of argument. Either way, at least now you know what really happened.

Finishing the wounded off was plain and simple execution, period.

[Longinius 1]

Even if this is true and they were in fact placing a mine, which they very well might have been. The point is still that the pilots killed a wounded man and there by broke the Geneva Convention.

[ozanzac 0]

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

All of the men. Were they all insurgents threatening the safety of American troops, did they all hold up the mysterious weapon, or were one or two really just farmers who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Quote[/b] ] "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

Not much clearer actually Avon. If this was performed at night, which the use of FLIR suggests, then the pilots would be using 'artificial eyes' to target their targets.

If the intelligence was there, and these people were known to be insurgents, then this was an assasination, which in most parts of the world, is frowned upon just as much as terrorist attacks are. If these people were worth keeping track of by intelligence sources, then perhaps they might have been more useful to those intelligence sources alive than dead, but the truth of these unarmed people will probably be never known.

[theavonlady 2]

This is factually wrong. This was at night and FLIR doesn't have much higher resolution than the recording we saw. So from a visual point of view, the pilots would have not have had a much better view of things than we.

Not arguing.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

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?

Who is now jumping to conclusions with no guarantee of knowing all the facts?

C'mon! I'm only retorting to suppose this versus suppose that. I'm not claiming facts. That's my whole point.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

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.

They knowingly and on purpose killed an unarmed wounded man that was barely able to drag himself on the ground.

See my previous post.

[theavonlady 2]

Even if this is true and they were in fact placing a mine, which they very well might have been. The point is still that the pilots killed a wounded man and there by broke the Geneva Convention.

Agreed or it seems that way.

[theavonlady 2]

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

All of the men. Were they all insurgents threatening the safety of American troops, did they all hold up the mysterious weapon, or were one or two really just farmers who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Read NavyEEL's post, above.

[Longinius 1]

"Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush. The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets. And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released."

Do you have a link, or any other way to verify this statement? I'd just like to see the actual source myself.

[denoir 0]

As I said before, it is wrong to just make assumptions.  Many of you are so quick to post your Anti-American nonsense and assume that we are at fault.  You should at least give us a chance, or wait for the full truth to be revealed.  American soldiers are not bloodthirsty, cold-hearted killers, nor are we out for world domination as many of you believe.  I hope this clears up the situation regarding this incident, but somehow I know it will not.  There will still be those who are in doubt, and who will continue to bash the United States and our military simply for the sake of argument.  Either way, at least now you know what really happened.

Very nice! Now do the one about the weapons of mass destruction!

[NavyEEL 0]

"Official from the source... the video depicts an AH-64D Apache (hovering at about 900meters) engaging Iraqis who are emplacing an IED (Improvised Explosive Device, i.e. a mine) on a road to support an ambush.  The Apache used Forward Looking Infrared and 30mm auto cannon to engage the targets.  And THAT is exactly what happened, with as much detail as can be released."

Do you have a link, or any other way to verify this statement? I'd just like to see the actual source myself.

Not from a website, nor a news source... source was Apache pilot. No, the story is not embellished, as I'm sure many of you will assume. However, I can't give more information at this time, nor will you be able to find anything about it on news websites (at least, not that I know of). I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable... All I can say is that I am a man of honor, and you can either take my word or leave it. Sorry!

[Longinius 1]

LOL!

But you forget, they had proof. They just cant show it to us. I wonder how many court rooms that would hold up in by the way...

[theavonlady 2]

However, I can't give more information at this time, nor will you be able to find anything about it on news websites (at least, not that I know of).  I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable...

NavyEEL, do you have an opinion on the killing of the last wounded man?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable... All I can say is that I am a man of honor, and you can either take my word or leave it. Sorry!

I dont know you. I dont know the pilot. I havent talked to the pilot. So yeah, that statement doesnt really mean much to me without some kind of validation. No offense meant.

[theavonlady 2]

But you forget, they had proof. They just cant show it to us. I wonder how many court rooms that would hold up in by the way...

In the courtroom, I would assume they would have a full voice transcript from the entire flight, as well as any documents on the flight's intended mission and/or targets.

We don't have that, do we?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ] There will still be those who are in doubt, and who will continue to bash the United States and our military simply for the sake of argument.

LOL simply for the sake of argument?

Jeez go back and find out how many of your AF's guided bombs have fallen on civilians 'accidently' , read the newspapers daily to find out how many civilians/iraqi police are killed by US forces pretty much a daily occurence these days ....

US forces have been involved in a lot of friendly fires incidents its a fact not a myth generated by arguing for the sake of argument

[theavonlady 2]

Jeez go back and find out how many of your AF's guided bombs have fallen on civilians 'accidently' , read the newspapers daily to find out how many civilians/iraqi police are killed by US forces pretty much a daily occurence these days ....

So, you're saying these were intentional?

Quote[/b] ]US forces have been involved in a lot of friendly fires incidents its a fact not a myth generated by arguing for the sake of argument

Were these intentional, too?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]n the courtroom, I would assume they would have a full voice transcript from the entire flight, as well as any documents on the flight's intended mission and/or targets.

We don't have that, do we?

My statement was in remark to Denoirs small ironic post about WMD's and acting on assumptions. So I wasnt refer to the apaches in that case.

[Balschoiw 0]

Yeah and I want to know where they placed a mine or an IED ?

Neither do I see shovels, nor do i see a crate where they put in the IED, nor is the place a lively convoi route (looks like a one way agricultural way to me), nor is there any cover where they could place an IDE and finally where is that mystic IDE ?

Wouldn´t it have been better to destroy it as well ? Why has this not be done ?

This explanation looks very jerky to me as none of it´s content can be verified with video.

The men on the pics would be total idiots if they placed an IDE in open terrain without shovels or digging equipment with a farmer nearby cultivating his land...

And sure...they will meet up with 3 vehicles although they know there is tight air surveilance above them since day number 1 of GW2.  

I guess this will be another incident that the pentagon says will be "investigated" like hundreds else.

Anyone from the US here knows where they publish these results as the first should really be finished by now ?

There were a lot of that cases but untill today I haven´t seen any result of the "investigations". It´s more likely coverup than investigation.

And for the intel:

Yes the US intel in Iraq is always the best and always real...

especially in Iraq.

I can remember more innocent people getting killed by false intel in this war than sucessfull missions based on US intel.

Come over it. Words, nothing but words. Still that won´t bring up love within Iraqi´s hearts. But hell who cares, it´s the american way.

Tactics have changed from "shoot first, ask later" to "shoot first, don´t ask questions, we are investigating it"  

EDIT:

Another thing I have to say also is how quick people here jump over an argument as they see that they are wrong. I´m typing my fingers off to get you informed about 30 mm HE effects or the way tractor behaved or the way people moved, or the conclusion that they didn´t have rifles and such and it is just ignored. You skip it when you see that you can´t make a point anymore and dig it in.

A discussion runs different. That´s kind of stupid.

[NavyEEL 0]

However, I can't give more information at this time, nor will you be able to find anything about it on news websites (at least, not that I know of).  I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable...

NavyEEL, do you have an opinion on the killing of the last wounded man?

I have mixed opinions. I fully agree that, as American soldiers (or any soldier for that matter), we have an obligation to help those who are wounded or incapacitated, regardless of what side they are on. Since our primary mission is to serve and protect, I think it only makes sense.

Mission scenario: a gunship is tasked with eliminating a threat which is setting up to ambush American ground troops. Two of the men were killed instantly, while a third was "wounded" (we are not sure how severely) prior to being killed. Based on his movements, he could have still posed a threat by arming the mines they were placing. Therefore, I think the Apache crew had no choice but to eliminate him. There were a lot of mixed factors, and you could argue the morality of their actions either way. The fact of the matter is, the crew was given their assignment, they made a choice, and they accomplished their mission. Had they let the man live, and he ended up inflicting casualties on American or coalition troops, would people think differently about how the pilots should have acted? Just something to think about, especially if you know what it is like to be in a combat situation or losed loved ones in war.

[theavonlady 2]

My statement was in remark to Denoirs small ironic post about WMD's and acting on assumptions. So I wasnt refer to the apaches in that case.

When are ya gonna use QUOTE code?!?!

[theavonlady 2]

However, I can't give more information at this time, nor will you be able to find anything about it on news websites (at least, not that I know of).  I apologize, as I know it kinda sucks having to trust someone's word without being able to follow up on it yourself, especially since a number of people might be less than honorable...

NavyEEL, do you have an opinion on the killing of the last wounded man?

I have mixed opinions.  I fully agree that, as American soldiers (or any soldier for that matter), we have an obligation to help those who are wounded or incapacitated, regardless of what side they are on.  Since our primary mission is to serve and protect, I think it only makes sense.

Mission scenario:  a gunship is tasked with eliminating a threat which is setting up to ambush American ground troops.  Two of the men were killed instantly, while a third was "wounded" (we are not sure how severely) prior to being killed.  Based on his movements, he could have still posed a threat by arming the mines they were placing.  Therefore, I think the Apache crew had no choice but to eliminate him.  There were a lot of mixed factors, and you could argue the morality of their actions either way.  The fact of the matter is, the crew was given their assignment, they made a choice, and they accomplished their mission.  Had they let the man live, and he ended up inflicting casualties on American or coalition troops, would people think differently about how the pilots should have acted?  Just something to think about, especially if you know what it is like to be in a combat situation or losed loved ones in war.

Yep. Thanks.