AH-64 Video Court Martials "Smoke Em"

[Wolfala]

I'm saying at this point is does not matter. Try and ID a weapon at range through a FLIR. Can I say with a definitive answer if it was a LMG or RPG or MANPAD? Surely I cannot, I am not a trained Army aviator - and I don't think we have any business questioning the decisions of a professional soldier unless we intend to take their place oversea's. They are there - we are not, and i'm thankful for that.

Wolf

[Gunslinger]

GS I am agreeing with you in the fact that our "civilian" govt. controls/runs our military.

Its really simple though that this is war.  People die.  Killing happens.

there is no indication to me that this guy is wounded....he's under a truck and low crawling out.  Whos to say he survives and picks up an RBG and shoots jessica lynch with it.  

WHAT IF WHAT IF.

War is ugly people.  WE can watch movies all the time and never truely grasp the "fog of war"  

This video should have never been made public and these guys (pilots) should have to answer to no one but their commanding officer for their actions.  

I truely beleive the "next war" (I pray to god it doesnt happen) there will be a strict "no camera policy"  

I'm not saying this to "defend the cause" at all.  I'm saying it cause the public doesnt need to know.  People who take stuff like this and politicise it to promote their agenda have no place doing so.  

But truth be told that war is ugly....this is the face of it.

[Gunslinger]

but would you agree with me that war is ugly.

You need home front support

AND (if we werent talking about this particular war) the war is justified.....do you want people not trained or knowlegable in warfare making public opinion about it.  I'm not talking about govt officials...I'm talking about news media.  somone can easily spin this (wich they did by cutting it down and creating an explination for it) and it would be taken totally out of context.  The PUBLIC does not need to see front line footage as its happening.  They will lose all stomach for war in general no matter the cause (keeping in mind that we are not talking specificallly about iraq)

[Wolfala]

As the good Gunny and GS have said, war is ugly. But we seem to forget that every generation and need a fresh reminder that it isn't a point and click battle. Thats just human nature for you.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by GScholz
If they had been identified as insurgents/rebels/terrorists I don't think killing them is a violation of the GC,

It depends.

The GC protects the captured wounded, not wounded enemies still at large.

That's not true.



"CONVENTION I  

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

...

Chapter II. Wounded and Sick

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

...

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by GScholz
You don't have to tell me that war is ugly ... I know. If you don't have "home front" support then the war is not justified by your people. It really is that simple. If your people don't want war the military has no business waging one. If the people have no clue as to what a war would entail, then they will get disillusioned by the reality of war is they start one. This of course would happen while the war is being waged, and that complicates things enormously (as you probably have noticed).

By having a population that knows what they can expect from a war, not only in casualties and $, but also in cruelty and horror ... perhaps they wouldn't have gone to war in the first place, but if they did then it would be for a very good reason, and they would know what the consequences would be.

How many teenagers do you think reads history books? These people will some day vote and make decisions in our societies. They need to learn what war is really like outside of Hollywood, otherwise how can history not repeat itself?

So what happens when a war is justified and needs to be done but the populus dissaproves of it because of the horrible pictures they may see?

[Rino]

Originally posted by Thrawn
It depends.


 

That's not true.



"CONVENTION I  

For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949.

...

Chapter II. Wounded and Sick

Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.

...

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."


http://www.genevaconventions.org/

     Ok, explain to me how a helicopter gunship has "power" over
an enemy hundreds of yards away?  The passages you're quoting
sound alot more like once the wounded have been taken into
custody by ground troops, not crawling around on a battlefield.

[Curval]

I had a quick scan of the GC contained in that link.

What a crock.

Those "rules" go out the window when the shooting starts.

[Eagler]

the "war-hero" would have landed the copter, chased down the wounded *******, "dispatched him single handed", retreived the weapon AND put in for another medal - LOL

[Gunslinger]

I still dont see any "wounds" in that video....one can assume he's wounded but I dont see any.

[NUKE]

That guy that rolls our from under the truck has to be mortally wounded. In fact, he stopped moving a few seconds before he was blown away....I think he might well  have been dead before they fired at him the last time.

Who knows? nothing can be proven by that video, other than it would suck to be on the receiving end of those cannon.

[Mini D]

This was aired on the local news back in December or so.  The author is either woefully misinformed or simply lieing.

MiniD

[Thrawn]

Point taken,  GScholz.

[Udie]

man that would SUCK to get hit by those things.  When that first guy gets hit you can see 4 or 5 seperate flashes.  I assume that's 4 or 5 30mm rounds hitting him.  EEK!  I don't reckon you'd feel that thouh.  The last dude is who I kind of fell sorry for.  He had a few seconds to realize that maybe terrorist/insurgent/what ever you call them now wasn't such a good career choice.

[Tuomio]

ITs up to the elected people to make decisions. If 99% of the people wanted to pull out of the Iraq now, they have to vote accordingly in the next elections. Id rather live under dictatorship, than in democracy where you have to get majoritys support for every action you take.

There is nothing wrong happening in that video. There might be wrong conclusions that led to shooting those 3 men, but the actual shooting is what war is about. When you get public opinions, these things go upside down, conclusions made behind the scenes are ingnored, but the graphical action is what gets attention.