Trigger happy US troops
09 April 2010, 03:58 PM
#91
ahh.. LPB loves a bit of made up nonsense to fire up the liberals...
Rest easy LPB, there are more than enough legitimate targets to blow the **** out of in Afghanistan, without resorting to "random targets" - whatever one of those is... it's either random and you're wasting ammo, or it's a target. But then why would you know that?
Rest easy LPB, there are more than enough legitimate targets to blow the **** out of in Afghanistan, without resorting to "random targets" - whatever one of those is... it's either random and you're wasting ammo, or it's a target. But then why would you know that?
09 April 2010, 05:52 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing like second guessing decisions made in warzones from videos on YouTube whist sitting on your fat ***** in your living rooms in suburbia is there?
Neither the "For's" nor "Against's" have the first idea what the hell REALLY happened prior to this, what was happening within 1km of the engagement, what the intelligence reporting was prior to this engagement, recent behavior of insurgent forces and local civilians in the area; or any of the other facts that put this into any sort of FACTUAL context.
Neither the "For's" nor "Against's" have the first idea what the hell REALLY happened prior to this, what was happening within 1km of the engagement, what the intelligence reporting was prior to this engagement, recent behavior of insurgent forces and local civilians in the area; or any of the other facts that put this into any sort of FACTUAL context.
In the time leading up to this incident, if you do the research, there is photographic evidence, police statements and witness statements of the activities of the group.
Also in terms of SOPs, since the video has been released military lawyers are reviewing the the case with the intent on action.
The final point which you have ignored and I regard as a point scored for the fat arsed liberal on the sofa
is that the US Military lied about the incident which immediately smells of cover up.
09 April 2010, 09:49 PM
#94
Police Statements - I presume from the Iraqi Police Service. Contary to all the political rubbish about them being a credible police service, they were nothing of the sort. They WERE the insurgents in Basrah; IPS stations would be regularly used as firing points against British military convoys, so excuse me for giving them absolutely no credibility at all.
Witness statements - while this may sound like the military wanting to make excuses, but depending on the area they are in they are unlikely to have an unbiased and correct account of what happened. That works in both ways as well - I've seen Iraqi's make statements in an attempt to get their neighbors killed...
As for the US Military lying about the incident - well.. I'm only going by the video as presented, and from that I don't see any issue with how the Apache crew acted - yeah, some of the language and tone used during cockpit exchanges may be a bit shocking to non-military and more sensitive types; but there really isn't any room to get teary eyed in these situations. I'd also probably have a bit of a giggle if I saw someone else unintentionally run over a enemy combatants body (and I believe that was unintentional by the HMMWV driver; your focus is on possible firing points and IED locations - not dead dudes). It's a coping strategy and I certainly couldn't care less that civilians don't much like it - they'd probably like seeing dismembered dead bodies, especially those of their friends and colleagues, even less.
Quite often after situations it takes time to get anything like a clear picture; and even then trained soldiers in the same section can give wildly varying accounts due to the pressure and stress of combat and how each individual focuses on a different aspect of the threat. It is extremely difficult to maintain full situational awareness even when you're trained to do so - the chances of a civilian being able to do it is practically nil. Then include the time taken to collate the after action reports, re-interview those involved - it's more than likely that the story will have changed.
If there was an intentional attempt to avoid telling the truth then that is of course inexcusable; but I don't see why they needed to lie from that video. I think it's very easy for confusion over an event and conflicting official statements to be seen as the military covering up, and if the military keeps silent about an event until they have all the facts, they are accused of pretending it didn't happen.
Witness statements - while this may sound like the military wanting to make excuses, but depending on the area they are in they are unlikely to have an unbiased and correct account of what happened. That works in both ways as well - I've seen Iraqi's make statements in an attempt to get their neighbors killed...
As for the US Military lying about the incident - well.. I'm only going by the video as presented, and from that I don't see any issue with how the Apache crew acted - yeah, some of the language and tone used during cockpit exchanges may be a bit shocking to non-military and more sensitive types; but there really isn't any room to get teary eyed in these situations. I'd also probably have a bit of a giggle if I saw someone else unintentionally run over a enemy combatants body (and I believe that was unintentional by the HMMWV driver; your focus is on possible firing points and IED locations - not dead dudes). It's a coping strategy and I certainly couldn't care less that civilians don't much like it - they'd probably like seeing dismembered dead bodies, especially those of their friends and colleagues, even less.
Quite often after situations it takes time to get anything like a clear picture; and even then trained soldiers in the same section can give wildly varying accounts due to the pressure and stress of combat and how each individual focuses on a different aspect of the threat. It is extremely difficult to maintain full situational awareness even when you're trained to do so - the chances of a civilian being able to do it is practically nil. Then include the time taken to collate the after action reports, re-interview those involved - it's more than likely that the story will have changed.
If there was an intentional attempt to avoid telling the truth then that is of course inexcusable; but I don't see why they needed to lie from that video. I think it's very easy for confusion over an event and conflicting official statements to be seen as the military covering up, and if the military keeps silent about an event until they have all the facts, they are accused of pretending it didn't happen.
Last edited by Prasius; 09 April 2010 at 10:06 PM.
10 April 2010, 12:59 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It did look like a mistake and clearly wrong, but at the end of the day its always easy to judge from your comfy chair after the event.
They need to make difficult descisions in the heat of the moment - do they think, ok it looks like an RPG he's got, but hmmm could it just be a piece of pipe?.... oh look he's just used it to down a British chopper - NOW we'll shoot!
I think what goes against the Yanks is they get overly excited during the heat of battle sometimes. I remember during the second Gulf war I was at uni and watching live footage of US troops blowing up some Iraqi positions and cheering and whooping afterwards. One of my housemates who was muslim, and usually very reserved was virtually spitting blood at the TV declaring his hatred for Americans!
They need to make difficult descisions in the heat of the moment - do they think, ok it looks like an RPG he's got, but hmmm could it just be a piece of pipe?.... oh look he's just used it to down a British chopper - NOW we'll shoot!
I think what goes against the Yanks is they get overly excited during the heat of battle sometimes. I remember during the second Gulf war I was at uni and watching live footage of US troops blowing up some Iraqi positions and cheering and whooping afterwards. One of my housemates who was muslim, and usually very reserved was virtually spitting blood at the TV declaring his hatred for Americans!
10 April 2010, 01:27 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prasius - if you go back to 2007 when it happened the US military reported that the Apache had come under fire and 11 insurgents had been killed in a firefight. The video and other evidence does not 'seem' to support that and since the video was leaked the event is 'reportedly' being reviewed by the US military lawyers regarding SOP.
It would not be the first time soldiers have lied to cover their tracks - there are examples on all sides in the current conflicts in and around the Middle East.
It would not be the first time soldiers have lied to cover their tracks - there are examples on all sides in the current conflicts in and around the Middle East.
10 April 2010, 02:02 PM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i would love to know where you got this info from as never seen that happen....i served with 42 commando when i was younger and recently the rifles before transfering to ghurkas and been to iraq and afghan and seen what the yanks are like(all the gear no idea springs to mind
)
)
10 April 2010, 02:03 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 April 2010, 04:11 PM
#101
I was talking to an RAF Helicopter Pilot (who is on his way back to Afghanistan today) and he hadnt seen the video but said that the US rules of engagement are totally different to ours, I think that the perception that our troops, by and large are better trained and more professional compared to the average American soldier is fairly accurate, there does seem to be a gung ho element, it is a warzone, there are imminent threats that need lethal force but of all the videos I have seen, only this one has left me feeling like the killing was unjustified, it was almost like they were itching to kill somebody.
11 April 2010, 12:01 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking to an RAF Helicopter Pilot (who is on his way back to Afghanistan today) and he hadnt seen the video but said that the US rules of engagement are totally different to ours, I think that the perception that our troops, by and large are better trained and more professional compared to the average American soldier is fairly accurate, there does seem to be a gung ho element, it is a warzone, there are imminent threats that need lethal force but of all the videos I have seen, only this one has left me feeling like the killing was unjustified, it was almost like they were itching to kill somebody.
Les
12 April 2010, 02:45 PM
#103
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The comments about how people can comfortably view these videos from their armchairs etc etc of course has an element of truth.
However, it is equally true to say that just because you have been in the military doesn't automatically give you the right to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing simply because "war is hell" "mistakes happen" "it's a difficult situation" etc etc. Remember, you weren't there either, each situation is different.
I (thankfully) have never been in a combat situation, but I am capable of looking rationally at a series of events and coming to a conclusion. Of course, whether that conclusion is correct is another matter, but that holds true for everyone, even the people involved in any incident.
The Apache crew believed they were doing the right, thing, I have no doubt of that. But that doesn't necessarily mean they did the right thing. As has already been pointed out, the "facts" released by the military are in direct contradiction to what happened on the video.
To all the poster here who think the Apache crew are blameless and we are bleeding heart liberals, don't you think that warrants a proper investigation? Considering that everyone wanted MPs hanged for the "crime" of misinterpreting a very complex expenses systems, it seems odd that you wish to ignore some guys who effectively murdered some others!
Geezer
However, it is equally true to say that just because you have been in the military doesn't automatically give you the right to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing simply because "war is hell" "mistakes happen" "it's a difficult situation" etc etc. Remember, you weren't there either, each situation is different.
I (thankfully) have never been in a combat situation, but I am capable of looking rationally at a series of events and coming to a conclusion. Of course, whether that conclusion is correct is another matter, but that holds true for everyone, even the people involved in any incident.
The Apache crew believed they were doing the right, thing, I have no doubt of that. But that doesn't necessarily mean they did the right thing. As has already been pointed out, the "facts" released by the military are in direct contradiction to what happened on the video.
To all the poster here who think the Apache crew are blameless and we are bleeding heart liberals, don't you think that warrants a proper investigation? Considering that everyone wanted MPs hanged for the "crime" of misinterpreting a very complex expenses systems, it seems odd that you wish to ignore some guys who effectively murdered some others!
Geezer
13 April 2010, 05:29 PM
#107
well i would love to know where you got this info from as never seen that happen....i served with 42 commando when i was younger and recently the rifles before transfering to ghurkas and been to iraq and afghan and seen what the yanks are like(all the gear no idea springs to mind)
)I'm sorry mate, but I really do have to call BULL**** here.
I was 42 for numerous years before being selected for that lot North of the border and eventually joining the Poole Canoe Club.
Every post I've seen of yours relating to your "service" has something that doesn't sit right with me.
Some of the things you come out with are things that those who really have been there and done it would never discuss with their friends or family never mind on a public forum where any Tom, Dick or Ahmed could read.
You might want to look like a hero to the majority but there are a few of us on here that know otherwise.
Sorry to be blunt but this sort of thing gets proper up my nose. Especially when those that actually do have the boll*cks to sign up, serve and finally give the ultimate sacrifice for you to be able to sit their and type the utter crap that you do.
13 April 2010, 05:51 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: plymouth
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this saying you will recognise....wind your neck in.you know **** all bout my career in the forces.have said nowt bout what ops been on etc...and what been up to in theatre.don't try making me look like a ****
13 April 2010, 06:10 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: plymouth
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
think the word for you is has-been royal....some of us still doing our bit for to keep the keyboard warriors on here safe in their sad little lives.(most ex-regs look after each other not try to knock them down.good loyalty you have.
18 April 2010, 01:26 PM
#114
I've been away on course last week so I was curious to see how this thread developed
US ROE allows them to, it's not really about if I think it was right or not. They obviously believed in their own heads they were justified to engage initially, and their ROE (I believe) allows them to engage anyone providing aid to insurgents if they're not protected by an internationally recognised sign.
...and Trout - It's back to what I said in my previous post; while I won't deny that, just like in every other profession in the existence, people occasionally try to cover up ****-ups. That said, I think it is very easy to claim a cover up when the facts as established afterward are different to that perceived before and during any given incident. Intent is everything in this sort of incident, and a country has to be very wary of making it's soldiers scared to pull the trigger because they're worried they might be charged with murder. A situation that wasn't very far off with the British military a few years back.
If you want a country policed, send a Police force, if you want someones hand held.. well, I'd say send the Social Services, but they'd probably go to the country next door by accident. If you want people dead - Send the Military.
...and Trout - It's back to what I said in my previous post; while I won't deny that, just like in every other profession in the existence, people occasionally try to cover up ****-ups. That said, I think it is very easy to claim a cover up when the facts as established afterward are different to that perceived before and during any given incident. Intent is everything in this sort of incident, and a country has to be very wary of making it's soldiers scared to pull the trigger because they're worried they might be charged with murder. A situation that wasn't very far off with the British military a few years back.
If you want a country policed, send a Police force, if you want someones hand held.. well, I'd say send the Social Services, but they'd probably go to the country next door by accident. If you want people dead - Send the Military.
19 April 2010, 11:11 AM
#115
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been away on course last week so I was curious to see how this thread developed
US ROE allows them to, it's not really about if I think it was right or not. They obviously believed in their own heads they were justified to engage initially, and their ROE (I believe) allows them to engage anyone providing aid to insurgents if they're not protected by an internationally recognised sign.
...and Trout - It's back to what I said in my previous post; while I won't deny that, just like in every other profession in the existence, people occasionally try to cover up ****-ups. That said, I think it is very easy to claim a cover up when the facts as established afterward are different to that perceived before and during any given incident. Intent is everything in this sort of incident, and a country has to be very wary of making it's soldiers scared to pull the trigger because they're worried they might be charged with murder. A situation that wasn't very far off with the British military a few years back.
If you want a country policed, send a Police force, if you want someones hand held.. well, I'd say send the Social Services, but they'd probably go to the country next door by accident. If you want people dead - Send the Military.
US ROE allows them to, it's not really about if I think it was right or not. They obviously believed in their own heads they were justified to engage initially, and their ROE (I believe) allows them to engage anyone providing aid to insurgents if they're not protected by an internationally recognised sign.
...and Trout - It's back to what I said in my previous post; while I won't deny that, just like in every other profession in the existence, people occasionally try to cover up ****-ups. That said, I think it is very easy to claim a cover up when the facts as established afterward are different to that perceived before and during any given incident. Intent is everything in this sort of incident, and a country has to be very wary of making it's soldiers scared to pull the trigger because they're worried they might be charged with murder. A situation that wasn't very far off with the British military a few years back.
If you want a country policed, send a Police force, if you want someones hand held.. well, I'd say send the Social Services, but they'd probably go to the country next door by accident. If you want people dead - Send the Military.
How would you feel about that personally? would your mind feel easy shooting at people trying to help the wounded who are not fighting back?
Do you think that is a moral way to go about things? The next step is to shoot all the prisoners in the POW camps!
How do you feel about that young lad who was awarded the MC for saving his Captain? Would you have felt happier if he had been shot while attempting that?
Les
19 April 2010, 12:52 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the point is that it is not a warzone, the combined military forces were 'intended' to be there to provide security, support and training services.
Whether the RoE should have been/were actually modified appropriately to reflect this is now for the military lawyers and the politicians to resolve.
I think many do not think this was moral, that is a whole different kettle of fish to legal and another kettle of fish to appropriate.
19 April 2010, 03:21 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So by that logic if Hamas has rules of engagement that allow it to blow up women and children then it is fine for them to do so. I cannot understand why when we kill innocent people its an accident or Rules of Engagement allow it or its collaterel damage but should any force from the middle east do the same its terrorism. Unless its Israel who are allowed to kill children because America says so.
Given that we voted for leaders who quite happily invaded a country miles away who posed no threat to us and had no WMD, does that not make us all legitimate targets. We invade wreck THEIR country steal their oil, shut down their industry and kill their families and friends, in return should we not expect them to want to do the same to us ?
Given that we voted for leaders who quite happily invaded a country miles away who posed no threat to us and had no WMD, does that not make us all legitimate targets. We invade wreck THEIR country steal their oil, shut down their industry and kill their families and friends, in return should we not expect them to want to do the same to us ?
22 April 2010, 08:20 AM
#119
Leslie - The question re the lad who saved his captain and got an MC.
Honest answer - if I was Taliban, I'd have tried to shoot him. He was a combatant providing aid to another combatant - simple rules of war that, he's fair game unless displaying an internationally recognised symbol. We all know that.
If we want to talk about the wider context of morality - due to the various international laws and agreements regarding the rules of combat, we carry ammunition which is purposefully designed to maim and wound rather than kill. Is this because we don't want to kill more people than we have to? Of course not. It's because it takes far more manpower to look after a screaming wounded man than a silent dead one.
All war comes down to an immoral and evil decision on one side or the other, but once actual combat starts, excepting things that are clearly war crimes, I think it's wrong to point the finger of blame at a soldier/sailor/airman who pulls the trigger with the correct intent.
Simple fact is bad things happen in wars, that's why wars are bad things - and they should remain bad things. Maybe if our political leaders had experience of how bad combat can be, they wouldn't be so bloody keen on starting it.
Honest answer - if I was Taliban, I'd have tried to shoot him. He was a combatant providing aid to another combatant - simple rules of war that, he's fair game unless displaying an internationally recognised symbol. We all know that.
If we want to talk about the wider context of morality - due to the various international laws and agreements regarding the rules of combat, we carry ammunition which is purposefully designed to maim and wound rather than kill. Is this because we don't want to kill more people than we have to? Of course not. It's because it takes far more manpower to look after a screaming wounded man than a silent dead one.
All war comes down to an immoral and evil decision on one side or the other, but once actual combat starts, excepting things that are clearly war crimes, I think it's wrong to point the finger of blame at a soldier/sailor/airman who pulls the trigger with the correct intent.
Simple fact is bad things happen in wars, that's why wars are bad things - and they should remain bad things. Maybe if our political leaders had experience of how bad combat can be, they wouldn't be so bloody keen on starting it.
Last edited by Prasius; 22 April 2010 at 08:22 AM.
22 April 2010, 10:34 AM
#120
Scooby Regular
All war comes down to an immoral and evil decision on one side or the other, but once actual combat starts, excepting things that are clearly war crimes, I think it's wrong to point the finger of blame at a soldier/sailor/airman who pulls the trigger with the correct intent.
It's not as if this (either the shooting, or the subsequent cover up) is an isolated incident as far as American forces are concerned either
The problem isn't just the troops on the ground, their whole military system is skewed IMO, right from the Commander in Chief downward