Myles

iTrader: (40)

You dont want to be on the receiving end of any of that. It seems like the Yanks have the same tactic as the Vikings, just be so ruthless that they scare the enemy into submission.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

They'll be there for a long time and hopefully they've got plenty of bodybags.

Myles

iTrader: (40)

Im sure the Yanks spend more money on bodybags than we do on uniform.

Mus

iTrader: (2)

Thats not the first time this has happend I dont see what the big deal with the video that's the yanks been nice lol


Mus

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Interesting language patterns being used by the Yanks on this movie...

...and BTW if you did not know the victims include at least two Reuters journalists.

“Let me engage, can I shoot?” - gunner

“Picking up the wounded?” - ground control

“Come on, let us shoot.” - gunner

“Well, it’s their fault for bringing kids into a battle.” - aircrew realising there are two children on the ground

To my ears this is not the measured tone of a highly trained professional at the gun - it is the language of a cowboy.

The really scary thing is that this is unlikely to be an isolated incident. Urban warfare is very hard, but this behaviour makes it a thousand times harder as it will only multiply the resolve of an already deeply militant and extremist enemy.

Leslie

So presumably you support shooting those who are trying to pick up the wounded and are posing no threat whatsoever.

They were just looking for an excuse to kill someone!

Les

davyboy

They were trying to remove any evidence. If he was dead they would have left him.

War isn't very nice, here we have a video with many facts missing trying to portray the US troops in a bad light.

Some of you are lapping it up.

GlesgaKiss

That's the thing that got me. At one point one of them says: "Oh yeah, look at those dead b*stards", to which it seems the other one says "nice". How unprofessional is that!

davyboy

Unprofessional? LOL

These are trained killers....not office workers!

Maybe during their next review their superioirs could bring this up with them.

Leslie

I spent a good many years as a "trained killer" but resisted all temptation to do anything that was against my own conscience.

Les

davyboy

Les, the Apache was not there by accident.

It was called there becuase of a distubance and people with guns. People in the video (I only watched the fuller 39min version) had guns....what were they doing, going on a hunting party...I doubt it.

Leslie

Would you shoot a wounded man who could not fire back, or a man who was trying to save him?

Les

davyboy

They were trying to remove the evidence.

GlesgaKiss

If you think gloating about killing people from the safety of an Apache is professional then you need a reality check. If these guys were on the ground then I can assure you that van would most likely have been untouched. What weapons did they have in the extended video, just out of interest? If innocent members of your family had been killed as 'collateral' like this, I garantee you wouldn't have the same unsympathetic attitude.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

davyboy - they were Reuters journalists with their bodyguards not f**king extremists. Please don't let the facts get in the way!

The biggest weapon they had was a TV camera!! And if nothing else this video does show that the pen (or modern day equivalent) is mightier than the sword.

Professional soldiers do not typically beg their control to 'let us shoot'.

davyboy

They see dead bodies, like we see road kill...after a while you become immune to it, especially when they have killed a few of your colleagues.

You can see at least 2 people carrying long guns, which I suspect are AK47s.

I doubt my family would be hanging around a war zone with armed people.

You have to admit the Apache is awesome though....ripped them buggers apart from hundreds of meters away. They never even heard it.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I really admire war heroes laughing because they drive over a body. Nice!

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

So I have said it before, forget all the markings that the people have done, forget the guy with the name on his head, if you were up there and saw people with weapons (and trust me, you can see those AK47's clearly), you then look to see what the others are carrying, could you make that out to be a camera without the guy pointing it out? I really really doubt it, they checked to see if the area was clear of friendlies, dont miss that part out, no friendlies in the area, these "reporters" are suppose to give information on where they go, and to be honest they paid the price for not doing that.

If you saw the full film without ALL the marked area's i bet you would see it totally different, its called subliminal interpretation or something like that (basically you already know what is there as its been pointed out to you, they didnt so it impairs YOUR judgement), they have already shown you whats there, you dont know that at the time, you just see armed people in the street.

Tony

davyboy

LOL - and you know that because, oh yes......it says so at the start of the video. I bet you buy in to all the 911 conspiricy theories too.

StickyMicky

One of my current employees is an ex soldier and he has told me that all the brits try to stay away from the yanks while out on duty as they are crazy for shooting things.

Its common knowledge, as for the video, i would liked to have watched it first without the propaganda attached to it.

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Not supporting them in that way Les, but interpreting what happened, not being told what happened and then making an instant judgement on it which is what most people are doing.

Picking up the wounded is a terrorist tactic, your basically not a part of a medical group, you could also be picking up any fire arms (note in the video they do mention that), this in its own right removes the right of protection from a civillian according to the Geneva convention, if they would have given first aid on the spot then that may have been seen in a different light.

Tony

Tidgy

it was a bad judgment call at the start. simple as.

The engagement is an engagement, if they can move they can shoot and kill you. if the guy being taken away was a hostile then it was more hostiles helping him so a valid target.

but as said the initial info of what was being carried etc was very bad.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

No, I know that because they were Reuters journalists I am not sure that Reuters really see themselves as the source global conspiracy.

Reuters

This story pre-dates the release of the video by two years and the US military clearly stated at the time that the US military had come under fire from the group on the ground. I would like you to find the point in the video where the US military came under fire, or the group on the ground assumed a hostile posture.

Can you also think of a situation where Reuters journalists would fire at an Apache helicopter?

There is a moment in the video where you could mistakenly believe that there was an individual hiding with an RPG - however this is not substantiated when the Apache flies around the back of the building.

The ground troops indicated on the video that they had not engaged this group so it could only have been the helicopter that had been fired upon.

I do take Tony's point that if they were journalists with their protection then why were they where they were. However neither of can know whether they were supposed to be there or not and Tony's assertion that they were in an area they should not have been in is simply that, an assertion.

Even putting aside all of that - the soldiers in this video behaved more like a bunch of Snetters playing COD Modern Warfare on a Friday evening than professional soldiers. All too easy from such a lethal weapon as an Apache helicopter.

This video is sad because of the people that died unnecessarily, but moreso it is very dangerous as it will merely harden the resolve of those against the US and convert more moderates to be militants.

At least if the soldiers had been less gung ho then the 'mistake' might be a tad more acceptable.

davyboy

My point being is that you were told they were journalists before watching the video.

The soldiers in the Apache did not have that benefit of watching a youtube video before battle.

Everything they saw, they saw for the first time, with the information that there were armed people there.

Clearly it's sad innocent people were killed, but this happens in wars.

MJW

The sad fact is, for all the innocent civilians who were killed in this incident, it probably created a whole new bunch of armed extremists as the sons, brothers, cousins, etc. of the victims flock to the Taliban to exact their revenge on the Americans.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

You didn't answer my question.

The US military have defended the action that they were returning fire.

At which point in the video do you see the helicopter fired upon.

Or the group on the ground taking a substantially hostile position. There is one point, where this is possible, but it is not supported when the helicopter flies around the building.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Bluddy Scoobynet double post gremlin. Call in the military!

davyboy

We don't see them shooting, but we also don't have details about why the Apache was asked to go there.

StickyMicky

Trout, did you watch the full video?

IIRC the ground troops found a live RPG at the scene.....

There is also the strange man who was crouched down, peaking around the corner before they engaged, i think this was the RPG man?

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Was one of the Reuters guys the injured one, the rescuers his bodyguards?

If so why were there kids in the van?