Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on May 07, 2004, 08:40:49 PM
-
Seems US public relations are on a downward slope and it's just going to get worse. Here's another story doing the rounds. The film itself is still floating around the net. Personally I thought the actions of the crew was poor killing the wounded man and given they never identified that the tube was a weapon nor was any weapon ever pointed at them. Seems alot of other people thought the same and is another story for the press to exploit.
Someone wounded,' the pilot cries. Then he received the reply: "Hit him, hit the truck and him.' ...The pilot fires a 30mm gun at the wounded man, vaporising him in a second...
ROBERT FISK
The pictures are appalling, the words devastating. As a wounded Iraqi crawls from beneath a burning truck, an American helicopter pilot tells his commander that one of three men has survived his night air attack. "Someone wounded,' the pilot cries. Then he received the reply: "Hit him, hit the truck and him.' As the helicopter's gun camera captures the scene on video, the pilot fires a 30mm gun at the wounded man, vaporising him in a second.
British and most European television stations censored the tape off the air last night on the grounds that the pictures were too terrible to show. But deliberately shooting a wounded man is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions and this extraordinary film of US air crews in action over Iraq is likely to create yet another international outcry.
American and British personnel have been trying for weeks to persuade Western television stations to show the video of the attack. Despite the efforts of reports in Baghdad and New York, most television controllers preferred to hide the evidence from viewers. Only Canal Plus in France, ABC television in the United States and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have so far had the courage to show the shocking footage. UK military personnel in the Gulf region have confirmed that the tape is genuine.
The camera, mounted beside the 30mm cannon of a US Apache helicopter on patrol over central Iraq on 1 December, first picks up movement on a country road, apparently several hundred metres from an American military checkpoint. A lorry and a smaller vehicle, probably a pick-up, come into view and a man--apparently unaware of the hovering helicopter-- is seen moving to a field on the left of the screen.
He is carrying what seems to be a tube with a covering; it may be a rocket-propelled grenade. One of two helicopter pilots is heard to say: "Big truck over here. He's having a little pow-wow.' The driver of the pick-up looks around, reaches into the vehicle, takes out the tube-shaped object and runs from the road into the field. He drops the object and returns to the truck. The pilot then radios:
"I got a guy running, throwing a weapon.' Another pilot, or a ground controller, instructs him: "Engage...smoke him.'
At this point, a tractor arrives close to where the man from the lorry dropped the object in the field. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver. The Apache pilot opens fire with his 30mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field and then the tractor driver. The camera registers the bullets hitting the first man. All that is left is a smudge on the ground.
The pilot then turns his attention to the large truck, opens fire and waits to see if he has hit the last of the three men. The third man is then seen crawling, obviously badly wounded, from his cover beneath the blazing truck.
The pilot reports: "Wait. Someone wounded by the truck.' An officer replies: "Hit him. Hit the truck and him.'
The video tape shows that the incident took four minutes, during which the two helicopter pilots--whose names are listed as Nager and Alioto--expended 300 high-velocity cannon rounds at their targets. The tape shows that the first 15 rounds missed the men. One of the pilots says: "****, switching to range auto." The tape then documents the firing of four bursts of 20 rounds each at the three men.
The pictures, apparently taken through thermal-imaging cameras, leave no doubt that the pilot knew his third victim was wounded and crawling along the ground--and that whoever gave him the order to hit him also knew this.
Coming only days after the appalling photographs of Iraqis being tortured and humiliated by US troops at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, the new pictures can only further inflame Arab opinion throughout the Middle East.
It is common Israeli practice to kill wounded enemies from the air; a devastating helicopter assault by Israel on a Hizbollah training camp in Lebanon 10 years ago was accompanied by a series of attacks in which pilots sought out wounded guerrillas as they hid behind rocks in the Bekaa Valley and then fired at them.
The film, while it shows men acting in an apparently suspicious manner, does not prove they were handling weapons. The occupation authorities in Baghdad chose to keep the incident secret when it occurred in December. Watching the video images, it is easy to understand why.
-
BTW this is a very old film clip. It did not come out just days after the scandal. BTW they did announce the "scandal" and steps being taken to correct it quite some time ago. It's just news now as the election is getting close.
Make out of it what you want.
-
Lets see you are in a war and you see what you believe to be the enemy with a RPG.
Perhapes they should have ask them over a loud speaker I say old boy is that an RPG and do you intend to shoot us with it?
Also this guncam footage was released long before this whole prison mess came up.
And as far as killing the wounded guy crawling on the ground.
Well If i was the dude that just got blasted by 30mm cannon rounds and was horribly wounded I would beg for them to finnish me off! seems almost the humain
thing to do really.
Do you expect soldiers to be polite to the very same people who are trying to kill them?
Please think about that for a moment.
It takes a hard heart to kill and and I'm sure that these proffesional soldiers were well within there rules of engagment.
Remeber allways they are there and we aint!
-
I've got that footage on my hard drive. Had it for a long time. It was posted here and then Skuzzy removed it.
What great timing on behalf of the media.
At least now the full story will probably come out.
-
You can find it at http://www.ebaumsworld.com in the extreme videos section. The film and the above written description do not exactly match. The film is in "infra red" and shows an Apache shooting up some soldiers who appear to be manning what looks like an anti aircraftgun to me. The Apache then blows them to hell. Funny how that happens in war.
On a lighter note check out "cat fan" in the funny videos section.:aok
-
Yea I give the cat fan a 9.5 on the giggle meter.
-
Personally I thought the actions of the crew was poor killing the wounded man and given they never identified that the tube was a weapon nor was any weapon ever pointed at them
When is the "right" time to identify a weapon that might be used against you? Before or after its pointed and fired at you?
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You can find it at http://www.ebaumsworld.com in the extreme videos section. The film and the above written description do not exactly match. The film is in "infra red" and shows an Apache shooting up some soldiers who appear to be manning what looks like an anti aircraftgun to me. The Apache then blows them to hell. Funny how that happens in war.
That's a different video.
-
Yea I give the cat fan a 9.5 on the giggle meter.
We woke up half the station when we found that one late one night.:D
-
Hit him, hit the truck and him.' ...
This led me to believe it was the same video and the writer put some extra spin on it. If I got it wrong then my bad. I guess you get the jist of what a 30mm can do either way.
-
Another delightful Robert Fisk article, I wouldn't be surprised if that terrorist loving piece of watermelon edits the AlQaeda newsletter...
-
The video on ebaum's clearly shows the guy crawling from the truck, the gunner hesitating to shoot him, and the command "he's wounded, hit him," and "above the truck, hit him."
-
WHAT HALF THE WORLD DOESNT REALIZE is there is a full length film floating around were the crew is monitoring the enemy and relaying/talking to a command post. They get permission from command to take them out.
That being said.....This whole mess scares the hell out of me.....
When the bullets start flying alot of the rules go out the window and insticts take over. Now this may not be wholey applicable to the appache crew BUT, if this "trend" of over analyzing everything starts to happen with our military in the field.
With information being transmitted at the speed of light now BAD things that happen in war are now public knowledge. It may not be any consolation to people to know that this is the face of war. It is not pretty....it is not glorious....it is hard to digest.
Now my point....Whether it's right or wrong....will this start causing US servicemen in combat to start second guessing themsleves with everything they do in combat? When an NCO barks "TAKE THAT HILL/BUNKER" you want a well trained individual to start acting and stop thinking. Will this cause that individual to stop and think will this get me in trouble later.
I think attrocities should be punished. It should be well known in the service that you do somthing wrong....you pay the man. I dont think these should be highly publisized or politicised.
Just my thaughts gents
-
OK, 99% of us here has seen the video and know what is in it. The crew was following the rules of engagement and follwed the pickup to several locations dropping off what was known to be weapons.
Remember the guy that walked to the tractor? As soon as he saw they were under fire he was unwrapping that weapon as fast as he could. I'm sure if I'm an innocent farmer under fire the first thing I do is unwrap a new piece of irrigation pipe.
As far as the usage of the 30mm weapon against people, they fail to mention that it is the smallest weapon on the helo. Perhaps the gunner should have opened the cockpit and used his sidearm. I'm sorry, but they should be happy that they didn't use a Hellfire.
Killing the guy that crawled out from under the truck after he was wounded might seem extreeme. Nobody knows his condition, he could possibly try to fire a weapon or escape. You KILL the enemy unless they surrender. That is just a cold hard fact of war and I saw no sign of attempted surrender.
The aircrew did their job exactly as they should have.
Case Closed.
-
It's very easy to sit at home and look at a portion of a video in complete safety and analyze it and find fault.
If they are going to be reviewed, it needs to be by their peers.
This is what we accept in our judicial system. Anything less is unacceptable.
-
Krath...rpm....well said.
Thank you
-
What bull****. Fisk needs to spend some patrolling and checkpoint time for a litle perspective.
Charon
-
that's it, I'm changing my name to Fred
-
I thought the whole idea was to shoot the enemy. I wouldn't give them any chances to shoot back.
-
I remember a conversation with one of my pilots when I was a crewchief on an AH-64's in the 101st a while back (desert storm) I wasn't there, they were............
They had some targets in FLIR. they also had some obvious people running around. They were military targets fair game. If i remember correctly they were miltary trucks towing artillery. He said they put a few 30mm rounds in front of the truck, very much startling the people there because they were so far away they did not even hear the rotor's. After the people had fled for shelter they put some laser guided helfires on the artillery rendering them useless.
He said he knew those people did not want to be there but they both had jobs to do, he just wanted to take out the military targets.
i'll always remember that conversation.
I always hope that all people on both sides of the trigger have that much compassion and control.
Tapakeg
-
It's too bad they weren't carrying any flechette rockets.
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
It's too bad they weren't carrying any flechette rockets.
Nah, I don't like them French rockets.
-
I didnt know it was against Geneva convention to shoot a wounded enemy.
Also - how would he pilot/gunner have known whether or not the Iraqi was still able to fire on them? assuming he had he rpg he could still fire it when wounded.
war is hell. and that is the reason we should not ever rush into war.
-
Guys, for the full length 4 minute video - goto http://www.militaryvideos.net You will see BT links - and then you will have the full view and judge for yourself.
-
the wounded man wanted to live all he had to do is sit still or roll in the same spot. Crawling towards his SA-7,Stinger or whatnot RPG crap isnt a good idea. Seriously if there is a man with a few cuts 10ftin front of you who wants to kill you "Amerika is teh suXX0r people and he is crawling towards a gun what would you do?
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
the wounded man wanted to live all he had to do is sit still or roll in the same spot. Crawling towards his SA-7,Stinger or whatnot RPG crap isnt a good idea. Seriously if there is a man with a few cuts 10ftin front of you who wants to kill you "Amerika is teh suXX0r people and he is crawling towards a gun what would you do?
Did you see the video? He wasn't moving towards a gun or anything, he was just writhing in pain and floundering around in the open.
-
Sucks to be him then. Shouldnt have tried his crap in the first place then its war remember
edit: better make myself clear. next time there is a "Heat"style bank robbery in your area I dare you to drive at the nearest police roadbloack and pull out one of those handycams that are black and fit in the palm of your hand and charge the officcers and see where it gets ya.
-
Allegedly, the Geneva convention thinks differently.
So what if American POW's were tortured in Vietnam? They shouldn't of 'tried their crap.'
-
Ok here is an enemy with a gun, I could care less if he was a nazi with an 88 pointed at a sherman, an American with a thompson, or whatnot pointed at the protaganist of this tale as long as he has the ability to shoot you, it is A-OK to shoot him. Do you know how simple it is to operate an RPG or SA-7 or Stinger? Do you know how many time people with "mortal" wounds continued and killed? look up Baby Face Nelson. Its war, war sucks. if there is an enemy near a gun and he doesnt surrender then he needs to be killed. But if he surrenders then its a different story. and if you go against the rules of warfare then one needs to be punished.
-
Right. Go watch the video.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
So what if American POW's were tortured in Vietnam? They shouldn't of 'tried their crap.'
You would be best adviced to shut up there sonny jim before the ghost of over 58k Americans come and haunt you.
Of all the ignorant things said on this board that has gotta be one at the top of the list.:mad:
-
Originally posted by txmx
You would be best adviced to shut up there sonny jim before the ghost of over 58k Americans come and haunt you.
Of all the ignorant things said on this board that has gotta be one at the top of the list.:mad:
Maybe you should bother to find out what he was replying to.
-
His satement speaks for it self.
Not to many ways to twist that one around It Is what It Is a slap in the face to anyone who served in S.E Asia or lost someone to that war.
-
he says its ok to kill americans, but they cant kill them.
He says its ok to torture Americans but, you cant make gimp photos of them
-
Hahaha, you're saying I have double standards? I used the analogy to Vietnam to point out you think we can kill wounded and abuse prisoners, but when its done to our troops (as in Vietnam), its considered a travesty. I have nothing but respect for the men who served in Vietnam, but what makes them better than these men in Iraq? Opinion. What makes it acceptable to committ crimes against Iraqis? Poor moral judgment.
If the Geneva convention says its a war crime to kill an injured man, then so be it. That video showed a man flailing around on the ground, completely helpless, dazed, and (wait for it) wounded, and the order is made to kill him. He was not running for a weapon, or even crawling to a better fighting position. According to international law, this is a war crime, and it should be treated as such.
-
double post
-
Originally posted by txmx
His satement speaks for it self.
yes it does, he apeared to me to be pointing out that when you look at things a from your point of view it's not a bad idea to look at it from the other side and see how that fits you.
I believe this was the post he was directly countering
Sucks to be him then. Shouldnt have tried his crap in the first place then its war remember
see how that worked? he took the same situation, and the same attitude and just changed the name of the players. if it's wrong one way it's wrong the other. right is right and wrong is wrong no matter who is doing it.
-
Never understood this. SHooting a wounded man who could in theory shoot back at you is wrong. But shooting a man that is not wounded is ok??? What about shooting a dead guy? IS that a crime too? What about squirrels?
-
I assume shooting a corpse is mutilating the body, which would be criminal.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
I assume shooting a corpse is mutilating the body, which would be criminal.
not if you are making sure he isn't going to shoot at you again.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Then why the court martial?
(not trying to sound antagonistic, just don't know much about the GC and such and would like to know)
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Then why the court martial?
(not trying to sound antagonistic, just don't know much about the GC and such and would like to know)
Probaly for the perverbial "wipe the hands clean" by the pentagon to distance itself from public pressure of people who dont know the ugly face of war.
-
where does it say someone is getting courtmartialed?
They would be classified as enemy combatants I would imagine. They where not in uniform and therefore not protected as soldiers from what I hear/see.
-
Ok guys,
They truck fella's are splattered - we are at war, and to abuse the phrase - but ***** happens - and its not going to change a thing by second guessing if those guys had weapons or not. And frankly I don't care - because my friend was the CH-47 pilot blasted by an SA-7 last november. So if they had RPG or Strella's, to hell with them. Its war.
Wolf
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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/
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(http://www.pogbird.com/ebay/minijfk.gif)
-
I still dont see any "wounds" in that video....one can assume he's wounded but I dont see any.
-
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.
-
This was aired on the local news back in December or so. The author is either woefully misinformed or simply lieing.
MiniD
-
Point taken, GScholz.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So you’d rather live in a dictatorship? I guess the Soviets should have won, then you’d have gotten your wish.
Do we currently live in society that i described?
-
than in democracy where you have to get majoritys support for every action you take.
Actually, the government does not need the majority's support for every action it takes. If there had to be a public referendum on every action the government took, the country would grind to a halt.
In Parliamentry Democracies (which I assume Finland is) we basically elect someone to make the decisions until the next election.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://www.pogbird.com/ebay/minijfk.gif)
Eagler, dude! What's with the JFK/mini-me thang? That's obviously the product of a demented mime!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Point initially missed, but taken on second try. ;)
Sorru Tuomio...like Scholtz said.
Ravs :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Eagler, dude! What's with the JFK/mini-me thang? That's obviously the product of a demented mime!
skerry kerry is a jfk wannabe - a minime jfk
-
Originally posted by ravells
Sorru Tuomio...like Scholtz said.
Ravs :)
:lol
-
Just imagine a video like this in 25 more years. Someone from somewhere aiming a laser armed satellite with a small joystick and killing the same "hostiles" thousands of miles away, one by one. We are not so far from that kind of war and from that kind of "soldiers".
-
Guys, for the full length 4 minute video - goto http://www.militaryvideos.net You will see BT links - and then you will have the full view and judge for yourself
Thats the same video as on ebaumsworld. What video is Pei talking about?