War, war never changes. These guys committed blatant war crimes yet will not be brought to charges internationally or even be reprimanded by their own. GG wp no re. See you next time.

If they are brought "to justice", it will be just for the PR, and then business as usual.

How many atrocities have the nato forces committed that we havent seen?

let's do some math. if
eight Germans
+five Belgians
+ three Italians
+ two Poles
+ one Austrian
+ one Dutch
______________________
= 6 months, served 4( good behavior and all)

that brings to the grand total for
10 dead Iraquis
+2 reuters reporters
+2 kids
______________________
= DICK

Removed video, lols. But yeah it was on the news here yesterday. Wonder how the yanks will talk themselfs out of this one

link fixed.

How about....

A) They have made friendly fire mistakes before so its not racially motivated.

B) They are there for months at a time getting shot at every day, from a distance and in those surroundings a big fucking SLR with lense looks like an RPG as you can only see volumentrically and the cameramen should have known that.

C) Egg's will always get broken to make anything.

The bottom line is simple, in war a certain % of civillians will always be killed, its pointless bitching and whining about the individual cases. Everytime the guy asked for permission, its not like he just went nuts, there was a procedure, it was the wrong one that's all.

Its very easy to sit back in your seat and look at it in hindsight, I doubt very few here could tell you how much of a mind fuck it would be being in that shit hole.

Who hasn't got trigger happy in a computer game?
Now imagine actually being there IRL.

Shit you would struggle to comprehend.


This is more light hearted. Not convinced the voice over is real.

Patriot Jamerio

iraqies are all evil
why are they even living there in the first place?

if I killed you it wouldn't be racially motivated (you ain't a nigger are ya?) so I guess it's all good.

fucking idiot jamero, always fucking stupid, from views on drugs to cpma to this, go and die fucker

damn man, i don't know if you're trolling, but you speak as if you knew everything.
I mean, CHILDREN got shot, the tank ran on a body, and the soldiers were like
"Ha Ha", I mean, just... wtf.

when there are mercenaries IQ is dramatically low

they wont. it will be ignored by the completely bought-out mainstream media

edit: woops, seems this is something that cant be ignored like the climategate thingie

anyway, the topic will disappear soon and nothing serious will follow of it. maybe they'll convict a few patsies like they always do so they can say they acted

The 18-minute video is @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 and the longer sub 40-minute footage @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik

makes me feel like ~

Yeah, its a wonder how they manage to convince people to kill innocents in other parts of the world...

-oh yeah look at these dead bastards
-nice.
-nice!
-good shooting
-thank you

...

Don't know about you, but the guy behind the buinding at 4:10 looks like he does have an RPG, and is trying to target them.

Soldiers thought the same but he was a photographer for Reuters

that is why u.s. army is always looking for young talent with perceptiveness skills such as your own.

consider this:

M230 Chain Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muzzle velocity: 805 m/s (2,641 ft/s) -note 1-2 second delay between the machinegun sound and the first hits.
Effective range: 1,500 m (1,640 yd)- almost a mile.
Maximum range: 4,500 m (4,920 yd)- almost 3 miles

so the heli wasn't anywhere close to them. as you can see in the video, nobody reacted to the helicopter. They probably didn't even know it was there or that they were a target. and you (not you personally...) are trying to tell me the folks in the heli can't tell an RPG from a camera lens, but can exactly point out an AK47 to get the permission to shoot they have been begging for? come on...

yeah..someone also pointed out in comments that the distance to the target was around 700-900m accordind to the hud when they started shooting which is far beyond ak47 or most rpgs range

Are attack helicopters supposed to wait until they're within enemy firing range to shoot?

if they're not sure WHO they're shooting then yes.

by the way, im wondering if it wasnt really a RPG, and why the guy is hiding behind the wall that way :o

and i doubt they were so far that they were inaudible, plus the time to have a 360° view doesnt seem too long (plus sometimes the view is right above the guys)

proly a mistake for sure, but if you could be hit by a RPG, you dont think twice before shooting :o)

(I am clearly not saying that it wasnt a mistake...)

and why the guy is hiding behind the wall that way :o

you should be able to analyze that one ;)

"is trying to target them"
them who?

what do you expect, its americunts.
eod

Without these 2 dead Reuters guys, nobody would talk/care about it.

*yawn*

that's the problem.

"He's crawling, he appears to be heavily wounded..."

"GOD DAM, LET ME SHOOT"

"Roger"

"YEEHAW!!"

not that i agree with the justification of the shooting but it does look like 2 dudes with weapons at 3;50 at the top of the screen (not the photographers). as for the RPG i'm pretty sure thats a camera with a big lense.

yes, militants engaging the most technologically advanced army in the world have a habit of prancing around in the open road.

i dunno but what do you think they look like?



I'm not claiming to know what i'm talking about or anything but as i said i'm pretty sure this wouldnt justify killing all those people, including a van of civilians.

behind cover, usually. everyone has an ak47 in baghdad, they have to. do we kill them all?

again i'm not trying to justify it geez

Yes, ofc. The right thing to do in any situation such as this is to bring all your loved ones with you to come and collect the bodies, including your children, especially after the incident just took place.

Excellent idea.

the right thing to do is to aid a severely injured man lying alone in the sidewalk, yes. he should have known the us army was gonna mockingly kill him and his children in the process from afar.

yes, instead they should wait for an hour or two to help a man who is bleeding to death.

There were no shots fired for some minutes, so they must have thought it was safe to rescue a dying man.
And the helicopter crew even realized that the people in the van were doing nothing but cleecting the wounded.
And then they asked for permission to kill them for it.

Shooting a guy with a camera, that was mistaken for an rpg is a mistake that should never happen, but will happen again.
Shooting people who as you are fully aware are just trying to save lives is not just a tragic mistake. It's murder.

he had a black van, it's common knowledge that only rapists and psychopats use black vans.

Yes, they should have waited. It obviously wasn't the first time a group of US soldiers were ordered in to examine the situation/area afterwards. No, lets leave it to the civilians instead, with their children. Great idea.

You see it from some helicopter video and all of a sudden your heart cries for the people who died.

So you are someone who would let another person lie around dying.
Thanks for the info.

And people claim the muslims are the evil ones ...

Yes, cause I'm clearly not a trained medical personnel, nor would I even know how/what to do in a situation like that. Clearly you eurofags have all the answers and are born with such traits. By all means, go and save the world.

brb beheading enemies.

A smart man might come up with the "put pressure on the wound and get him to a doctor" approach. But I huess that is a bit above your knowledge, too.

Typical eufofag response.

A smart man wouldn't go into an area where a helicopter with, lets say 50 caliber guns, just laid a group of people to waste.

Being the typical euro you are, I'd expect you to go in and save the day, just to be a hero. By all means becks, go ahead. I'm sure your services are needed in Iraq. If you're smart enough, maybe you won't be dead soon after arriving.

But of course I assume that's a little bit above your knowledge.

I think the whole idea of the distance of the helicopter is above your head. They likely didn't even know WHAT happened, let alone that the helicopter was still there.

I think his entire knowledge base comes from playing this game:

Fucking awesome game, was it on Amiga 500?

sega mega drive

i love this game! hahaha

you don't have to give them medical help if you don't know howto, but the common sense idea is you pick up the wounded and run as fast as you can at the closest hospital
I'm not saying I am humanist but that you are pretty good for mercenary jobs: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1863364#pid1863364

It could be that those armed men were hired bodyguards.

monkeys with weapons thats usa army yeeeeeeeeeahh

If I was in a helicopter and saw blokes with weapons then some bloke peering round a corner with what could be a weapon, I wouldn't take a chance on my life.

However the way they talked at times was disgusting. Maybe there were other solutions, maybe they were to hasty and maybe they didn't need to kill everyone. I don't know I've never been in a similar environment.

tbh, even tho it sounds disgusting, if you have to do stuff like that, you find ways to cope.

similar as to how paramedics often appear like cynics or often make fun of obviously not very funny accidents, illnesses.

im not trying to argue in favor of the pilots/gunmen, but i guess i can understand the lingo, to some degree at least.

or when you're ordered to toss some jews into some holes, it's better to have a lighthearted approach to things.

i guess it is, yes

and if you saw a van pull up with people trying to collect a wounded person would you also not take a chance?

it's all about having a positive K/D ratio

thats just not right :)

my k/d ratio sucks, but i have a positive win/loss ratio!

Jesus, was that a CS player in the gunner seat? My tax dollars shouldn't pay for such shitty aim.

In all seriousness, though...

Some people seem to miss the real issue. It's not even just that they made a mistake, as they do occasionally happen (I'm not justifying this mistake, as this is one of a myriad that they've made), but that the US army tried to cover it up.

Even still - if you shoot first and ask questions later, you're the bad guy.

"if you shoot first and ask questions later, you're the bad guy."

Now cummon, I don't condone what they did at all, and I agree that the problem with this was the cover up not the actions (although the language and behavior used is a bit... derp)

However, trust you and me, if you're in a helicopter, you're scanning around and see what might look like an RPG poking slightly out of a wall with the person holding it on one knee (looking as though he could be loading it) you would shit your fucking pants and not think twice about getting rid of the threat. It's kill or be killed for them and most of the people in these warzones don't give two fucks about the other people. Most of them don't even really understand why they're there. All they care about is getting home in one piece (and I don't blame them).

I was speaking of the war in general, as well. However, if I see someone who I think has a gun/grenade/etc, and I shoot them, am I justified by my actions? You're much more likely to see something that isn't really there if you're looking for it - just look at the demo hacking debates that go on here.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's not justifiable and it's not good, but most people would do it if they felt their life was at risk (which is just about 100% of the time :P). Problem is, people sign up for the army for the decent job, outdoor life and placements at places around the world, but then get shipped to the middle east to solve some problem their government created, so they don't much care for taking risks :P

Well, they obviously weren't in any danger at that range - even if the guys really had an RPG. These kids just really wanted to shoot something, and were just looking for plausible deniability to do so.

Yeah but then they want to shoot at these people because they're sick of being there and frustrated that they hear of friends or people working around them getting killed or shot down by RPGs :P

Only a few thousand US soldiers have died total (and I'm sure a very small number were helicopters being brought down) whereas I believe Iraqi deaths number in the millions.

Yeah but again, who would you relate to more as a US troop? The Iraqi insurgence who are fighting against you for a reason you don't understand, or the few people in the same situation as you that have met unfortunate ends?

How can someone not understand why they fight their intruders? Although, it probably would have been for the best for everyone to just let them take the oil and leave.

Their intruders? Do you mean the Iraqi's don't understand or the Americans dont? Because the Iraqi insurgence understands why they fight. The allied troops don't really know nor care. One minute it's WMDs, next it's peace keeping, but I think we all know the real reasons and whatever, it's a job.

Then why did you say they dont understand why the Iraqis fight back?

Perhaps I worded it wrong. I meant they don't understand why they are fighting there, not that they don't understand why the insurgence are fighting

I couldn't relate to either, as anyone who enlists is a fucking moron.

How so? Decent pay, get to travel the world, qualifications, experiences and more...

Meh, my brother's in the British army. Got sent to Belgium, Germany and various other nice places. Only now has he just been sent to Afghanistan for a month or two and from the sounds of it, it's just boring. Nothing but sand and sun. So I can't see why anyone that joins is an idiot ;)

Decent pay, get to travel the world, qualifications, experiences and more

When most people cite experience as a plus they mean white water rafting or scuba diving near a coral reef not chaingunning a van full of people while talking as though you were camping a spawn point in BF1942 with your buddies on vent.

from the sounds of it, it's just boring. Nothing but sand and sun.

So he does fuck all but gets paid for it by the tax payer. That or he would be off murdering people. I'm sure he's a phenomenal human being for signing up for that, you should brag some more about him as opposed to be ashamed and mention it in the same disguised terms as if he was drugging up runaways for gonzo porn movies.

Just kidding, he's a hero.

Think you got the wrong idea mate. He works in communications there and the main aim of the British army there is to help the people, not to gun them down. The experiences he gets from it is to meet different people of different cultures, not to see puffs of red smoke as they mow them down from a distance yelling yee'haw

And he would have got paid the same amount by the tax payer regardless of where he is. The armed forces are just one of many things that would be paid from tax. Can't remember the numbers for it, but we all know the army is one of the largest job areas in Britain, just like the NHS. There's so many different areas of it. They're not all just front-line grunts, and you'd be pretty ignorant to think that the only thing they contribute to is blowing shit up.

"...not to see puffs of red smoke as they mow them down from a distance yelling yee'haw"

no that's just an unfortunate sideffect of gathering experience

All about collecting XP innit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOV3X0dxed0

It's volunteer murder.

Oh well, you're right. Lets all just get rid of militarizes in every country, pick flowers and live alongside each other underneath a rainbow.

OR, we could acknowledge that the military does have various trades inside it such as construction, electronics, medical, etc, etc

Which could easily exist WITHOUT the army.

So get double your value for money by having these services alongside a military service ;)

Or just use all the money for useful production.

... Production that the military already does? :|

More, since we don't have to waste the rest of it on useless war spending.

let me do the math here.

That's zero value in the beginning, now if we double that we get two times zero.
Wait, I think I can do it in my head.

It's, uhm, zero.

Well, I find it interesting people are complaining about paying tax on a service which protects the country, boosts the economy, helps employment and lowers crime in comparison to the other things tax money is paying for (like, I don't know, say, PM expenses, immigration, benefits system..)

boosts the economy, helps employment and lowers crime in comparison

you will have to elaborate on that one. A Lot.

Here's my short version:
Economy boost: Throw that kind of money into infrastructure, or subsidies for ressource friendly investments. You get the same amount of money into the industry and through the investments earn a lot more on the long run

helps employment: You might as well hire people to sit around in a hall all day, doing nothing If they don't waste fule it's actually cheaper.

lowers crime: hire 10.000 policemen instead

Put it this way. There are many different type of people that join the army, but just one example is the 16 year old who gets into trouble at school, gets in fights and will do nothing more then end up abusing the benefits system, being unemployed and probably turn to crime. Military service gives them motivation, respect and qualifications. I'm sure you've watched these reality shows where they take ex-cons, put them through military service and they come out model citizens that contribute to society.

And hiring 10,000 policemen is a pretty poor outlook on it. Considering the different areas of the military (construction, electronics, medical etc). People go into the military and come out to go into these areas of work in Britain. Again, I'm just trying to point out that the army is not just full of fps-doug wannabees who think that it's just an fps with better graphics and no respawn.

I'm sure you've watched these reality shows where they take ex-cons, put them through military service and they come out model citizens that contribute to society.

I don't watch TV, and if I did I wouldn't watch crap like that, especially since I sure it's scripted anyway.


So you argue that paying say 1 million people in the army who direct contribution to the country's society is next to nothing and some of them later being paid to be policemen is better than paying 10.000 policemen right away?

Must every post be so narrow minded to only focus on one aspect of what I'm saying? One minute they contribute to different areas of work, the next all they seemingly do is clog up resources to contribute to society when just bypassing them works quicker.

I just find it hard to understand why the military is seen by many of you as a waste of money in comparison to what tax payers are funding already... I don't agree that the war is a good way of spending money, and they should be decreasing the amount of involvement as much as possible, but you're just gonna have to face the fact that England and America have pissed off half the world, mostly for oil. If having an army that can forfill a primary role of protection that also helps stimulate other areas of work is seen as a bad thing, then derp?

I just find it hard to understand why the military is seen by many of you as a waste of money in comparison to what tax payers are funding already...

In that case I recommend you to visit some macroeconomics classes and I think you will find out on your own.

The only thing the military is designed to do is kill people and threaten to kill people (for which it unfortunately is needed)
Efficiency and making people better persons are not a goal.


If you took all the money spent on equipment and military infrastructure and used it as subsidies for technological advancement of the society you would increase the welfare of your countryman by a lot.

If you took all the money used to train people to kill and put it into schools for the same people and payed them to train for a real job, that too would be much more efficient than what you have today.

"One minute they contribute to different areas of work..."

oh please do share. what exactly are the areas of work where army contributes?

There are many different type of people that join the army, but just one example is the 16 year old who gets into trouble at school, gets in fights and will do nothing more then end up abusing the benefits system, being unemployed and probably turn to crime. Military service gives them motivation, respect and qualifications.

No, that's the type who fires on cameramen/children, throws a puppy, tortures people for information, kills themselves, rapes civilians or female squad members, etc...

As far as qualifications, the options available to someone coming out of any branch of the military end at cop/mall cop/private security/random minimum wage job. 5 years of useless service to make $14/hour, with no hope for career advancement. Hell, that's if you're lucky - most will either end up homeless (as veterans make up the majority of homeless people) or bagging groceries at minimum wage. The military is just a cop-out excuse for people who don't know what they want to do with their lives.

No, that's the type who fires on cameramen/children, throws a puppy, tortures people for information, kills themselves, rapes civilians or female squad members, etc...

I can see there's no persuading you that everyone isn't a baby murdering mongol then...

As for the "they'll only go into shitty jobs afterward", could you please fathom that there are areas of the military that wouldn't just entail shitty security jobs? You seem to think it's only cop/mall cop/security whatever. Like I said, keep saying, and have to keep banging on about, there are various areas inside the military that contribute to things OTHER then security. If this is too hard to see, then there's no point me replying. The only point I'm trying to get across is that there are good areas and bad to the military (just like anything), but to think that it's only the bad (which is what you're thinking apparently) is just narrow minded and purposefully ignorant.

You don't seem to understand anything about the military - if you are in the military for less than a decade, you're not getting a job doing anything much more than being a mall cop. Military qualifications means next to NOTHING in the real world.

My friend quit college (2 years into an IT degree) to join the air force - he broke up with his girlfriend, and didn't know what he wanted to do with his life. He spent the first few weeks telling me how great it was... About a year into it, he was already dying to leave. He came home about 4 months ago... His "training" in computer work in the air force was basically "this is how you get to router settings" and "this is how you make cat5 cables, and plug them in". Needless to say, he spent 3 years learning what most of the people in the IT industry knew at the age of 14. He was unable to get a job, even in fast food, and plans to use the GI bill to finish college as quickly as he can while living off of savings.

His experience in the military gives him plenty of opportunity for military advancement, however, as they want you to have to rely on them to keep you in. There was even a debate recently on denying a proposal to increase funds given for college when you leave, as the military believed that it would encourage people to quit.

The military only props up the economy because companies have come to expect that the government will just keep printing money. Much like this situation, you can't do it forever. We've been in stagnation for over a decade, with no end in sight. Just imagine what could be done with the 50%+ portion of our budget if it was put directly into education, science, and general infrastructure. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, but we're still in the age of oil with fears that it's going to run out. At least we're safe from cameramen!

So your mate got a shit experience? People differ you know... I've got a mate that served in the marines as a cook that now runs a successful restaurant. Does that mean everyone else will have the same experience?

how are you supposed to run a restaurant if you don't have the money to begin with?

I've had 3 people I know with bad experiences (two air force, and one navy), but you should be able to see it on your own by just looking at how it works.

The production of the military only exists to justify the existence of the military. It's like not having enough time to clean your small house because you work so much, so you hire a maid... but the maid isn't doing much work due to the small size of your house, so you decide to increase the size of it and buy more stuff just so she has more work to do.

Your friend could have been just as successful in his trade by going to college (and more qualified!), or merely by working a normal job. It doesn't change the fact that he signed a paper that said "You agree that if we want you to kill people, you're going to do it." As a member of the military, you're an overpriced cog in a malicious machine, supporting the pointless inflation of the machine. You're just as guilty for being a medic/chef/technician/etc when it's all to support the guys who are pulling the triggers.

tbh I don't know who I hate more, the gungho rednecks who consciously sign up for the purpose of killing people or the clueless morons who think they're going on a vacation and thus inevitably start shooting everything when they realize they aren't on one.

yes , let's take a bunch of drifting aggressive morons, give them guns and train them to kill. that should totally make things right for everybody. hoorah

I'm sure there are tons of guys walking around the streets of Iraq randomly who can aim at a moving helicopter gunship approximately 1 mile away with an RPG... *rolls eyes*

Does shitting your pants include killing a van full of people too?

I hadn't realized how far away the copter was before reading #18 which made me feel a little silly, but couldn't be bothered to delete the post ;)

But as I said in the previous posts, I wouldn't expect anything else then this from US troops in Iraq especially when they encounter constant hostility. I'm not trying to rationalize it, because I don't agree with it nor the war at all, so whatever. Just making conversation :P

Guess that's what happens when you aim with recoil ;)

CS players already deal with recoil!

esr collecting some bad karma here :(

Hey fucking idiot scumbags like Gillz, just try to justify the shooting up of that van which was clearly non-hostile and unarmed.

So 3-4 minutes after the first massacre, a van finally arrives on the scene to maybe save some lives of the wounded, and they are shot up with tank-piercing rounds. It's a war crime, any way you try to twist.

OH YEAH I SURE DID TRY TO JUSTIFY IT IN MY COMMENT

Fuck you're stupid.

Why do you hate life? Do you want all life to end is that it?

clearly there was a guy targeting them with a 60ties soviet production rpg from 1200 meters.

beware frag_, FBI maybe already reading this thread and next thing you know, your car would be found deserted somewhere with no trace of you :P

my speed3 > their humvees :X

kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out

My opinion is that no video will tell you the whole story, and unless you've been in a war zone, you're not going to know what its like to have to cope with all that (I haven't and I don't).

In a place where the enemy could look the same as an ally, things are going to go wrong. I really don't think anyone but those who were there will know the truth about this.

BUT

A cover-up is another matter completely. Its one thing to admit a mistake was made and do what you can to help the situation, but to hide it all and cover it up is wrong. There's no jusitification for that.

Wikileaks Video History Demonstrates Conclusively That Innocent People Get Killed in Wars

pointless.

like all wars.

like all religion.

i really can't wait the human race realises that religion is total mind controlling bullshit and we can all get along no matter what colour or social standing.

The next 50 years are critical for the survival of the human race as a whole and planet Earth. It will either be destroyed or we will actually start space travel.

Oil isn't a religion

It should be.

and we can all get along no matter what colour or social standing.

But we can't. People are fucking morons and will always find reasons to kill each other.

not in europe

Well you've convinced me.

Nobody gives a shit, seriously.

and that's the problem.

Should I weep for the next 20 years for these people? Or scold the US Government for attacking what they perceived to be hostile insurgents?

I wasn't aware us government was aboard that chopper.

Yes, in fact that's the most important part of this entire situation, understanding that the entire US government including state and local governments were all aboard the chopper.

Pop quiz: were you familiar with the word "Insurgent" before u.s. invaded iraq?

Didn't you hear the American's in the helicopter? They sounded as if everytime they fired they heard
"MMMMMULTI KILL"
"EXCELLENT"
"DOMINATING"

QUAD DAMAGE

IMPRESSIVE

great news everybody, democracy kicked in

That is great news.

I'm sorry but I just can't feel sorry for war journalists getting killed in war like this. Do what any sane person would do, leave the place or at least cover it from a green zone. Don't mingle with the locals or insurgents to get a good story, especially if you have the same appearance as them. Stay with the troops or something.
I'm also pretty sure most would make the assumption that they were bad guys. Military aged men walking confident around in a war zone, with something that looks like weapons. They peak around the corner in an area where there's been shooting. How is any one supposed to know that a camera hidden behind someone's shoulder is not a gun. Are the pilots supposed to check their press credentials before they shoot? The journalists weren't flagged up like you often see journalists being. And to the guy in the van..don't bring your children to a war zone, especially not if the areas in the last 30 seconds has been hit with 30mm HE rounds. The pilot lingo was really fucked up though, but I bet most people change their attitude after a year getting shot at. Sad collateral damage..

you do realize that the "warzone" is a town were people happen to live?

Try to find a war zone without people living there wise guy. And naval warfare doesn't count. You don't think there are civilians in helmand or what? Just because people are living in a hostile area, it doesn't mean life goes on like nothing happened and you can do whatever you want. If you aren't cautious you'll end up dead.

You do realize that if people live there it does mean they might live there with children? So they didn't get into a warzone, but the insurgents and US Amry brought the warzone to them.

Should they have dropped their children at the closest corner before trying to keep a man from dying.

But I guess you agree with ralph that saving people's lives is a stupid idea.

No you are right, it's a clear case of good parenting.

and letting a guy bleed to his death is what?

I wouldn't bother discussing this with becks, he's wants to save the world and whatnot. You see, in becks mind it's all right to bring your children to an area where people just got hit with 40 mm cannons to pick up bodies.

Who knows, maybe becks will be a great parent like that Iraqi, someday.

And maybe you / your parents / children are going to die in a "terrorist" attack someday. And then you can wonder where all that hate was coming from.

"but the insurgents and US Army brought the warzone to them."
fixed

as if the insurgents were one unified group that represents all Iraqis.

no "insurgents" are a new thing, ya know

Yes they should have dropped their children at the nearest safe corner before entering a war zone, even if their intentions were to save a friend. Would you bring a son or daughter in that situation with you? The fact that firing had ceased minutes prior doesn't make the situation free of danger.

The guys in the van likely had NO IDEA what had happened, or when it had happened, and were merely trying to help a dying man.

I suppose it's a possibility the people in the van were oblivious to the situation, but to what degree? Do you think the Reuters guy phoned them "Oh hey I'm having a heart attack can you please pick me up a couple blocks down the street?". Surely they knew he had been shot and something was very dangerous about the situation. In which case you absolutely don't bring a child with you.

The problem with the guys in the van had more to do with a lack of time to think. The guys in the van had a limited time to make a decision. Unfortunately they made a very stupid decision.

Their decision would have been fine, if it weren't for a helicopter shooting them for no reason. There's no reason to believe that they knew the people at all, at this point - as far as we know, they merely showed up and tried to help an injured man.

If it were people who knew the guy, I'm sure it would have been brought up, as it would look even worse.

You're not addressing the point that you shouldn't bring a child into a war zone, regardless if firing had ceased minutes prior. It's too dangerous.

bombs blowing up is common in Baghdad and people have a habit of helping the wounded. seconds count in situations like this and to leave a heavily bleeding man lying there could as well mean leaving him to his death.

They probably didn't KNOW it was a war zone.

That's ridiculous.They knew it was dangerous at the very least.

All they really knew in that much time is that something had happened, and there was a survivor who needed help.

wtf dude.. totally normal reaction of the truck driver..

he probably drove along there by chance, becasue he wanted to get somewhere else entirely, the dust and all was already cleared off because several minutes had passed after the shootings.

he sees a wounded guy on the side walk and alot of dead bodies and NOTHING else, especially no other potentially enemy soldiers.

he says 'kids stay in the car' and goes to help the man...

the helicopter pilote's assessment that there were maybe weapons in the truck is so unrealistic... i mean, sure its a warzone, but its also a populated city..
if in some trench fight warzone a truck would pull up on the battlefiel i'd say ok: there are probably weapons in that truck.

its a city for christ sake, there will be cars and trucks and people and kids, and if you're the only guy around when some half dead man is crawling on the street, probably screaming like fucknot, you better get out of the car.


alternative scenario:
-truck drives past the crawlign screaming man
-helicopter pilot: he isn't stopping, suspicious behaviour
-helicopter pilot 2: HE'S GOING EVEN FASTER NOW!!
-helicopter pilot 1: permission to shoot?

i'll adress that point: what do you do with your children if you live in the warzone and have no money to flee the country?

"and naval warfare doesnt count"

you had me laughing.. what are you, 8?

They say children learn the meaning of irony and sarcasm at the age of 5-7...but I'm sure you'll get there mentally as well some day.

whatever :)

btw pointing towards my mental weakness doesn't count!!!!!!!

"Don't mingle with the locals or insurgents to get a good story, especially if you have the same appearance as them. Stay with the troops or something. "

google "journalism"

I totally agree
the journalist should have not journal the fuckin' war, stay with my daughter and you'll be safe

Didn't 2 kids get injured? Were they in the van?

watch?

I watched yesterday, cant remember if thats what it said... cba to watch another 17mins :<

Basically American heroes who thought they were playing CoD4 shot a van and a civilian into oblivion from kilometers away when they notice the civilian is attempting to help a severely injured and isolated man lying in the sidewalk, who they had left there to die. When the American heroes realized there were kids in the van, who miraculously survived, they took them to a shitty local hospital and said "It's his fault for bringing his kids to a warzone! ehehe".

Ah, so i remember correctly..

what kind of fucktards bring kids to a gun fight?

Wrong question

ill try:

what kind of fucktards bring knives to a gunfight?

no, one left

What kind of fucktards try to save the live of an injured, crawling man when no guns were fired for several minutes?

\o/ CORRECTAMUNDO \o/

how bold

well, after multiple people here actually defended what happened, i think this doesnt leave any question open to what the hell is wrong with this world

there are no brightskins irl people. they were destroyed far far away and the van likely thought whatever owned everyone there was long gone

there are no brightskins irl people

I CALL UPON THEE ARQON, FIX IT

You'd better call upon God to do it, arQon has limited powers IRL.

what a retarded redneck nation

Iraq? I agree completely.

About the guy "bringing his kids to war zone"

The car came in several minutes after the attack. For all they knew it could have been a bomb that went off, no one probably saw the chopper. And some poor guy was crawling on the sidewalk in need of help, what the fuck would you do? Maybe he was just out driving and happened to turn that corner.

What are the chances that the "terrorists" happened to call their "buddy in a van" on the phone, needing a medical get-a-way, as they were getting blasted by the chopper.

Seems justifiable to me. They had guns and a rpg. They were taking position to fire at US soldiers. The Reuters guys shouldn't even of been there but they knew the risk they were taking.

I'm sure if you aware the the guy looking around the corner with the "rpg" was a Reuters guy?

Us less military people also like to call it a "camera".

Can you explain the weapons they found later? Are they also "cameras"?

do you have a link to that statement? Cause all I could find so far were "quotes" on random blogs. None of those I looked at linked to that "official report".
Funny enough sometimes the "quotes" sometimes say grenades and sometimes rpgs.
They also show an actual screenshot of another part of a report, but this part is just text.

It looks fishy to me.

Also, you seem to miss the point of why people are mad.
That the pilots mistook the camera for an rpg, (which they at least did when looking the guy peeking around the corner) is a tragic mistake.
But the bad part is, that they keep shooting at unarmed people who try to safe a life. They did not ever fire a warning shot.

Noone, thus far has even tried to justify that to me.

I'm not sure if the ROE were followed there, but I you should try to justify it, (not saying I am) you could say it's happening in all wars. If a para was spotting a group of Nazis during WW2 and shot at them, and then a vehicle with other Nazis pulled up to save the wounded, I'm pretty sure they would have fired at them as well. I know they are trying to save a life, but they are still enemies. In this situation the pilots believed they were bad guys, and in their eyes they saw other bad guys coming to rescue them. As for warning shots, I'm not even sure when they use them. I think it's pretty rare the military fires one when in war if they ever do. Besides, it's not a good idea to fire warning shots with the 30MM, it's not that accurate over long distances, so it might have killed them instead.

So your justification is that it's a crime that happened before and will happen again?
I don't think that's good enough.

Besides, it's not a good idea to fire warning shots with the 30MM, it's not that accurate over long distances, so it might have killed them instead.

sorry, but that is just stupid.
Yes, a warning shot could kill. But I would it still is a better warning than firing several bursts.

I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm merely trying to put a different perspective on this.

Ok, but my question really wasn't why it happened, but why some people seem think it was ok to shoot at the van.

Don't know.

and he knew they were the bad guys how?

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1862289#pid1862289

no I still don't see it. care to elaborate?

"In this situation the pilots believed they were bad guys, and in their eyes they saw other bad guys coming to rescue them" If this isn't an attempt at justification or at least exoneration, then what is it?

you're comparison with ww2 sucks ass, its a totally different type of warfare

they had rpgs AND grenades
there it goes
quote me on this, NOW IT IS OFFICIAL!

hahahahahahaha

http://i.imgur.com/twrSH.jpg

Oh look I found a random jpeg, too.

Totally trustworthy, I swear!!

Typical troll response.

yes, yours was. And I'm mocking it.

Youre just like the Texas redneck fucks in my government class defending the video. :(

You're going to school in Texas, what do you expect?

They did what they were supposed to.

here's to hope of you getting introduced to unlimited freedom one day. chin chin!

hahahahahahaha

so why they need to lie in the media?

Cant say Im that familiar with wartime decisions.. But it did look like they had guns, is that all that is required for the US army to start firing ? If the reporters hadnt been there though then the people killed would just have been some randoms with guns.. Not that that in it self is any better.

Seems kind of reckless to shoot "random" people who are just walking around with guns, ( Or maybe not.. ) but I guess its the only way to stop civilians from walking around with weapons in war zones. It may seem cruel but then again walking around in hostile territory with machine guns may not be the best idea if you care about your life.

walking without one is?

Well if you have to walk around in hostile territory for some reason then carrying a weapon would be advised, a machine gun though would seem like overkill for an ordinary person.

first of all it's not a machine gun but an assault rifle. not much use carrying a handgun if everyone's got ak's and rpgs is there? cheaper than a handgun too.

second they probably had no idea they were in any kind of "hostile territory". they look very relaxed and might have just been walking around their own neighbourhood.

Ok. So its an assault rifle. My bad. But the point of a weapon for a civilian should be to protect one self, not to outmuscle who ever you happen to meet on your relaxing walk.

which part of what I wrote did you not understand?

The part where you say some guys in Baghdad were walking around relaxed with assault riffles not knowing that they were in hostile territory.

You're either trolling or a moron, but I'll presume the latter. Most Iraqis today get killed by local robber gangs and opposing (suni/shiite) clans. Are you sufficiently stupid to think that anyone who walks around with a gun in that kind of surrounding, especially if he's connected to the west, is automatically a terrorist and an "insurgent"?

Well, Iraq has no law against owning or carrying a gun around. Many people have purchased guns to protect themselves, and the rich have armed security that they travel with.

The whole reason he asked for (and received) permission to fire on them is because he claimed that they were going to fire on him with an RPG... despite it not being an RPG, and them being out of range to begin with.

Damn, guess they fucked it up big time then.

obviously there's a huge difference between a pistol and an ak-47

i believe the apaches were top cover to the convoy that they talked onto the incident after they opened fire, the convoy being a couple of blocks from where the armed men were.

Not enough Jamerio in this thread.

The first wikileaks video was edited from the source, and they've now released a longer version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik&am...r_embedded

I would like to see stunt.us giving one of his GO USA statements right now.

Amazing that so many think that the people in the van shouldve just left him to die on the street.

btw, maybe a thought here:

the pilots thinking the camera is an rpg might not be so off:
similar to these white noise sounds, when we watch the video and are told that thing is a camera, we see a camera.

the pilots don't expect to see a camera, hence is why their first assessment of the giant tube-like object was an rpg

They're still out of range of an RPG.

im not trying to defend anyone here, read my other comments.

but:

yeah they were out of range. that doesn't matter. incase if was an rpg, he was aiming at something and it would've been the soldiers duty to prevent that.

but if it wasn't, he was killing a civilian. It could have been an instrument, for all he knew.

and the ak47s could have been toys...

if he sees a groupf of 3 guys with ak47s and one with a rather large tube on his back, i don't see why he would assume it was a trombone :D

At that range, they obviously can't tell what they're looking at.

he sees what he wants to see, same as we see a camera

I wouldn't have seen a camera or an RPG, unless I was specifically told to look for them. I'd have to say by just looking at it, without a poisoned viewpoint, it's not clear enough to say what it is.

hence my initial comment, the soldiers see what they are trained to see. and it doesn't sound to me like he's suggesting it might be an rpg, he's pretty sure.

Which is one of the major problems.

not gonna argue there, was just trying to point out exactly that, without being judgemental.

"Yeah we got a guy shooting, now he's behind the building.."

First they saw guns, then they saw him preparing to shoot, then they saw him actually shooting. There's no way around it, they're fucking morons.

maybe they saw him taking pictures :)))

hehehe

journalist: "ok guys, film's rolling"

pilot: "they're shooting behind the building"

why are they not wearing press vests, they also did not let the Forward operating base know that they would be in the area on that day. meaning it would not make a difference to the apache pilots if they did notice the camera as it could be an insurgent with a camera. protocols are in place so that these types of things dont happen. and the news agencies know that this can happen if it is not adhered to.