Military Discussion Thread

[spooky lynx 73]

I hope that real organizers of this massacre will die the same horrible way as those innocent people.

[tiket 0]

Good news,now iam a soldier of india army.doing my training.keen for going to border.

[Tonci87 163]

I´m sure you all herad of the Video released on Wikileak showing the Apaches killing two reporters and some civilians. The Threads about it were closed but I would like to know your point of View. What do you think? Did the Apache Crews what they were supposed to do, or did they any Mistakes?

[dm 9]

They did what they were trained to do.

Anyone that says "you can clearly see its a camera" based off of the youtube video needs to STFU and GTFO. For comparison of what the Apache crew has to look at to identify a target, strap your cellphone to the dashboard of your car, now drive 70 km/h down a cobbled street (probably only really doable in Europe :p ) and try to read an SMS. Not so easy, is it...

Its so easy for everyone to criticize and bandwagon the "omg they're evil murderers" but when the difference between engaging your target ("C'mon, let us shoot", "Just pick something up" quotes) means that the squad thats down there either patrols safely through the area, and not engaging your target - meaning the squad gets ambushed and killed, then you can start to understand why they seem to be so "eager" to engage, no?

[Tonci87 163]

I agree that the Apache Crew had to shot based on the visual Informations they had, but I don´t agree with shoting on wounded persons or civilians coming to help

[walker 0]

Hi all

I wish to express my opinion on the wikileaks video of the Apache Helicopter gun camera video of the incident in 2007 involving the 2 journalists, other civilians killed and children wounded.

Preamble

To those trying to brush this under the carpet or say or imply it was deserved.

One cannot argue one minute that Al Qaeda cutting off heads is wrong and the next be commenting and saying the deaths of these civilians were legitimate and what they deserved; I wish to state that IMHO the morals and ethics of such a person are precisely those I would expect of Al Qaeda. The deaths of those civilians were a mistake, regrettable and sad; and that is all that can and indeed should be said in mitigation.

Analysis

1) We have not seen the preceding circumstances that lead up to the engagement, so we must consider that in coming to any conclusions or judgements.

2) I can understand the laughing at the journalists body being driven over; it is frankly sounded like hysteria from Adrenalin come down and the joking people come up with as a result of consciously internalising what has just happened and what they have participated in. Sorry but that is what people do.

3) The comments about the children were frankly inhuman and the decision to redirect the children from US medical aid to the civilian police to then take them to hospital was questionable.

4) I think the misidentification of the cameras as weapons was just about excusable.

5) The lack of professionalism in the Apache crews was not excusable:

a) IMHO whining to "let us shoot" in the manner of a child playing on Xbox was "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline" and if they were officers would be "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman" and that conduct was a contributory factor in the civilian deaths.

b) The IMHO deliberate hyping up of the threat value to the command center was "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline" and if they were officers would be "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman" and that conduct was a contributory factor in the civilian deaths.

c) In the case of van with the Good Samaritan coming to the aid of the wounded, the act of lying to the command center by saying they had weapons when clearly they did not; was "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline" and if they were officers would be "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman" and that conduct was the primary factor in those civilian deaths.

This remains the one area where I believe the ROE and/or the rules of war may have been transgressed.

So I have a simple question:

For what reason were the unarmed civilians in a vehicle rendering aid to a wounded person a legitimate target?

Conclusions

The plane fact is that lax rules of engagement; and inadequate, training and professionalism, were and are the cause of these and other similar civilian deaths, as well as in the many BLUE ON BLUE incidents. In all cases, the cause the soldiers are supposedly sent there to achieve, is frankly negated by such episodes. Any one who does not realise this is a dumb ass and is doing Al Qaeda's job for them.

The fact that the Pentagon at the time instead of fessing up and using this to train people so that they do not make such Strategic Level Errors was IMHO a compounding of those Strategic Level Errors

The conduct of media and politicians in spinning this and deliberately selecting parts of the video to give their own slant on it, fools no one, the complete video is out there for all to see. I agree with its being published. It was needed.

Moving On

I think the video would make an excellent training video on how not to conduct this kind of operation.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 7, 2010 by walker

[Heatseeker 0]

They did what they were trained to do.

Well i seriously doubt that but if thats the case maybe they need better training..

Are they trained to gun down a crowd because 2 men look like they might be armed?

If those 2 men were armed insurgents would they stand in the middle of the street while an apache is circling above?

Did you see "five to six individuals with ak47's" and an rpg?

Did you see anyone going after the bodies and weapons?

Im not one to make a big deal out of something like this because shit like this happens all the time but its obvious that these guys were blood thirsty and the result was a total screwup.

I dont know how can you defend an engagement like this...

[dm 9]

IMHO whining to "let us shoot" in the manner of a child playing on Xbox

Sounds more like someone frustrated that his targets often blend back into the civilian population or get away before permission is granted to engage than someone looking for "killz" and "lulz".

I'm sure you'd be frustrated if you had to sit and watch helplessly as your comrades in arms get ambushed by targets that you had clear LoS on but no permission to fire.

As you say, we simply dont have enough background on the crew or the mission, or the rest of their deployment to judge.

The plane fact is

Pun intended?

Well i seriously doubt that but if thats the case maybe they need better training..

They're trained to engage an destroy targets. They got good effect on target, thus did what they were trained to do.

[walker 0]

Hi DM

Sounds more like someone frustrated that his targets often blend back into the civilian population or get away before permission is granted to engage than someone looking for "killz" and "lulz".

Professionals are not supposed get frustrated, at all, ever, frustration is the reaction of an insurgent not a professional soldier and is "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline".

I'm sure you'd be frustrated if you had to sit and watch helplessly as your comrades in arms get ambushed by targets that you had clear LoS on but no permission to fire.

That is precisely what a professional soldier must be able to put up with, else as in this case he causes Strategic Level Errors that causes far more of the soldiers comrades in arms to die. Each of those deaths of those soldiers comrades in arms who die, and indeed the prolonging of this war, can be laid at the door of soldiers who commit such Strategic Level Errors.

After all what do you think the attitude of the children and relations of those killed in this manner is going to be?

The idea that some how they do not know their father was not engaged in terrorist activities; and that they do not see film of precisely this kind of act is laughable and easily negated by doing a search on the web where such videos captured by middle east journalists when such tragedies occur are shown across the middle east.

As you say, we simply dont have enough background on the crew or the mission, or the rest of their deployment to judge.

The background may forgive miss judgements it does not forgive lack of professionalism.

Pun intended?

You are unclear as to the intention and meaning of said statement; please state in plane English what you mean.

They're trained to engage an destroy targets. They got good effect on target, thus did what they were trained to do.

NO.

They are trained to achieve the primary mission objective. Which at the time was to protect civilians.

Sweeping it under the carpet just ensures lessons are not learned and the Strategic Level Errors are repeated until the war is lost. Those who promote sweeping it under the carpet are those who cause us to loose such wars.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 6, 2010 by walker

[dm 9]

You are is unclear as to the intention and meaning please state in plane English what you mean.

Uh, what?

Also, my OT point was its "PLAIN" not "PLANE" (the first one means "clear or distinct" and "obvious" the second means "a flat surface" or "something what flies") - If you want to be super wordy, its good to get the basic grammar down ;)

Back to the topic in hand:

Professionals are not supposed get frustrated, at all, ever

In an ideal world, sure. Unfortunately, this world is not ideal, and we're all human.

I was going to make a parallel to the furstration of telling people to post in the addon request thread instead of constantly starting new ones, but frankly thats offensive to the soldiers currently deployed/previously deployed/killed in action.

Point is, prefessional or not, you are going to want to do the best you can to protect your own. If that means you shout at your crewmate to express your frustration at not being able to destroy a possible target, so be it.

NO.

They are trained to achieve the primary mission objective. Which at the time was to protect civilians.

I think you'll find the Apache's primary mission directive is, and I quote:

To be a quick-reacting, airborne weapon system that can fight close and deep to destroy, disrupt, or delay enemy forces.

I believe you will find that most POLICE forces have a primary mission statement of "protecting the people".

The Apache is a machine designed for one purpose: to kill and destroy. Ergo its crew is trained to effectively destroy targets, and NOT act as an airbourne police car.

[Tonci87 163]

DM I have to agree with Walker, The Apache Crew showed exactly how to not deal with such an situation. There were no Blufor Forces nearby, so the Apaches could have observed the Crowd for a longer Time. I agree that a Camera can look like a Weapon, but the Apache Crew gave wrong information to the High Command. They said something about 5-6 insurgents all armed with Ak´s and RPGs. Based on that Information the HQ had to give the Order to engage. The Apache Crew also gave wrong information about the Bus. They said something about another bunch of insurgents collecting the Weapons and Bodies. All I saw was a Man trying to help. Absolutely no Reason to gun him down. There was also shoting on a wounded Person after the Initial Attack by the second Apache. This isn´t how trained soldiers (especially highly trained Pilots) should behave. Behaviour like this only leads to more hate against the BLUFOR Troops in the Region.

[sudayev 27]

In my country there is a lot of buzz about incident which happend in Afghanistan. The Nangar Khel Massacre (2007) and this is the first incident (civilian death) since Polish involvement in War On Terrorism in 2003.

They were given a data on afghani hamlet which was harboring a taliban group. A patrol was sent to shell whis place and lay machine gun over it. This resulted in civilian deaths including children. Taliban left this place long before the incident.

After this they were immediately arrested by MP and brought back to Poland like a common thugs for investigation and accused for war genocide (picture above).It like a story from The A-Team. Soldiers themselves said they were innocent and they were only complying with the high command orders and there were no intentional killing from them.

Someone else screwed up, and gave them the wrong data, soldiers went in and did their job.

Now the initial charges were dropped and all of them have been released from the prison were they spend a few good months. Right now all charges have been also dropped and eased and they will be only facing ROE violation or something like that (sorry I dont know english counterpart to it), which will result in probation or exoneration. We dont know it yet.

This whole incident is very controversial for us - armchair critics with hindsight 20/20, navertheless those who gave order to arrest them reacted very inappropriate and handled whole situation very brutally by bringing all of them on the next day to Poland, with masked faces they sat them in front of jury.

The psychological impact on many Polish soldiers serving in Afghanistan was severe - many patrol soldiers asked about thier duties replied - "We are afraid and scared when on patrol because we dont want to get jailed for any shooting", some of them were openly refusing taking parts in patrols, "with recent developments I'm afraid to fight, maybe I should sell my rifle and buy me more keval and trainers?", "I dont want to be arrested with mug mug on natinal TV for firing back towards taliban".

How can you perform you duties when such powerful supervisor is behind you, ready to cap you for any damages dealt ? This is really ridiculous and public opinion in Poland laid severe criticism on jurisdical system that caused this whole ruckus about the "Nangar Khel Massacre".

Personally I agree, there should be investigations of any war violations especially when death of civilians is involved - but not in such rapid, hasty way like above that resulted in psychological impact on many soldiers serving in Afghan.

Also I'm really glad how my country handled the situation with families and wounded in this incident. All afghani villagers were brought back to Poland were they recived best medical treatment while families of those who died in this recieved a compensation. Government did the best and paid for everything, because they really, really care on how Afghani people see Polish soldiers doing their mission and that was the first incident with the Polish troops involved in civilian deaths.

More about this incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nangar_Khel_incident

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/europe/29poland.html?_r=1

http://wyborcza.pl/1,86871,6229886,Nangar_Khel_Comes_Up.html

I dont read the US news daily but have you ever heard about the US soldiers facing charges for civilian killing wheter that was intentional or no (and is it often)? Referring to the latest incident with the Iraqi journalists I wonder if there were any compensations for those who suffered except the kids brought to Iraqi hospital.

The most sickening part about that video is imagining the grinning faces of the crew, judging by funny remarks after the 'aims' had been pulverized with 30mm auto cannon.

One more thing beyond comprehension, is that the guys are eager to massacrate the van and two lads coming to help wounded guy to a hospital. They nervoulsy itching thier button for "clear" to fire after the threat if there was - rip it up with the 30 mm. Bam bam bam bam and everything turns into a bloody chunks of deformed flesh and bones wrapped up in tattered clothes. Why they didnt hovered and observed them, especially when there were no allies in the neighborhood.

Brits are no saint there but

One officer told reporters "the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen."

(Source: http://www.alternet.org/world/36752)

Do they still follow by that sinister view of Iraqis?

In full video from the "Collateral Murder" they fire a missile into a building site with "suspects" inside. No one cares and wait till the random pedestrian passes the target, instead he gets a Hellfire. One more Arab dead. I bet no one would like to loose their relative in such horrible way, only because the chopper pilot was so eager. If only audio and subtitles have been cut out for this video wouldnt be so emotive.

There were more incidents like this one (we just dont know about all of them) and there will be more. Is it war or peacekeeping, civilians are dying. Everyting is so brutalized nowdays. When Germany lost the WW2, there were no Allies murdering people years after the war was over. Sigh and Peace.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Sudayev

[walker 0]

Hi DM

If you want to be super wordy, its good to get the basic grammar down.

You mean like AN and AND?

They're trained to engage an destroy targets. They got good effect on target, thus did what they were trained to do.

My use of bold in the quote

:D

In an ideal world, sure. Unfortunately, this world is not ideal, and we're all human.

Soldiers are trained and expected to be professional at all times; no if buts or maybes.

Point is, "prefessional"[sic] or not, you are going to want to do the best you can to protect your own.

My use of bold in the quote, I agree it is childish so I wil stop. :)

Panicky frustration is what gets your comrades in arms killed. Hence why soldiers are trained and expected to be professional.

If that means you shout at your crewmate to express your frustration at not being able to destroy a possible target, so be it.

Shouting would cause the microphone and speakers to overdrive and the content to be unintelligible, the content of the sound recording was clear and intelligible and not shouted the crewman was whining to "let us shoot" IMHO like a kid wanting a go on an XBox. Whining like a kid is not professional, your view would seem to differ on this.

You also seem to be inferring content to the gun camera video "Shouting" which is not there; you are aware, aren't you; that everyone can see the original video by going to the site, as it is now linked to and named by every reputable media website there is?

The actual text of the radio com's chat in clear is available here:

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

BE AWARE! visiting other sections of that site may expose you to the actual video which includes real killing so I am being careful not to link to those sections of the site. Of course the video has been splashed across the news and is available on YouTube so it is impossible not be exposed to it in virtually any link to any news site but I have done my best to warn you. As always original sources are best.

The full video as distinct from the somewhat slanted cutting of the video on some news sites gives a more complete context to come to an opinion on the matter.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 7, 2010 by walker

[dm 9]

I agree it is childish so I wil stop. :)

I'm glad to see that unlike some other places I frequent we've not lost our sense of humour here. Its refreshing. :D

Panicky frustration is what gets your comrades in arms killed. Hence why soldiers are trained and expected to be professional.

Its not panicky tho, its exasperated. And I agree about the whole professionalism thing, but I can also appreciate that everyone is human. You can not honestly tell me that you wouldn't be frustrated at having to stick to a rule set whilst your opponent openly flaunts that very same set of rules?

Shouting would cause the microphone and speakers to overdrive and the content to be unintelligible, the content of the sound recording was clear and intelligible and not shouted the crewman was whining to "let us shoot" IMHO like a kid wanting a go on an XBox.

Ok, maybe shouting was not the right word. Its certainly not a whine however.

You also seem to be inferring content to the gun camera video "Shouting" which is not there; you are aware, aren't you; that everyone can see the original video by going to the site, as it is now linked to and named by every reputable media website there is?

Why would I try and fabricate things? Misinterpretation of the content maybe - see how easy it is to do? - but not trying to fabricate things. And for the record I dont believe there is such thing as "reputable media" they ALL have their own agenda, and will push edited versions of the clip. Hell, I'm pretty sure the wikileaks is already missing key segments.

I fear we're slipping more into topics suitable for the international politics or middle east threads tho...

[cjsoques 0]

The incident was probably not handled correctly. Both on the side of the Apache gunners as well as the Press embedded with the insurgency.

You can find a PDF of the military report on a blog (I think called CliffCheney) or from a miltary website that I can't find right now. It contains witness descriptions, video evidence, and the report from the military investigator.

Here are my thoughts on a sad event:

A) There were two Hummers including US troops down the alley way that the person was ducking to take pictures in a very suspicious way..even wiki leaks describes the photographing maneuver as suspicious. The pictures of the Hummers can be seen from images that the photographer took at that time that are in the military report

B) The US military was not notified by press of any reports in this area of CURRENT BATTLE. Preceeding and After this event there was consistent insurgent gunfire on ground troops. There were troops stations bording this area of battle to prevent noncombatant from leaving as well as preventing combatant from leaving the area of battle. This reduces the likelihood that civilians should have been strolling about

C) Later investigation showed a minimum of one AKM, one loaded RPG, one loaded RPG round only 100 meters from known US activity.

D) The press did not follo their own rules of engagement and were not wearing identifiable PRESS labels. They were instead in the same look as the known combatants in the crowd.

E) It is known that insurgents frequently video record engagements. A camera is not out of the ordinary

F) When ground troops surveyed the area they found three RPGs, 2 akms, numerous rounds. This was corroborated by numerous witness reports and from iraqi security forces.

From reading the military report, watching the video. I can safely say that the Apache gunners acted as they should. They were in an active warzone with known combatants in the area. The ground troops received gunfire before and after this engagement. They even received gunfire while investigating the seen, forcing them to leave before finding all the facts.

There were US soldiers on the ground operating just a block down from armed combatants. Which the press happened to be embedded with (althought unmarked).

The tricky part comes to play when the Van tries to collect the injured. This is more of a sticky part that the military report does not go into very far.

1) The initial engagement on the camera crew and combatants seem extremely legitimate given the high threat level due to US soldiers taking fire in the immediate area

2) The press guys should have notified US forces they were in the area of operations. Should have worn press identifying material. And should not stand next to soemone with a loaded RPG in a current exchange of fire.

3) The van should not have brought childen into a place where 30mm cannon rounds were brought down and with dead bodies all over the place. Additionally, the combatants were no longer a threat and the Apache should never have engaged the Van. Unless they know something we do not know yet about this story.

It is extremely sad that this happened. But the press guys should have been able to identify that there was a helicopter operating within 3000ft or so of their location. They should know since they were not marked, it is probably not good to hang out with this combatants. The, then harmless combatants should never have brought their children to a battle. The Apache did not seem to have a immediate need to engage the van.

I feel so sad for the children in this situation, they had nothing to do with this. I also feed sad for the press people but they obviously should have known better and are either really really stupid or wanted the Apache to shoot them being unmarked.

Read the report..there are many facets to this story. The only innocent people in this tragedy are the children.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I note that post the episode the ROE was re written to explicitly define the correct use of deadly force, such that I believe lessons were learned from the mistaken, sad and regrettable loss of civilian life in the incident.

My only hope is that the elements involved improve their training so that the ROE improvements actually take place.

The matter of the Pentagon covering up the event was not beneficial nor was the classification of all involved killed civilians as insurgents. Such actions reduce the strategic effectiveness of the mission.

IMHO the whining crew man may need to be "promoted/redeployed" to a back office desk job shuffling lavatory roll request papers somewhere in small recruitment center in a town with one street.

Though point 5) C) of my original post may have to be answered one day.

In Reply to cjsoques point 3)

The vehicle was not present when the shots were fired. The father of the children was taking the children to a school and came across the incident More than 5 minutes after the last shots had been fired.

04:47 Good shoot.

07:07 Yeah Bushmaster, we have a van that's approaching and picking up the bodies.

As a Good Samaritan he stopped to render aid to a wounded person in the street unaware of what had caused the incident. Classifying him as not an innocent is not nice.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 7, 2010 by walker

[Serclaes 0]

Watching the video gave me a whole new set of facts and impressions.

From what i can hear out of the radio chatter, the ground forces have been fired upon from the area by Ak and RPG. Also the gunner seems rather inexperienced he has multiple problems with his fire control system. The gun and later the hellfire for example.

I interpret the "let us shoot" tone more as urgence than bloodlust. He doesn't want to be engaging a moving target amongs other cars and in the middle of a city with 30mm.

What i do not like at all about the shorter video is that every measure is taken to represent the pilot and gunner(and hence the US Army) as cold blooded killers which they are not.

The first reaction of the gunner when he hears that there were children inside is "Damn". Followed by a "Stay focused now" coping mechanism.

[-Snafu- 78]

Professionals are not supposed get frustrated, at all, ever, frustration is the reaction of an insurgent not a professional soldier and is "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline".

Hi Armchair General walker.

What a load of nonsense.

It does not take a person of great intellect to realise that war is a very terrifying, adrenaline pumping, confusing, emotionally charged and extremely deadly experience.

It is almost impossible for anyone to keep a cool and rational head 100% of the time especially when you and the people around you are getting shot at with there being a high chance of you or a comrade getting killed.

Unless someone has been in a similar situation they cannot possibly fathom what it's like (I certainly could never imagine it) and are in no real position to judge from a position of safety with the relevant facts and time in hand.

It is ridiculous in the extreme to expect people to be calm all of the time, even more so when that situation is not comparable to anything that the average person experiences.

FYI, I have not seen the video and am just commenting in general.

[cjsoques 0]

Hi all

I note that post the episode the ROE was re written to explicitly define the correct use of deadly force, such that I believe lessons were learned from the mistaken, sad and regrettable loss of civilian life in the incident.

My only hope is that the elements involved improve their training so that the ROE improvements actually take place.

The matter of the Pentagon covering up the event was not beneficial nor was the classification of all involved killed civilians as insurgents. Such actions reduce the strategic effectiveness of the mission.

IMHO the whining crew man may need to be "promoted/redeployed" to a back office desk job shuffling lavatory roll request papers somewhere in small recruitment center in a town with one street.

Though point 5) C) of my original post may have to be answered one day.

In Reply to cjsoques point 3)

The vehicle was not present when the shots were fired. The father of the children was taking the children to a school and came across the incident. As a Good Samaritan he stopped to render aid to a wounded person in the street unaware of what had caused the incident. Classifying him as not an innocent is not nice.

Kind Regards walker

Thank you for clarifying that for me. Like I said the military report did not go into detail on the van incident.

In this case, that is quite unfortunate.

I believe that (at first) the gunners fired appropriate in response to an immediate threat.

However, from the audio it sounds like they were in a sort of a desensetized craze that does in a way mimic Call of Duty style discussion. And the van was an unfortunate target to vent the craze.

I also did forget to mention how disgusted I am that the US government failed to acknowledge the mistakes made during this engagement. I am also upset they kept it hidden for so long instead of making it an open forum for revisions to training and general professionalism even in the heat of battle.

Do you have a reference stating that the van was indeed an innoncent trying to assist injured?

I can not stress enough to not go off of just the edited wikileaks article but read the military report as well.

[dm 9]

The vehicle was not present when the shots were fired. The father of the children was taking the children to a school and came across the incident

As a Good Samaritan he stopped to render aid to a wounded person in the street unaware of what had caused the incident. Classifying him as not an innocent is not nice.

Woah woah woah. Where exactly did this little nugget of information come from? Are we 100% sure that this is the case? Or are we just posturing ideas? Because this seems very much like the "make up a rose-tinted story about the people that got killed to make those evil 'merricuns look even worse!"

Hi Armchair General walker.

What a load of nonsense.

It does not take a person of great intellect to realise that war is a very terrifying, adrenaline pumping, confusing, emotionally charged and extremely deadly experience.

Apparently, according to walker, we live in a perfect world where everyone is 100% professional in their conduct 100% of the time :j:

[cjsoques 0]

I believe you will find that most POLICE forces have a primary mission statement of "protecting the people".

The Apache is a machine designed for one purpose: to kill and destroy. Ergo its crew is trained to effectively destroy targets, and NOT act as an airbourne police car.

I heavily disagree with you there.

The mission of the apache helicopter in a clear battle such as it was designed for (Cold War conflict with Russian Tanks) being a devastating machine was it's primary objects.

But just like the soldiers on the ground, in Iraq they really are just glorified police helicopters that are there to protect and serve. It is the simple nature of an insurgency.

The US soldiers on the ground manage, police, treat, and do many many other things than just shoot at the bad guy. I truly feel for the tremendous job on the shoulder of the current US warfighter.

I'd be willing to wager that most current Apache missions are only meant to patrol and assess civilian areas and relay information to ground troops on security patrol. Not run and gun everything they find...which you say is their primary directive that was written in the peak cold war 80s

[dm 9]

The US soldiers on the ground manage, police, treat, and do many many other things than just shoot at the bad guy. I truly feel for the tremendous job on the shoulder of the current US warfighter.

A job they are not trained for. Which is my point. Soldiers are trained to fight the enemy, to kill, destroy, disrupt and otherwise do things on the complete opposite end of what Law Enforcement hopes to achieve (with the exception of Military Police, obviously).

Apache crews are trained to find targets and destroy them. Doesn't matter if that target is tanks, buildings, bridges, cars, infantry or as in this case an "insurgent" group.

Apache crews are not trained intelligence officers, they're (generally speaking, with the possible exception of a National Guard crew, although it is unlikely) not trained Law Enforcement officers. To expect them to act as either, and be as effective as either of those specialists is simply unrealistic.

Which brings us right back to the start - they did what they were trained to do - find targets and destroy them.

Edit: more of a general opinion: I cant stand that people who are not out there experiencing how absolutely fucking shit it is, have the balls to lable them [the Apache crew] without first experiencing what its like. Its easy enough to be condemning of them from the safety and comfort of yourown home, but would you be so condeming if you were out there relying on their judgement to save you life from daily ambushes?

Edited April 7, 2010 by DM

[walker 0]

Hi all

Woah woah woah. Where exactly did this little nugget of information come from? Are we 100% sure that this is the case? Or are we just posturing ideas? Because this seems very much like the "make up a rose-tinted story about the people that got killed to make those evil 'merricuns look even worse!"

The vehicle is not visible in the area until some time after the event check the video if you want DM.

That he was driving his children to school is also available in various news out lets and linked on the site where the original video is posted.

Oh and please do not try to hide a bad argument behind a faux national umbrage at a nonexistent slur, I did not say anything to imply a nation was evil anywhere in this thread.

Apparently, according to walker, we live in a perfect world where everyone is 100% professional in their conduct 100% of the time :j:

Being professional requires you to be professional at all times, kind of inherent in the concept of professional. Either way shooting the wounded and those rendering aid to the wounded does not qualify as professional even for half blind 1% professional soldier for 1% of the time.

I think US soldiers in general are considerably more than 1% professional more than 1% of the time; of course if you want to dispute that with me, by all means do so DM.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 7, 2010 by walker

[cjsoques 0]

A job they are not trained for. Which is my point. Soldiers are trained to fight the enemy, to kill, destroy, disrupt and otherwise do things on the complete opposite end of what Law Enforcement hopes to achieve (with the exception of Military Police, obviously).

Apache crews are trained to find targets and destroy them. Doesn't matter if that target is tanks, buildings, bridges, cars, infantry or as in this case an "insurgent" group.

Apache crews are not trained intelligence officers, they're (generally speaking, with the possible exception of a National Guard crew, although it is unlikely) not trained Law Enforcement officers. To expect them to act as either, and be as effective as either of those specialists is simply unrealistic.

Which brings us right back to the start - they did what they were trained to do - find targets and destroy them. I cant stand that people who are not out there experiencing how absolutely fucking shit it is, have the balls to lable them [the Apache crew] without first experiencing what its like. Its easy enough to be condemning of them from the safety and comfort of yourown home, but would you be so condeming if you were out there relying on their judgement to save you life from daily ambushes?

Easy there :)

Not condemning or labeling them and if you took the time to see my other posts you would see that I noted lack of training for this kind of mission.

I completely agree with you and you should read my other posts (which I had assumed you did) you would see that I fully support their actions in defense of the soldiers on the ground.

I am just not so sure about the van and there is not enough information to go by from the video and the miltary report to make judgement on their actions with regard to that part of the indcident.

No need to get pushy or defense :) we're on the same page. Just reiterating the complications these guys have to deal with everyday. Even though they aren't trained for it their forced to do this job and sometimes they make mistanes ore react innapropriately. This isn't like a desk job...mistakes costs lives. There is just not enough evidence to say for sure the attack on the van was a mistake.

Insurgents have no rules..this includes brining children to the battle. Unless you proove to me in fact they are innocents just trying to help.

LIKE I SAID...read the military report. Repeatedly, the investigation states that throughout (before and after) they were in constant exchange of fire with the enemy. The wikileaks video is heavily edited...is there the raw video out there?

I agree with everything you say, didn't mean to tick you off somehow.

[dm 9]

That he was driving his children to school is also available in various news out lets and linked on the site where the original video is posted.

Oh wow, the good ole reliable media... Unless theres an eyewitness report that this was the case, then I'm calling bullshit.

Oh and please do not try to hide a bad argument behind a faux national umbrage at a nonexistent slur, I did not say anything to imply a nation was evil anywhere in this thread.

And this is a good argument? "Oh noes, mr van driver was just taking his kids to school and those evil 'merricuns killed him" (for the record, since you're saying you didnt come up with this little factoid, I'm NOT implying that you are using it as a slur.)

And this is the reason I'm calling it up - very few people are willing to question why the civilians were there, but they're quick enough to jump on the "the Apache crew are evil/murderers" etc etc.

The most reatarded bit? The Apache crew are trained to be murderers and to be de-sensitised to it. They're trained to destroy tanks/buildings/cars with hellfires, they're trained to destroy infantry (or just "people" if you want) and cars with the cannon. They're trained to do it in a cold and calculated manner so that they can be combat effective (whats the point of having an attack helicopter who's crew breaks down and cries every time they destroy a target?) Yet when they actually do it they're called murderers?

For some reason I'm reminded of this van ambulance:

According to our darling media, hit by an Israeli TOW missile. The same TOW missiles that do this:

C_nvA6d5CNk

to a godamn TANK.

My point is this: one the one hand, we've got the video - pretty hard to argue with that. But, coupled to it you've got all this media sensationalism. Suddenly the van is a "good samaritan" that the evil haliburton empire blew away with blatant disregard. It tarnishes the whole story. Hell, I couldnt even tell that there were children in the van, based on the video. Its too blurry to make anything out. All there is are two light spots in the front passenger window. Cant.. See.. Shit... Captain... Hindsight, however, is 20/20. Its easy for us to pick it apart and say that it was wrong, that the crew are evil murderers etc etc.

And on the other hand, you've got what the crew of the Apache saw. And I'm pretty sure they were busy looking at the dismounts, not staring intently into the front passenger window to check for children. Based on what they saw - fighting age males, they made the choice to engage.

Ofcourse, once its been pointed out, its right there to see. Oh look, two small sized people in the front seat of the van. Everything is easier to see once its been pointed out to you.

Being professional requires you to be professional at all times, kind of inherent in the concept of professional.

Thankyou captain state the obvious... :j:

Either way shooting the wounded and those rendering aid to the wounded does not qualify as professional even for half blind 1% professional soldier for 1% of the time.

Unlike conventional forces, where the medics are clearly marked, these insurgents look like normal people one minute, combatants the next, medics the moment after that etc etc. What are you supposed to do? Shoot everyone? No one?

I can tell you now, whilst the British RoE is far superior in terms of "not accidentally killing civilians" (you can only shoot back if they're actively shooting at you, you cant engage if they are only holding weapons), I know from first hand accounts that it produces FAR MORE "C'mon let us shoot" events. The British Apache crews have to sit and watch as they radio "you're about to walk into an ambush" to the troops below. The troops on the ground have to initiate the ambush before the Apache can engage. You truly are living in la-la land if you think the crew is not begging to open fire - they can fire on the target, destory it and no infantry on the ground has to run the risk of initiating contact.

Edit: @cjsoques

Sorry if I came across as ticked off, I'm really not :)

The last paragraph was really aimed generally, not so much at you.

Edited April 7, 2010 by DM