FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Rivelution]

On the profesional side, they are not acting how i would expect a profesional soilder to act.

They seam to be far to releax and jovial for what they doing and far far to eagar to shoot, especialy with mini van.

And this is how some freindly fire incidents or attacks on civilians happen when soilders are too relaxed and easy going about the act of taking a life

Actually, its the other way around. Friendly fire incidents occur because the soldiers are too jumpy, on the other hand, being too relaxed is what gets you killed.



Professional soldiers act like that though dude. Take this quote from an SAS soldier after they raided the Iranian Embassy in 1980.

"Margaret Thatcher and her husband Denis paid a visit to the SAS at Regent's Park barracks after the incident to thank them. "Tom", one of the SAS soldiers present, said of a later meeting with Denis Thatcher:
"He had a big grin on his face and said, 'You let one of the bar stewards live.' We failed in that respect.""

Or how about this quote from a D-boy (Delta Force)

"The idea for the HRT was originally conceived during the late 1970s but came to life when then FBI director William H. Webster witnessed a demonstration by the US Army Delta Force. When Webster reviewed the equipment used by the Delta Force and noticed there were no handcuffs, he inquired about it. An operator grimly replied, "We put two rounds in their forehead, the dead don't need handcuffs.""

[Amanda]

I think the RPG is a Tripod for a Camera.

As for the AK47's how do we know the armed individuals weren't hired secuirty for the Jornalists?

I think that's highly unlikely. Why would a journalist need RPGs for protection? I don't think there's any denying who those men were. The journalists were probably there to film the battle that had been going on all morning.

On the profesional side, they are not acting how i would expect a profesional soilder to act.

They seam to be far to releax and jovial for what they doing and far far to eagar to shoot, especialy with mini van

And this is how some freindly fire incidents or attacks on civilians happen when soilders are too relaxed and easy going about the act of taking a life.

If it was me the very last thing i would want to do is kill an innocent person, and these guys seamed under very little pressure (before they spotted what looked like a RPG) Also it wasn't as if the "insurgents" were firing upon US soilders.

I belive they had made there decision the moment they saw these people.

They did seem eager to shoot, even willing the wounded man to pick up a weapon at one point, but that doesn't mean that they didn't follow protocol. They spotted weapons and they requested permission to engage.

The problem we have is that we're sat at home, in no danger and in that situation taking a life is never "easy". It's impossible to imagine how we would react if we were at war, almost all soldiers who have seen combat tell you that very thing - if you haven't experienced it then you have no idea.

As for whether they were firing on US soldiers, in that specific moment, no, they weren't. But ground troops were 100m away, they had been receiving fire all morning. They saw what they believed was an RPG aimed right at them and a number of other armed men close by.

[racechick]

I think it was the lack of professionality that really got to me. No immediate threat to lfe and an apparant enjoyment of killing. And the minibus part, those people were recovering wounded, not trying to shoot, even if they were enamy soldiers, at that time they were not a threat.

[Rivelution]

I think it was the lack of professionality that really got to me. No immediate threat to lfe and an apparant enjoyment of killing. And the minibus part, those people were recovering wounded, not trying to shoot, even if they were enamy soldiers, at that time they were not a threat.

Did you even read what Amanda wrote?

[racechick]

I think it was the lack of professionality that really got to me. No immediate threat to lfe and an apparant enjoyment of killing. And the minibus part, those people were recovering wounded, not trying to shoot, even if they were enamy soldiers, at that time they were not a threat.

Did you even read what Amanda wrote?

No. I was posting at the same time.

[texasmr2]

Since I am getting trounced please allow me to clarify my view even though some may not agree with it and thats ok .

1. I am by no means happy about the innocent children that were wounded or killed but that is a war zone and they were "casulties of war".

2. The Reuters reporters and clearly ANY reporter who has covered any war are aware that they are putting themselves in harms way when they cover such events and may not make it home. To me such reporters are true hero's and I never want them to become a casualty of war but these things happen.

3. Clearly the insurgents are trying to use the reporters as shields or protect themselves from being fired upon, this should not be new news to anyone.

4. Did I enjoy the so called "cowboys" attitude or comments, NO! I also found them to be rather disturbing but then again I have never been in a war nor can I begin to understand what being in such a situation can/will do to ones psyche and I'm not sure anyone else here commenting can either.

The way I look at it is this was just another and by far not the first incident of its kind nor will it be the last. As I said war is hell .

My last comment on this matter which I'm certain will be appreciated .

Best to all,
tex

[Gaz]

I think the RPG is a Tripod for a Camera.

As for the AK47's how do we know the armed individuals weren't hired secuirty for the Jornalists?

I think that's highly unlikely. Why would a journalist need RPGs for protection? I don't think there's any denying who those men were. The journalists were probably there to film the battle that had been going on all morning.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying the Jorno's have an RPG i'm saying what the pilots belive to be in RPG is just a Tripod.

On the profesional side, they are not acting how i would expect a profesional soilder to act.

They seam to be far to releax and jovial for what they doing and far far to eagar to shoot, especialy with mini van

And this is how some freindly fire incidents or attacks on civilians happen when soilders are too relaxed and easy going about the act of taking a life.

If it was me the very last thing i would want to do is kill an innocent person, and these guys seamed under very little pressure (before they spotted what looked like a RPG) Also it wasn't as if the "insurgents" were firing upon US soilders.

I belive they had made there decision the moment they saw these people.

They did seem eager to shoot, even willing the wounded man to pick up a weapon at one point, but that doesn't mean that they didn't follow protocol. They spotted weapons and they requested permission to engage.

The problem we have is that we're sat at home, in no danger and in that situation taking a life is never "easy". It's impossible to imagine how we would react if we were at war, almost all soldiers who have seen combat tell you that very thing - if you haven't experienced it then you have no idea.

As for whether they were firing on US soldiers, in that specific moment, no, they weren't. But ground troops were 100m away, they had been receiving fire all morning. They saw what they believed was an RPG aimed right at them and a number of other armed men close by.[/quote]

Your right i've never been to war nor do i want to so i have no idea how i would react in that situation, would i of shot or would i of checked more thoughly.

On the first incident i can half understand there decsion to fire its acceptble that they are in a "battle zone" and they have spotted people with weapons.

But on the Mini Van i belive it was a complete failure of both the pilot to assess the danger and the officer to question the reason for shooting since it was clear to me that they were just trying to assist a wounded man i did not see any threat to anyone at that time.


@Rivelution

I can see what your saying and perhaps releaxed is the wrong word, perhaps those guys were infact jumpy making them too eager to fire.

I guess the word to use in regard to there attutide would be there coldness and lack of emmotion after killing 15 people.

@Tex

On your point 3 i don't belive its at all clear what the armed personal are doing.

[Amanda]

I think the RPG is a Tripod for a Camera.

As for the AK47's how do we know the armed individuals weren't hired secuirty for the Jornalists?

I think that's highly unlikely. Why would a journalist need RPGs for protection? I don't think there's any denying who those men were. The journalists were probably there to film the battle that had been going on all morning.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm not saying the Jorno's have an RPG i'm saying what the pilots belive to be in RPG is just a Tripod.

They definitely identified the cameras incorrectly but there were RPGs present too.

"Pictures taken at the time reveal one of the digital cameras with the sand-colored telephoto lens attached as well as an AK/AKM and an additional RPG launcher with a loaded round still in it. The body lying closest to the camera had an RPG round underneath it (later destroyed by EOD)."

They're also visible if you freeze the video.

Your right i've never been to war nor do i want to so i have no idea how i would react in that situation, would i of shot or would i of checked more thoughly.

On the first incident i can half understand there decsion to fire its acceptble that they are in a "battle zone" and they have spotted people with weapons.

But on the Mini Van i belive it was a complete failure of both the pilot to assess the danger and the officer to question the reason for shooting since it was clear to me that they were just trying to assist a wounded man i did not see any threat to anyone at that time.

I agree to an extent. I find the first incident more acceptable but they didn't shoot the van because it was a threat. They requested permission to engage in order to "prevent the escape of the insurgents".

I can see what your saying and perhaps releaxed is the wrong word, perhaps those guys were infact jumpy making them too eager to fire.

I guess the word to use in regard to there attutide would be there coldness and lack of emmotion after killing 15 people.

I know this wasn't in reply to me but I wanted to respond anyway. They're soldiers, they're trained to kill and that's how the army like it. Soldiers who felt emotional every time they took a life are utterly useless. It's part of the reason the enemy is always demonized, it makes it easier to do your job. You also have to consider that the men these soldiers are firing on are men who are essentially aiming to kill them and their friends. The only part of the dialogue that I found truly disgusting and incomprehensible was the lack of remorse for killing children.

[7UpJordan]

And I thought soldiers were meant to be disciplined, but it seems those dipsticks who killed the reporters weren't. They should be court martialed and locked away for such incompetence.

[Gaz]

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/photos-1.html

It appears the guy crouching behind the building is just a camera man.

[Amanda]

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/photos-1.html

It appears the guy crouching behind the building is just a camera man.

Yep that's what we were saying. They identified the man behind the wall incorrectly. He was holding a camera and they believed it was an RPG. But there were men holding both AKs and RPGs.

[texasmr2]

@Tex

On your point 3 i don't belive its at all clear what the armed personal are doing.

I know I said it was my last comment but now that we all have a general understanding of opinions and I openly apologize to you Gaz for my first response may I comment about that?

I have over five veterans of the war in Iraq in my class who saw combat on a daily basis so I am relying on their personal and upfront experiences and stories to rely on.

I think we all have issues with certain things about this video but on the same hand we cannot change what has been done but only hope that these sort of things become less frequent.

tex

And I thought soldiers were meant to be disciplined, but it seems those dipsticks who killed the reporters weren't. They should be court martialed and locked away for such incompetence.

Judge not until you have walked in a soldiers shoes and until then all I hear is blah blah blah .

[Gaz]

fair enough tex, as long as your apprciate i'm not anti-american in anyway way this sort of thing depends on the person not the uniform they wear.

[7UpJordan]

Judge not until you have walked in a soldiers shoes and until then all I hear is blah blah blah .

And have you done likewise?

[texasmr2]

fair enough tex, as long as your apprciate i'm not anti-american in anyway way this sort of thing depends on the person not the uniform they wear.

Thanks mate .

Judge not until you have walked in a soldiers shoes and until then all I hear is blah blah blah .

And have you done likewise?

Don't answer a question with a question . No I'm not a veteran of a war, are you and did you see combat, I'm only a veteran of life .