Wikileak'd video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children

[CurveLight]

Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument. Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)

In the interview he does state:

"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don ’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/

He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered. With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group. I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE. They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot. They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell. For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass. Now dance.

I appreciate your more reasoned response above.

I may agree that it wasn't necessary to engage the van. However, I would disagree that it violated any "rule". An ambulance is supposed to be clearly marked as such by internatinoal law (Geneva?). I cannot comment as to ROE due to the fact that I am not former military and don't know the ROE for this instance.

But also please keep in mind... the pilots had no idea that there were children in the van. At least give credit to the soldiers on the ground for having compassion enough to literally run to get the children help... as can be seen in the video. Libs don't often give credit to soldiers for compassion, so please at least admit that.

I already posted the ROE in effect at the time and the vehicle did not need to be marked as an ambulance and it didn't matter if there were kids inside or not. They violated the ROE because the wounded was out of combat capabilities and the civilians who showed up had no weapons and made no hostile moves towards anyone.

I'm not a liberal....thass for another thread.....but if I read it correct you want open acknowledgment of the soldiers responding with medical aid. Why demand special acknowledgment for them doing their job? Of course the clear majority of soldiers show compassion.....that's a priori knowledge. The EOF within the ROE is specifically designed to address the tactical hurdles of an urban occupation.

 

[CurveLight]

Holy shit you're a pathetic ****. I never said soldiers had to be fired on and that was pointed out a long time ago you fuxxing reetawrd.

Then why in the **** do keep whining that the guys on the ground were engaged when the soldiers weren't being fired on by them?

How did the group exhibit hostile intent you wormy punk?

By being armed, moving towards an American unit on the ground that had just called for CAS due to being in contact, and then kneeling at a corner and pointing something at them. I agree that it was probably a camera lens. What is relevant is that the pilots thought it was an RPG.



I lived the ROE shit-for-brains. Do you think we didn't have to deal with the "shoot/don't shoot" issue in Afghanistan?



Absolutely right. He was "out of the fight" and not engagable by the ROE. That's why the pilot didn't re-engage him. He was following the ROE.

By your glorious idiocy if his hand had accidentally touched an object that could be perceived as a weapon the pilot could have shot him again....and that is you rewriting the ROE for your personal desires.

Yeah, under the ROE, having a weapon would have allowed the pilot to re-engage him. You're hypothetical is useless, btw. The only relevant thing is if the pilots perceived him as having a weapon. If he picked up a brick, they wouldn't have shot him. If he picked up an AK, the would have.

Again, I am not re-writing the ROE, I fully understand what it says and doesn't say. You don't have a ******* clue about it.

Not that I would expect you too. You are a decade+ removed from combat, and even when you were there, you weren't a trigger puller.

I'll give you one chance to watch the video again to reevaluate what you said about the wounded not being shot you dumfuk.

First, take your ultimatums and shove them up your ass. If the best you can do is toss out lame ass insults that look like they came off a LOL cat poster, I am completely un-impressed with your "do this or" statements.

I've reviewed the tape. I've given you time marks and explained what my perception is and why what happened happened. I doubt another look for your sake is going to change anything.

The pilots shot unarmed wounded you dumfuxxing ****. Then you continue to pretend to know what I did in iraq.....you're a joke and a dishonest *****.

 

[geauxtohell]

Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument. Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)

In the interview he does state:

"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don ’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/

So now we have proof that there was an RPG and AK-47s on the scene?

"Game over, man."

You still want to tell me I didn't see two AK-47s in the video? I guess I didn't need your magical measurement system after all, huh slap-dick?

The question of the van engagement is shaky. However, you haven't been whining about that. If the van was going int to pull out weapons, and now we know there was an RPG there, then it was a legit engagement. Keeping weapons out of the hands of the insurgency is a legitimate use of force.

He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered. With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.

Wow. Imagine that. It's almost like you now agree with everything we've been saying.

I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE. They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot. They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell. For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass. Now dance.

So now we are switching to the van? Fine. Go petition the chain of command to prosecute these pilots, because you would have done such a bang-up job if only you were running the show.

Otherwise, all your previous claims have been shot to shit.

 

[CurveLight]

I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.

Wow. You "spearheaded" into Iraq? You and several thousand other men of various jobs. If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it. It was your job to keep the choppers flying. Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield. We both know it's B.S.

Funny joke, BTW. I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics. Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.

BTW, I was an 11A.

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

 

[geauxtohell]

The pilots shot unarmed wounded you dumfuxxing ****. Then you continue to pretend to know what I did in iraq.....you're a joke and a dishonest *****.

You told me what you did in Iraq. Did you moonlight as Force Recon?

Otherwise STFU.

None of this would be an issue if you hadn't claimed that you had been in "similar situations" (which you refuse to recount) that gave you some sort of special dispensation on this matter.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

So ******* what? You were support for an aviation unit that went into Iraq. Good for you. That still doesn't make you a trigger puller and it still doesn't put you in "similar situations". Unless your unit made the habit of sending their Helicopter Ground crews on infantry missions.

BTW, apologies. I thought you were USMC. I didn't know the Army was still flying the AH-1 in the first gulf war.

 

[CurveLight]

Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument. Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)

In the interview he does state:

"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don ’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/

So now we have proof that there was an RPG and AK-47s on the scene?

"Game over, man."

You still want to tell me I didn't see two AK-47s in the video? I guess I didn't need your magical measurement system after all, huh slap-dick?

The question of the van engagement is shaky. However, you haven't been whining about that. If the van was going int to pull out weapons, and now we know there was an RPG there, then it was a legit engagement. Keeping weapons out of the hands of the insurgency is a legitimate use of force.

He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered. With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.

Wow. Imagine that. It's almost like you now agree with everything we've been saying.

I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE. They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot. They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell. For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass. Now dance.

So now we are switching to the van? Fine. Go petition the chain of command to prosecute these pilots, because you would have done such a bang-up job if only you were running the show.

Otherwise, all your previous claims have been shot to shit.

No. You really are a dishonest whiny ****. I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying *****.....

 

[CurveLight]

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

So ******* what? You were support for an aviation unit that went into Iraq. Good for you. That still doesn't make you a trigger puller and it still doesn't put you in "similar situations". Unless your unit made the habit of sending their Helicopter Ground crews on infantry missions.

BTW, apologies. I thought you were USMC. I didn't know the Army was still flying the AH-1 in the first gulf war.

Holy fuk you aren't even worth it.

 

[geauxtohell]

No. You really are a dishonest whiny ****. I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying *****.....

You've whined about the whole incident. Mostly though, you've whined about the first engagement of "unarmed" men because you didn't "see weapons in the video". Then you mocked those of us who clearly did.

Now we know there were not only AK-47s, but an RPG on site.

But with your magical powers, you are just going to act like you never said anything about that.

 

[geauxtohell]

Holy fuk you aren't even worth it.

Like I said, it wouldn't be an issue if you hadn't claimed to be in "similar situations".

Did you ever co-ordinate with CAS during an engagement?

And you have the moxie to call us all dishonest.

 

[CurveLight]

All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.

Is there any thread where you posted more than three times and didn't find a way to squeeze in the "I served 22 years!" song and dance?

As for me being too set in my ways....I've admitted to being wrong several times.....so what else ya got because your Miss Cleo starter kit is broken.

Yes there are hundreds of threads where i do not mention it. But when my military experience has a direct link to the subject I don't see why you would complain about someone stating their credentials. After all, I am not the one who claimed to have been in similar circumstances. Song and dance? No. Facts? Yes.

But you go ahead and keep on dissing my service, it proves your worth.

Even people who usually agree with your views know you bring it up out of glory hound lust you dumfuk. I'm also not dissing your service but merely pointed out you bring it up at every possible chance. Keep trying to play the victim though....bitches like you are good at it.

 

[CurveLight]

No. You really are a dishonest whiny ****. I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying *****.....

You've whined about the whole incident. Mostly though, you've whined about the first engagement of "unarmed" men because you didn't "see weapons in the video". Then you mocked those of us who clearly did.

Now we know there were not only AK-47s, but an RPG on site.

But with your magical powers, you are just going to act like you never said anything about that.

Is that why I acknowledged I was wrong to say the pilots should be prosecuted for the first engagement you dikidiot? Keep squirming ****...

 

[geauxtohell]

Is that why I acknowledged I was wrong to say the pilots should be prosecuted for the first engagement you dikidiot? Keep squirming ****...

Really?

Then my work here is done, I figured you'd come around to a reasonable position once you got over your rage-a-thon and looked at the complete set of facts.

It's been fun.

 

[Nonelitist]

I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.

Wow. You "spearheaded" into Iraq? You and several thousand other men of various jobs. If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it. It was your job to keep the choppers flying. Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield. We both know it's B.S.

Funny joke, BTW. I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics. Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.

BTW, I was an 11A.

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you. Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow. You "spearheaded" into Iraq? You and several thousand other men of various jobs. If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it. It was your job to keep the choppers flying. Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield. We both know it's B.S.

Funny joke, BTW. I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics. Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.

BTW, I was an 11A.

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you. Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.

N'ah. Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters. They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was. That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.

Case in point, my battalion was an infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys. They were great. We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics. However, they weren't out on patrol either. Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.

 

[Nonelitist]

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you. Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.

N'ah. Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters. They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was. That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.

Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys. They were great. We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics. However, they weren't out on patrol either. Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.

Ya, you are probably right.

Curve... I apologize. I was out of line.

 

[CurveLight]

I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you. Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.

N'ah. Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters. They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was. That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.

Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys. They were great. We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics. However, they weren't out on patrol either. Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.

Ya, you are probably right.

Curve... I apologize. I was out of line.

No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me. What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right." What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit. (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.

 

[Nonelitist]

N'ah. Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters. They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was. That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.

Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys. They were great. We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics. However, they weren't out on patrol either. Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.

Ya, you are probably right.

Curve... I apologize. I was out of line.

No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me. What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right." What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit. (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.

Again my apologies... I just expected better manners and more respect from former military. I forgot that, just like other professional, there are people like you.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Wow. You "spearheaded" into Iraq? You and several thousand other men of various jobs. If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it. It was your job to keep the choppers flying. Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield. We both know it's B.S.

Funny joke, BTW. I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics. Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.

BTW, I was an 11A.

This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.

I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you. Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.

I made this claim a long time ago as well. What kind of vet looks for something about his "Unit" in globalsecurity.org. One would think being a member of that unit they would have access to or know where to find the unit's website. If I'm wrong...sorry.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

N'ah. Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters. They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was. That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.

Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys. They were great. We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics. However, they weren't out on patrol either. Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.

Ya, you are probably right.

Curve... I apologize. I was out of line.

No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me. What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right." What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit. (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.

You have to understand it from a real Vet's point of view....nearly ALL of the anti-war vets have been outted as fake Vets.