Army FAIL in Iraq

[Disconn3cted]

It still doesn't change anything. Just because they had weapons doesn't mean they should open fire on someone who is trying to rescue them.

who was trying to rescue them? completely lost me there

The people in the van who tried to get the guy. Did you even watch the video?

[Disconn3cted]

Here is a video on the family was shot at in the van.

Code: Select all

Shooting at someone who is trying to rescue someone is truly evil. This isn't even something we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[TheDrop]

It still doesn't change anything. Just because they had weapons doesn't mean they should open fire on someone who is trying to rescue them.

who was trying to rescue them? completely lost me there

The people in the van who tried to get the guy. Did you even watch the video?

terrorists trying to rescue terrorists...why wouldnt they shoot -_-
anyways,

[Disconn3cted]

who was trying to rescue them? completely lost me there

The people in the van who tried to get the guy. Did you even watch the video?

terrorists trying to rescue terrorists...why wouldnt they shoot -_-
anyways,
[/quote]

They weren't terrorist, they were just people trying by. What your saying is similar to saying that the hospitals in Japan should have been bombed because they were trying to save civilians/soldiers who died in the atomic bombings. You shouldn't fire upon someone who is trying to rescue a person. It doesn't matter who they are or who are they trying to rescue.

[Squirt]

Shooting at someone who is trying to rescue someone is truly evil. This isn't even something we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So your saying shooting someone is ok but wrong if you go back and finish off any possible survivors? USA has always been involved in foreign affairs after WW I.
We've done a whoooooole bunch of stuff that is worse, all to save Democracry! >.>

Guatemala..
Bay of Pigs..
Mohhamed Mossadegh
Shah of Iran
Killing the Vietnamese leader

[Disconn3cted]

Shooting at someone who is trying to rescue someone is truly evil. This isn't even something we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So your saying shooting someone is ok but wrong if you go back and finish off any possible survivors? USA has always been involved in foreign affairs after WW I.
We've done a whoooooole bunch of stuff that is worse, all to save Democracry! >.>

Guatemala..
Bay of Pigs..
Mohhamed Mossadegh
Shah of Iran
Killing the Vietnamese leader

NOOOO, I'm saying it wrong to go back to kill someone who is trying to save the survivors!

[.AWAKE.]

they thought it was more terrorists rescuing the terrorists they were shooting at

[Disconn3cted]

they thought it was more terrorists rescuing the terrorists they were shooting at

Well, they should have thought harder. It doesn't matter anyway, the people in the van did not look threatening and they did not have weapons. Firing upon them is wrong.

[EvGa]

they thought it was more terrorists rescuing the terrorists they were shooting at

Well, they should have thought harder. It doesn't matter anyway, the people in the van did not look threatening and they did not have weapons. Firing upon them is wrong.

There WERE guys there with AK47s and rpgs. Read the reports. They had every right to believe those were enemies in the van trying to help a wounded enemy.

You keep overlooking the fact that several of the men there WERE insurgents, did have weapons, did take pop shots at the US ground troops, and WERE a threat.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, "oh noes how could they shoot innocent people", but given the info at the time they had every right to shoot. It's unfortunate reporters and a child ended up involved.

[Disconn3cted]

they thought it was more terrorists rescuing the terrorists they were shooting at

Well, they should have thought harder. It doesn't matter anyway, the people in the van did not look threatening and they did not have weapons. Firing upon them is wrong.

There WERE guys there with AK47s and rpgs. Read the reports. They had every right to believe those were enemies in the van trying to help a wounded enemy.

You keep overlooking the fact that several of the men there WERE insurgents, did have weapons, did take pop shots at the US ground troops, and WERE a threat.

The people in the van WEREN'T insurgents. I don't know about the others and I'm not talking about them.

[EvGa]

The people in the van WEREN'T insurgents. I don't know about the others and I'm not talking about them.

God damn you're not using your brain. WE KNOW THAT NOW. But at the time they were assumed to be with the guys carrying ak47s and RPGs around. Rightfully so.

[Disconn3cted]

The people in the van WEREN'T insurgents. I don't know about the others and I'm not talking about them.

God damn you're not using your brain. WE KNOW THAT NOW. But at the time they were assumed to be with the guys carrying ak47s and RPGs around. Rightfully so.

They have no right to assume a random vehicle that drives up is full of insurgents. Even if it was they didn't see any weapons and the people in the van were not acting hostile. They assumed they were insurgents with little cause.

[EvGa]

wut

A person helping the enemy is assumed to be the enemy. Sorry.

Especially so soon after the engagement with small arms fire still occurring.

[TheDrop]

Shooting at someone who is trying to rescue someone is truly evil. This isn't even something we did when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

So your saying shooting someone is ok but wrong if you go back and finish off any possible survivors? USA has always been involved in foreign affairs after WW I.
We've done a whoooooole bunch of stuff that is worse, all to save Democracry! >.>

Guatemala..
Bay of Pigs..
Mohhamed Mossadegh
Shah of Iran
Killing the Vietnamese leader

NOOOO, I'm saying it wrong to go back to kill someone who is trying to save the survivors!

whats the point of trying to kill the survivors in the first place if they are gonna be rescued and heal anyways? ~,~

they thought it was more terrorists rescuing the terrorists they were shooting at

Well, they should have thought harder. It doesn't matter anyway, the people in the van did not look threatening and they did not have weapons. Firing upon them is wrong.

Please read the thread. you are just sounding retarded now.

[Disconn3cted]

wut

A person helping the enemy is assumed to be the enemy. Sorry.

Thats really stupid. Just because they are helping someone doesn't mean they know why that person is injured or what they are doing.

@UnbeatableDevil there isn't anything to see in this thread that relates to what I said so stfu

[EvGa]

wut

A person helping the enemy is assumed to be the enemy. Sorry.

Thats really stupid. Just because they are helping someone doesn't mean they know why that person is injured or what they are doing.

Well it's pretty obvious the guys trying to help the reporter didn't know there had been a US attack on insurgents just seconds before (maybe they thought suicide bomber, IED), but that is irrelevant. To the chopper pilots it appeared to be an enemy helping an enemy.

[Disconn3cted]

"Well it's pretty obvious the guys trying to help the reporter didn't know there had been a US attack on insurgents just seconds before (maybe they thought suicide bomber, IED), but that is irrelevant. To the chopper pilots it appeared to be an enemy helping an enemy."

I understand that. I'm saying they were too fast to make assumptions.

[Disconn3cted]

It's like this. Imagine you are driving home and you see someone ridden with bullet holes on the side of the street. You get him to take him to the hospital because it is the right thing to do. You don't know what he was doing, but you get shot at by people who weren't thinking as much as they should have.

[EvGa]

"Well it's pretty obvious the guys trying to help the reporter didn't know there had been a US attack on insurgents just seconds before (maybe they thought suicide bomber, IED), but that is irrelevant. To the chopper pilots it appeared to be an enemy helping an enemy."

I understand that. I'm saying they were too fast to make assumptions.

In combat you don't have seconds. What if that HAD been an enemy and that van was full of rifles, rpgs, explosives, more men??

If they had waited a few more seconds all that would have happened is the van would begin driving off, and being that they would still be considered an enemy.. boom.. they'd get shot anyway.

Don't forget there are ground forces advancing on the site.. the chopper pilot can't let an enemy van drive around freely with friendly forces showing up on scene. Again, remember, there was NO reason for the pilots to assume the van was innocent. They acted appropriately given the situation and information at hand. AND AGAIN, it's unfortunate innocent people died..

What more is there to discuss?

Bad example, this is a war zone. The citizens know exactly what is going on. The whole deal comes down to.. why were the Reuters reporters chilling with insurgents?

[Disconn3cted]

"Well it's pretty obvious the guys trying to help the reporter didn't know there had been a US attack on insurgents just seconds before (maybe they thought suicide bomber, IED), but that is irrelevant. To the chopper pilots it appeared to be an enemy helping an enemy."

I understand that. I'm saying they were too fast to make assumptions.

In combat you don't have seconds. What if that HAD been an enemy and that van was full of rifles, rpgs, explosives, more men??

If they had waited a few more seconds all that would have happened is the van would begin driving off, and being that they would still be considered an enemy.. boom.. they'd get shot anyway.

Don't forget there are ground forces advancing on the site.. the chopper pilot can't let an enemy van drive around freely with friendly forces showing up on scene. Again, remember, there was NO reason for the pilots to assume the van was innocent. They acted appropriately given the situation and information at hand. AND AGAIN, it's unfortunate innocent people died..

What more is there to discuss?

Bad example, this is a war zone. The citizens know exactly what is going on. The whole deal comes down to.. why were the Reuters reporters chilling with insurgents?

They didn't know why that guy was shot and I question if they knew there was a battle going on there. I would like to know why the Reuters reporters were with insurgents though.

[Disconn3cted]

and if it had been a van full of explosives and rpgs I think they would have time to fire before the rpg guy could aim

[TheDrop]

@UnbeatableDevil there isn't anything to see in this thread that relates to what I said so stfu

orly?

It's easy to sit here in your comfy chair, in your comfy house, watching your clear computer screen, with pause,rewind, etc and criticize and analyze the situation. Those soldiers don't have those luxuries when it comes time to make split second life or death decisions.

What I'm trying to get at is that since none of us were there, or have been in situations like that, we don't, and probably never will know what soldiers think about at times like this, and how they react to these situations. For all we know, one of the helicopter pilots could have seen something like this, but in the Iraqi's favor, and watched as half his infantry was blown to bits, then things like this just become habit.

How many of you are used to seeing shoulder mounted things proppel death at you on a daily basis? These soldiers see it every day. They had to decide to chance it and allow themselves to get killed or protect themselves. Im not excusing them, im just saying im sure there were reasons for their actions.

Remember its always easy being a armchair commander, analyzing everything. They didn't have the liberty to pause, rewind a video 100 times to look at every detail. They had a split second to act and decide what to do, and for you guys saying how they talk, well maybe they are just trying to dehumanizing them? You cant go around killing people and not feel it emotionally less your a sociopath.

in other words, its easy for you to be here, watch the video continually without having anything to worry about and condemn the soldiers. unfortunately the soldiers cant do those things. they need to make quick decisions or have a chance of getting killed.

[Disconn3cted]

They shot at someone who obviously wasn't violent. You can say they did it protect themselves, but they did it before they could determine if those people were violent. I DO condemn their actions because they jumped to a conclusion without looking at the evidence. Those soldiers even said something about the people in the van retrieving weapons--which they didn't do. If they wanted to stop terrorist from getting weapons they could wait until it actually looked like those people were getting weapons. Another thing; I'm no expert but I believe an RPG is fairly heavy and awkward, making it difficult to aim. I think if someone was going to force they would have had time to react.

[Blindfire]

Why the fuck would you stop to help people that were wounded and killed while the Apache helicopter that killed them was flying over?

[antics]

we should have asked if they were on our side and possibly been killed
sounds good to me

[Disconn3cted]

Why the fuck would you stop to help people that were wounded and killed while the Apache helicopter that killed them was flying over?

I don't know, but they did and they were not terrorist. Maybe they didn't know there was a helicopter. They could have thought they guy was mugged or something.

we should have asked if they were on our side and possibly been killed
sounds good to me

Yeah, or maybe we could have waited until they did something that was actually threatening.

[EvGa]

Why the fuck would you stop to help people that were wounded and killed while the Apache helicopter that killed them was flying over?

I don't know, but they did and they were not terrorist. Maybe they didn't know there was a helicopter. They could have thought they guy was mugged or something.

we should have asked if they were on our side and possibly been killed
sounds good to me

Yeah, or maybe we could have waited until they did something that was actually threatening.

30mm canons are not silent. They knew what was going on. Especially with the carnage all around. Stop grabbing for straws.

Carrying AK47s and RPGs along with firing at ground troops is all the threat we need to engage.

I feel like this discussion is going in circles...

[TheDrop]

Yeah, or maybe we could have waited until they did something that was actually threatening.

ofourse, they should have let the people do something threatening and possibly get their helicopters blown down and their men killed. how did they not think of that?
Oh wait...

Better be safe than sorry. and this has already been discussed before in this thread, which you would've known if you actually read the freaking thread

[Blindfire]

Maybe they didn't know there was a helicopter.

You have obviously never been anywhere near a helicopter. The rotors are loud, very loud.

[Evil_Venom]

Why the fuck would you stop to help people that were wounded and killed while the Apache helicopter that killed them was flying over?

I don't know, but they did and they were not terrorist. Maybe they didn't know there was a helicopter. They could have thought they guy was mugged or something.

we should have asked if they were on our side and possibly been killed
sounds good to me

Yeah, or maybe we could have waited until they did something that was actually threatening.

The guy was mugged??? The people in that van were obviously close enough to know he wasn't mugged because they got there rather soon after the attack. Also, as I believe Evga said, those cannons that they shot aren't silent. You could probably hear one firing from at least a mile away. But even if they didn't hear or see what happened, when they got to the person they were trying to help they would obviously see that he had been shot by something larger than a mugger would have. Unless of course the mugger happened to carry around a minigun on his back.