Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Because if they shoot you anyway, they're "monsters" and the insurgency can play on that. If they don't, you succeed in your mission and proclaim that the Americans are soft or something similarly inane.Elfdart wrote:Another convenient excuse. Think about that for a moment: Why on earth would anyone who is fighting against the US ever bother to use kids as human shields?
Yes. And guess what? I can get a guy I pull off the street to do the same thing to another human being within three days if I call one a guard and the other a prisoner. If anyone will do it with minimal encouragement, they are not sociopaths."Following orders" wasn't just the excuse used by the Nazis. Lynddie England also used it for what she and her boyfriend did at Abu Ghraib.
Because it gets people in the US angry, inflames sentiment against the US in other countries etc. Not all strategic goals are measured in body count.Think about that for a moment: Why on earth would anyone who is fighting against the US ever bother to use kids as human shields?
So what do you do dumbfuck? If you have a minigun and someone who has their 7 year old at their side is about to fire an RPG at a group of people, do you fire? Do you save one child by allowing say, 7 others to die?Especially when they have the hall pass of "following orders/rules of engagement".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 676588.eceEvidence please.
So you admit they opened fire without knowing what they were shooting at?Mr. Coffee wrote:They're using a combination of a TADS sensor and their own eyes. Turns out the helmet display for the TADS is even smaller than a youtube window and at 500m or more you can't really make out whats inside of a vehicle. But why bother thinking about shit like that when you can lash out with your false fucking indignation and cry out about how those baby killing soldiers are out to facerape the Iraqi people.
No, you fucking retard. I saw two heads in a minivan -you know, the preferred vehicle of families with kids- and neither looked tall enough to be an adult. Let's see: short people in a vehicle commonly used by families with children...No, really you can't, in either the cropped version you showed or the original guncam footage. We only know it's children after the fact, and the only reason you're saying "It's obviously children" is because you were told "Those are children in the window" after the fact.Elfdart wrote:You can see two people through one window.
It's called selection bias, you trolling dickhead. Look it up.
Then get your fucking eyes examined, fuckface!I see an indistinct blob with a head, not two head, just the one.Elfdart wrote: Two adults normally won't fit in such a small space, so either their children or midgets.
Because the first thing that a couple in a minivan is going to do when the vehicle stops and someone hops out to help a man who is bleeding is to start making out. Maybe you have fantasies of a girl sitting on your lap while surrounded by corpses, but that's between you and a shrink.Also, I take it you've never had a girl sit in your lap in a vehicle before, otherwise you'd understand that yes, to adults really can fit in the front seat of a van.
Get your story straight: Either the crew opened fire knowing they were shooting at non-combatants, OR they opened fire with a total disregard for whether they were shooting non-combatants. Either way they committed a war crime.Ok, then by all means, show us what part of the ROEs were violated here. They've got a vehicle that looks like it's trying to remove wounded combatants and arms from the scene, and could not tell that children were present or that the guy driving the van was acting purely out of concern for some wounded schmuck. But hey, Obersturmfurher Trolldart of the 101st Chairborne Brigade says they violated some previously unknown law of warfare or rule of engagement...
Whelp, I'm waiting, cupcake. What violation was there again?
The man wasn't armed, asshole. Even if he was, he was clearly out of action because they had already shot him. Neither he nor the man trying to aid him were firing at anyone. Show me where that dying man had a weapon while they were trying to put him in the van.Even though they could see the van, see military aged males attempting to remove armed military aged males they'd just shot up and had received permission to fire through the proper chain of command...Elfdart wrote: That's what is known as indiscriminate fire and is in fact a war crime.
Please show where Wikileaks only released the edited version. You can't of course, because both the short and long versions were posted at the same time on their website. You are not only a lying shitstain, but a lying shitstain who can't even make up his own lies and bullshit.Or the fact that Wikileaks decided to release an edited version of the original guncamera footage that neglects to mention the fucking RPGs and LMGs the guys around the two cameramen had?
Oh bite my ass. No one has argued the substance of what I wrote -least of all, you. The only thing you have to offer is incoherent name-calling.You've been full of shit since your first fucking post in this thread and I'm only one of about three people so far who've called your ass on it. So take your fake ass indignant trolling bullshit and go whine someplace else. No one is buying it, so get yourself a new gimmick already.
How the fuck does the father know where the rounds are landing? He's driving home, hears gunfire, and sees a man bleeding on the sidewalk. He tries to help the man (there's no gunfire in the immediate vicinity at this point) and he gets blown away. That makes him a "fucking retard"?She can claim whatever she wants. Still doesn't change the fact that she's married to a fucking retard that almost got his children killed by driving them towards the explosions instead of away from them. With a father that fucking dumb I'll be shocked and amazed if those kids live long enough to see their 18 birthdays.
A distinction without a difference.Who's excusing anything, you trolling fuck? By all means, please quoite me where I've said that what the pilots did was excusable. Understandable how they made the mistake, but not excusable.
Says the fucktard who claims he can only see "blobs".They fucked up. I've said this many times, but you're to busy jerking yourself off at the thought of US Soldiers being baby killers to bother to read the fucking thread. Fuck, at this point I doubt you've even watched the guncam video.
Have you tried Extra-Strength Pamprin?You're a fucking ghoul, Trolldart. You offer nothing insightful, no new perspective, and all you've brought to the thread is a perverse glee that some kids were hurt because it supposedly proves your little world view that the US Military is covering up everything while they gorge themselves on dead babies and burning villagers or whatever freshman college protester mastrubation fodder you're on this week.
Wait a minute. That video looked a lot like a van pulling up and finding victims of an assault from an unknown source, and not having heard any such explosions beyond the usual backdrop of botched occupation. So there were kids in the van, because life goes on and sometimes kids have to be driven from place to place.Mr. Coffee wrote: It takes a special form of retarded to think taking your kids towards explosions is a good idea, man. First instinct of a parent should have been "get kids away from potential source of harm".
You're forgetting in-group/out-group morality.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes. And guess what? I can get a guy I pull off the street to do the same thing to another human being within three days if I call one a guard and the other a prisoner. If anyone will do it with minimal encouragement, they are not sociopaths."Following orders" wasn't just the excuse used by the Nazis. Lynddie England also used it for what she and her boyfriend did at Abu Ghraib.
As if they needed to pad the stats for civilian body counts. Talk about shipping coal to Newcastle!Because it gets people in the US angry, inflames sentiment against the US in other countries etc. Not all strategic goals are measured in body count.
Oh please, you can fabricate any kind of scenario to justify a heinous act, just like pedophiles and torture enthusiasts do.So what do you do dumbfuck? If you have a minigun and someone who has their 7 year old at their side is about to fire an RPG at a group of people, do you fire? Do you save one child by allowing say, 7 others to die?
That's funny, I didn't know the Taliban was fighting in Iraq.
Fair enough, some might be stupid enough to use human shields, although wearing beanies with propellers would be just as likely to work. Anyway, even if you assume these reports are true, did this tactic stop the British or Americans from shooting? Of course not.
What do you think the guard and prisoner thing was jerkoff?You're forgetting in-group/out-group morality.
Shock, horror and fear are what these people operate on.As if they needed to pad the stats for civilian body counts. Talk about shipping coal to Newcastle!
It is an ethical quandary. You seem to be reacting to the death of children by jerking your knee and breaking your own nose.Oh please, you can fabricate any kind of scenario to justify a heinous act, just like pedophiles and torture enthusiasts do.
It is not. I was demonstrating the generality with which that information can be applied. Most of the insurgents IIRC are foreign, and funded by the same people as the militants in Afghanistan. It stands to reason the tactics would be similar.That's funny, I didn't know the Taliban was fighting in Iraq.
Stopping them from shooting is not the point. Causing political problems for the occupying country, or psychological trauma for the soldier is the point. Killing children, even brown children, is not something that (after the adrenaline wears off) generally sits well with someone's conscience afterward. You wonder why troops come back with PTSD. It is not just because they have been shot at and seen their friends die. It is because of some of the horrible shit they had to do in order to survive.Anyway, even if you assume these reports are true, did this tactic stop the British or Americans from shooting? Of course not.
No, Troll. They were shooting at a van that appeared to be removing armed combatants from the scene.Elfdart wrote:So you admit they opened fire without knowing what they were shooting at?
Bullshit. You see kids because you are told those are kids and you are expecting to see kids. Same as Gil thought "That could only be camera equipment" earlier.Elfdart wrote:No, you fucking retard. I saw two heads in a minivan -you know, the preferred vehicle of families with kids- and neither looked tall enough to be an adult. Let's see: short people in a vehicle commonly used by families with children...
Could be a lot of things from 500m or farther out through a view finder aboard a moving attack helicopter.Elfdart wrote:What on earth could it be?
Pull your head out of your ass for a second and you'd understand that at the time, under those cercumstances, the first thing to pop into your mind isn't "kids". Fuck, we just had a breif discussion on what kind of fucking idiot takes his kids towards gunfire and explosions. I certainly doubt that the pilots expected that either. But you're to worked up from jerking off to more "RAR Soldiers eat babies" porn to look at it objectively.Elfdart wrote:Then get your fucking eyes examined, fuckface!
The point is that it could have been a lot of things and it isn't obvious from the guncam footage that it is a pair of kids, dumbass.Elfdart wrote:Because the first thing that a couple in a minivan is going to do when the vehicle stops and someone hops out to help a man who is bleeding is to start making out. Maybe you have fantasies of a girl sitting on your lap while surrounded by corpses, but that's between you and a shrink.
They fired on people they thought to be removing armed combatants and weapons from the scene, no more, no less. But while we're at it, and even though we've hashed this shit out a few pages back in the thread, exactly what war crimes are they guilty of again?Elfdart wrote:Get your story straight: Either the crew opened fire knowing they were shooting at non-combatants, OR they opened fire with a total disregard for whether they were shooting non-combatants. Either way they committed a war crime.
Watch the video, you fucking twat. Bushmaster units fucking say they find weapons on and around most of the people the guys in the van we're trying to help. Well, except for the two dead guys with cameras...Elfdart wrote:The man wasn't armed, asshole. Even if he was, he was clearly out of action because they had already shot him. Neither he nor the man trying to aid him were firing at anyone. Show me where that dying man had a weapon while they were trying to put him in the van.
I never said they didn't release the unedited version, you fucking moron. In fact I linked to their website and told you where to look in the unedited version to see the uncropped guncam footage from the Cry-Me-A-River vid you linked, you inattentive fuckwit. Maybe if you stopped jerking off to the thought of Soldiers eating babies for five minutes and actually fucking read you'd have noticed that.Elfdart wrote:Please show where Wikileaks only released the edited version. You can't of course, because both the short and long versions were posted at the same time on their website. You are not only a lying shitstain, but a lying shitstain who can't even make up his own lies and bullshit.
Hell, I'd have thought the dust, the pair of gunships orbiting overhead, the multiple armored vehicles and dismounted soldiers coming down the street, and all the fucked bodies would have given that away. I know as a father the first I think when I hear explosions when driving my kid home from school is to drive in the direction of the explosions to see if anyone needs help. Oh, wait, no, I'd continue taking my son home and not take him into danger because I'm not a fucking retard.Elfdart wrote:How the fuck does the father know where the rounds are landing? He's driving home, hears gunfire, and sees a man bleeding on the sidewalk. He tries to help the man (there's no gunfire in the immediate vicinity at this point) and he gets blown away. That makes him a "fucking retard"?
No, I take exception to your obvious trolling douchebaggery. I can sum up all of your posts in this thread as follows "RAR! SEE, SOLDIERS EAT BABIES! *fap fap fap fap*" I mean, the sort of obscene glee you must feel at this story is so fucking obvious it's sickening. You're not posting to make a point, to make an observation, or even to toss in a "me too+!" comment. You're posting for the same reason some people slow down when they see a really horrific car wreck, just to get some sick jollies at the spectacle of it.Elfdart wrote:No wonder you got your panties in a wad when used the word "psychopath" to describe the fucktards who blasted the man and his family.
The difference is one would be understanding how something could happen and the other would be condoning it, you dishonest pile of shit.Elfdart wrote:A distinction without a difference.Who's excusing anything, you trolling fuck? By all means, please quoite me where I've said that what the pilots did was excusable. Understandable how they made the mistake, but not excusable.
So like I said, you haven't watched it, have no goddamned idea what the fuck your talking about, and you really are just fucking trolling.Elfdart wrote:Says the fucktard who claims he can only see "blobs".They fucked up. I've said this many times, but you're to busy jerking yourself off at the thought of US Soldiers being baby killers to bother to read the fucking thread. Fuck, at this point I doubt you've even watched the guncam video.
My mistake, that's what I get from only seeing the edited footage in circulation and later finding the unedited and jump to conclusions with the cynical part of my brainElfdart wrote: Contrary to the lies and bullshit posted (and retracted) by The Weekly Standard, they released the entire video on their site when they broke the story. So take your concern-trolling about WikiLeaks' credibility, print it out on paper and shove it all the way up your ass you lying cocksucker. Feel free to do this any time you get the urge to smear the whistle-blower with bullshit accusations to change the subject from what is clearly a war crime carried out by psychopaths.
Now go fuck yourself, asshole.
Not at all true, most of the "insurgents" are locals; only a few percent are foreigners. And they have always had the general support of the Iraqi people, which is a fundamental problem with trying to get rid of them; any real attempt to eliminate the "insurgency" would require what amounts to genocide.Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is not. I was demonstrating the generality with which that information can be applied. Most of the insurgents IIRC are foreign, and funded by the same people as the militants in Afghanistan. It stands to reason the tactics would be similar.That's funny, I didn't know the Taliban was fighting in Iraq.
Fair enough. Think that affects the conclusion though? That tactics would be largely the same?Lord of the Abyss wrote:Not at all true, most of the "insurgents" are locals; only a few percent are foreigners. And they have always had the general support of the Iraqi people, which is a fundamental problem with trying to get rid of them; any real attempt to eliminate the "insurgency" would require what amounts to genocide.Alyrium Denryle wrote:It is not. I was demonstrating the generality with which that information can be applied. Most of the insurgents IIRC are foreign, and funded by the same people as the militants in Afghanistan. It stands to reason the tactics would be similar.That's funny, I didn't know the Taliban was fighting in Iraq.
No; mostly that's because the various factions succeeded. They killed off or drove out the people they were trying to ethnically/religiously cleanse.Julhelm wrote:So that's why it's relatively calm there these days compared to 2007?
Why would it be? They are different people with different motivations and different standards. An Iraqi patriot, a suicidal religious fanatic, a foreign fanatic, and an ethnic bigot on a pogrom are all likely to use different tactics and attack different targets.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Fair enough. Think that affects the conclusion though? That tactics would be largely the same?Lord of the Abyss wrote:Not at all true, most of the "insurgents" are locals; only a few percent are foreigners. And they have always had the general support of the Iraqi people, which is a fundamental problem with trying to get rid of them; any real attempt to eliminate the "insurgency" would require what amounts to genocide.
I'd be surprised if it was otherwise; I've heard enough people rant and rave about how we should kill them all. Hell, I heard plenty of people call for a general extermination of the people of the ME before the war. And a central reason we are there in the first place is our disdain for their lives.Alyrium Denryle wrote:As far as the genocide is concerned... My inner cynic (well really my outer and very much dominant cynic) is telling me that there are a good number of people who would not mind that, or have suggested it in meetings.
If they're laying on the ground bleeding, riddled with bullets and shrapnel and unable to move under their own power then they aren't combatants, now are they?Mr. Coffee wrote: No, Troll. They were shooting at a van that appeared to be removing armed combatants from the scene.
Bullshit. You see kids because you are told those are kids and you are expecting to see kids. Same as Gil thought "That could only be camera equipment" earlier.
Could be a lot of things from 500m or farther out through a view finder aboard a moving attack helicopter.
Try to get your bullshit story straight. It's not my job.They fired on people they thought to be removing armed combatants and weapons from the scene, no more, no less.
Firing indiscriminately at non-combatants.But while we're at it, and even though we've hashed this shit out a few pages back in the thread, exactly what war crimes are they guilty of again?
In the conduct of military operations, parties to a conflict must take constant care to spare the civilian population and civilian objects from the effects of hostilities.[41] Parties to a conflict are therefore required to take precautionary measures with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects.
These precautions include:
* Doing "everything feasible to verify" that the objects to be attacked are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects. If there are doubts about whether a potential target is of a civilian or military character, the assessment must be particularly scrupulous so as to dispel, to the maximum extent possible, any doubts about the civilian character of the person or object. The warring parties must do everything feasible to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective.[42]
* Taking "all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods" of warfare so as to avoid and in any event minimize "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."[43] In its Commentary on Protocol I, the International Committee of the Red Cross explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible."[44]
That's what you were implying, asshole:I never said they didn't release the unedited version, you fucking moron. In fact I linked to their website and told you where to look in the unedited version to see the uncropped guncam footage from the Cry-Me-A-River vid you linked, you inattentive fuckwit. Maybe if you stopped jerking off to the thought of Soldiers eating babies for five minutes and actually fucking read you'd have noticed that.Elfdart wrote:Please show where Wikileaks only released the edited version. You can't of course, because both the short and long versions were posted at the same time on their website. You are not only a lying shitstain, but a lying shitstain who can't even make up his own lies and bullshit.
Like I said, you're an asshole.Or the fact that Wikileaks decided to release an edited version of the original guncamera footage that neglects to mention the fucking RPGs and LMGs the guys around the two cameramen had?
And you accuse me of not watching the video.I know as a father the first I think when I hear explosions when driving my kid home from school is to drive in the direction of the explosions to see if anyone needs help. Oh, wait, no, I'd continue taking my son home and not take him into danger because I'm not a fucking retard.
Project often? If anyone is showing signs of sadism and reveling in carnage it's you. Oh, and the fuckwits who mowed down two reporters, a bystander who tried to help them, and his two kids.No, I take exception to your obvious trolling douchebaggery. I can sum up all of your posts in this thread as follows "RAR! SEE, SOLDIERS EAT BABIES! *fap fap fap fap*" I mean, the sort of obscene glee you must feel at this story is so fucking obvious it's sickening. You're not posting to make a point, to make an observation, or even to toss in a "me too+!" comment. You're posting for the same reason some people slow down when they see a really horrific car wreck, just to get some sick jollies at the spectacle of it.
Bullshit. That's why you felt the need to call the father a "retard". There's one reason and one reason only why someone pisses all over the corpse of someone who was killed in an "accident" (to be overly generous), and that is to excuse the "accident". Now go play in traffic, fuckface.The difference is one would be understanding how something could happen and the other would be condoning it, you dishonest pile of shit.A distinction without a difference.
Not until the guys shooting at them can get in there and make sure of that. Joe Blow in his minivan doesn't get to make that call. Because it's totally not like insurgents in Iraq have hidden weapons on themselves while wounded before at all....Elfdart wrote:If they're laying on the ground bleeding, riddled with bullets and shrapnel and unable to move under their own power then they aren't combatants, now are they?
Yup, and I'm sure that being told that by multiple sources prior to ever seeing the video (or at least that tiny fraction of it) totally did not color your perception of what you saw.Elfdart wrote:I see kids because it's a Toyota mini-van with short people inside. The fact that these two passengers don't get out and help is also a clue that they're probably not adults and certainly not combatants.
Great, I ask you to say specifically what warc rimes were commited and you link me to a long winder Human Rights Watch story about Israel vs Palestine...Elfdart wrote:Firing indiscriminately at non-combatants.
Which they did when they circled around all those buildings to get a clear line of fire on the people they were observing.In the conduct of military operations, parties to a conflict must take constant care to spare the civilian population and civilian objects from the effects of hostilities.[41] Parties to a conflict are therefore required to take precautionary measures with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects.
And of course the term "feasable" in Elfdart speak means "They should have superhuman vision, claravoyance, and the conflict take place in Bizzaro World where the other guy is obeying the same rules as well". Do note that bit about "the warring parties", as in not just us, but the people we're fighting, should be doing this. Only we're the only ones that ever do.* Doing "everything feasible to verify" that the objects to be attacked are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects. If there are doubts about whether a potential target is of a civilian or military character, the assessment must be particularly scrupulous so as to dispel, to the maximum extent possible, any doubts about the civilian character of the person or object. The warring parties must do everything feasible to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not a military objective.[42]
Wow, doesn't say what steps, just that pesky word "feasable" again...* Taking "all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods" of warfare so as to avoid and in any event minimize "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects."[43] In its Commentary on Protocol I, the International Committee of the Red Cross explains that the requirement to take all "feasible" precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a legitimate military objective "in good time to spare the population as far as possible."[44]
I didn't imply anything, you dishonest fuck. How the fuck could I have been implying that Wikileaks only released an edited video when I linked you two their website and told you specifically to watch the unedited copy, you raving dumbshit?Elfdart wrote:That's what you were implying, asshole:
Like I said, you're an asshole.Or the fact that Wikileaks decided to release an edited version of the original guncamera footage that neglects to mention the fucking RPGs and LMGs the guys around the two cameramen had?
Gunfire had stopped briefly, and by briefly I mean less than a minute. I don't care if the gunfire had stopped for half a fucking hour, a responsible parent doesn't drive their kids towards where the gunfire and explosions took place, ever, at all, under no circumstandes. That's a retard fucking thing to do and it only places your children in danger.Elfdart wrote:The gunfire had stopped. The van pulled up and they tried to pick up the dying reporter (who was not armed). After a pause where the soldiers asked permission to fire (which means there was no gunfire) the reporter and Good Samaritan were gunned down.
You mean two reporters hiding among half a dozen or more armed men? Because let's just gloss over that bit about the weapons present...Elfdart wrote:Project often? If anyone is showing signs of sadism and reveling in carnage it's you. Oh, and the fuckwits who mowed down two reporters, a bystander who tried to help them, and his two kids.
Yes, the man was a retard. Fuck, he qualifies for a Darwin Award for that shit. His kids lucked the fuck out and only have scars to show for their father's stupid fucking idea to drive them right into the line of fire.Elfdart wrote:Bullshit. That's why you felt the need to call the father a "retard". There's one reason and one reason only why someone pisses all over the corpse of someone who was killed in an "accident" (to be overly generous), and that is to excuse the "accident". Now go play in traffic, fuckface.
The only way this can be resolved is with flamethrowers at ten paces...Edi wrote:...or just screaming insults at each other?
I am perfectly capable of and happy to contribute more to the thread than combustion reactions.Edi wrote:Okay, a serious question: Are the people in this thread interested in discussing the issue itself or just screaming insults at each other? Because if it's the latter one, I might as well lock this thread as a useless waste of bandwidth.
Not to condone this act, but what military doesn't have this problem? A military usually won't deal with such a matter unless it is a PR issue, or if it sees such behavior as leading to a total breakdown of military order.Edi wrote:[*]The US military as a whole does not give a shit about how many civilians it kills in theaters of operation unless it becomes a PR issue, even if individual soldiers do care
[*]The US military has a well established track record of covering up civilian deaths, not prosecuting wrongful conduct and handing out wristslaps when it absolutely can't simply ignore something (e.g. the Italian cable car incident)
Amen to that.[*]The US policy on this is not going to change anytime in the foreseeable future, because the American public is by and large utterly incapable of dealing with the prospect of US troops doing anything morally questionable.
Dude, honestly, what is there to really discuss on this? Killing civilians when it could possibly be prevented is bad? No shit. That our military and our government doesn't really give a rats ass about it and even tried to sweep it under the rug as another "whoops" moment? Well, duh, par for the course. What are we going to discuss, how we all agree that this sort of thing isn't ok and the US military really needs to figure out how to knock this shit off? Throw me a bone here, man...Edi wrote:Okay, a serious question: Are the people in this thread interested in discussing the issue itself or just screaming insults at each other? Because if it's the latter one, I might as well lock this thread as a useless waste of bandwidth.
Just FYI, carrying a smallarm is legal in Iraq. Each house is allowed one for every adult male living in the house for protection against looters and insurgents. RPGs are not.stormthebeaches wrote:It just occurred to me, how do we know that all these people were civilians? Some of them were carrying AK-47's and RPG's. And the helicopter was called into an area where shots were fired.
Looks like you got sand in your twat, too. So much that you had to straw man my position and pull a false Appeal to Motive Fallacy right out of your ass to go with it. Of course anyone who is appalled by what the video shows, or the way some of the fucktards in this thread piss all over the victims, or how douche nozzles seek to change the subject by falsely claiming Wikilinks did something fishy with the footage, has "hatred of the American military institution". If you liken the initial shooting (as I did earlier in this thread) to a police shooting where an object is mistaken for a weapon, you must also hate the military. I have a suggestion: Next time you get the urge to hide behind the American flag or the uniform, fold it five ways and shove it up your ass sideways, fucktard.General Schatten wrote: Anywho, to summarize these are the positions I'm seeing:
#1. The Reuters guys were embedded with insurgents, made the mistake of pointing a camera at troops, and their asses were legitimately shot up. Negligent parent decides to play the hero and take his kids to an area where gunshots had just been heard, gets his ass killed and his kids hurt.
#2. The Reuters guys were being idiots and made the mistake of hanging around where gunshots had been heard in vicinity of heavily armed insurgents, were killed in a case of mistaken identity. Negligent parent decides to play the hero and take his kids to an area where gunshots had just been heard, gets his ass killed and his kids hurt.
#3. American Soldiers masturbate to the thought of "killin' me some sand niggers", are issued Kryptonian powers of supersight and x-ray vision in basic, and intentionally killed innocent people.
The former can agree in at least one respect, that being this is a regrettable incident that was completely avoidable. The latter, however, are working entirely behind ideological blinders denying visible evidence in favor of getting off to the ideas of American soldiers killing innocent people. There's nothing that can be done in this thread, the trolls in the latter group will not concede based on their hatred of the American military institution and the former won't because it's disgusting to see this unjustifiable tarring occur.
