"that" apache video

[Kazaa]

Well..  that sure reflects your attitude and willingness to accept as fact anything that is convenient to your ego.  Where do they say they were innocent civilians and shot them anyway?  They don't.  It's a firefight between insurgents out of uniform and the guys filming it.  There is nothing there to indicate they are innocents caught in the middle.

Your clear willingness to act so irresponsibly and without respect for integrity is a reflection on your character which places you ill suited to judge others.

Did you happen to watch the video before I removed it from my post? I'll PM it to you so you can get a better idea of what's going on, my guess is that you didn't or you wouldn't have posted the above. If you did indeed watch the video then your patten of thought scares the s**t out of me. This is also a scary thought, but have you served in a conflict? If you have, I bet no one who wasn't on your side was left standing.

There was nothing in that video which confirmed them being hostile, no weapons, no uniforms, no tribale wear. Thus against the RoE.

[Kazaa]

Sorry flipperk I'll play devil's advocate on this one.

It is not a state of war anymore. And they were operating in an Iraqi residential suburb. The camera's are not even close to RPG's, the one 'RPG' briefly glanced could in fact be an old service rifle from what I could see. US forces were some time away from where those guys were, and the helo's appeared to be circling some distance away, so neither an RPG nor small arms fire presented a direct threat to any US forces operating at the time.

Without getting into the whole WMD exist or not, the US decided to be there (I actually supported the action and still do). They are operating in iraqi cities, full of iraqi civilians, what % of the population do insurgents represent? The question you have to ask yourself is do your normal rules of war exist here - in what is now a policing and peacekeeping action? Can you justify quick snap decisions in heavily civilian populated areas, or should more care have been taken when no direct threat was presented.

Personally I believe the first half of the engagement is 50/50 - a mistake in the fog of war. The van however was clearly wrong - it even breaches the geneva convention on engaging non-combatants. The van occupants presented no weapons, nor any threat.

Quoted for the truth.

[sandwich]

No wonder the terrorists are winning this war.

Nvm

Looks as if it was a myth.

You cant win the war against terrorism without killing a sunstantial amount of civilians.

The main variable is the radical muslim.

[Die Hard]

Myth

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm

In any case that tactic has been tried by the Israelis to no avail.



Analysis:  I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing, to ask if there's any truth to the above, and he responded via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal.

"I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," Vandiver wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."

Similarly, I've been unable to find any evidence corroborating the claim that Muslims believe that "eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell." It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is "ridiculous." A statement from the Anti-Defamation League characterizes the claim as an "offensive caricature of Muslim beliefs."

[sandwich]

I'm from an upper-middle class neighbourhood btw. I have more chance of dying from chocking on my donut then the apache pilot and his gunner have of dying to enemy fire, so I hardly doubt they face life and death situations daily.

You do realize that helicopters are not invincible right?

An rpg anywhere on the helicopter will take it out of the sky.

You must be eating an assload of donuts whole to be matching the danger level.

[Die Hard]

How many Apache crews have we lost in Iraq the past seven years since the end of major combat operations?

I'd bet it is safer to fly an Apache in Iraq shooting up the place than it is to drive on the freeway with a buddy in the passenger seat playing Modern Warfare on a Playstation.

[sandwich]

I personally dont know the combat losses of the apache.

All i'm saying is it's more dangerous to fly the apache in combat than it is eating alot of donuts in an upper middle class british household.

[allaire]

Yeah and how many times would you be willing to wait and see and have RPGs shot at you?  All it takes is for someone to have lady luck smile on them and bang you have dead soldiers.  While collateral causalities is a terrible thing it happens in war zones.  The chance for collateral damage goes up in direct proportion to what kind of enemy forces you face.  Against a national uniformed army you can keep it to a minimum.  However against a force that has no structure, uniform, has no allegiance to any nation, and/or that uses civilians for little more than human shields or targets, keeping civilian causalities from happening is going to be next to impossible.

I am going to stop with that because I can't trust my brain and hands on a topic like this.

[Die Hard]

I personally dont know the combat losses of the apache.

All i'm saying is it's more dangerous to fly the apache in combat than it is eating alot of donuts in an upper middle class british household.

I'm not so sure. I've tasted British donuts...

[mensa180]

Wow, a pretty civil debate over a really controversial subject.  Go O'club.

[sandwich]

I'm not so sure. I've tasted British donuts...

Zing!

[WWhiskey]

i was reluctant to even post here but since it is still up i will.
why on earth did these journalist's not wave there bags or give some kind of signal? it was obvious that the helicopters where looking at them, the guy sticking his head around the corner was very aware of the danger or he would have just walked out into the open! it would seem to me that anyone on the ground who is aware of what these helicopters will do to you would want to either signal them that they were friendly or disperse, the fact that there were positively two armed men in that group would have been enough to warrant my exit at a high rate of speed, or for me to lay down on the ground face down hands out till they recognized my lack of desire to get killed!! not one of these guys even remotely appeared to be threatened by the heli's, and at, at least one point they did aim something that looked like an RPG at the chopper!

 the people in the van did no better, they were being circled at an even closer radius yet they never even attempted to communicate with the heli's, they planed on loading the person in the van as if they knew him, they hid him from view, and immediately tried to leave before they were fired upon, why on earth they had the kids in the van is unknown but to do what they did would be like pulling up to a gangland shootout with police, and loading up some bad guys and trying to drive off, the cops would shoot you as you did so just as these guys did.

 it was a very unfortunate accident, the fact that there was a firefight not very far from it, made it much worse, suspicions were high and these people acted suspicious, maybe not on purpose, but they did none the less!
 as soon as the guy poked his head around the corner, with what looked like an RPG the deal was done, up until that time, there could have been a different outcome, stupidity by the guys who got killed is the reason this happened, better communication with the public could have prevented it, such as what to do if a couple of helicopters with guns starts circling you!

 the other side of this is the fact that none of the films talks about the weapons that were on the scene, if they did have an RPG and an AK47 then they were a threat, if no weapons were found, then what is it that these two guys had? and why isn't anyone talking about that?

[Maverick]

I think that kazaa and die hard need to get out in the real world and try it on for size before they start passing judgement on folks who are in combat. I cannot believe the depth of naivete displayed by you too. From this thread you have proven you are no more than trolls. You lack an argument and only provide armchair generalship from a position of never having done anything close to the job of those you so sanctimoniously berate and condemn. It sounds trite but is true non the less, you have no grasp or concept of the subject you are discussing with such contempt. Once you put on a uniform and put your own precious hides on the line you may learn what it's like to be in the real world of conflict. Until then you really know nothing about what you are talking about.

[Die Hard]

In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.

[rabbidrabbit]

In other words you feel that no one has the right to criticize the acts of a soldier unless they've themselves have served in combat. I find that argument not only preposterous, undemocratic and elitist, but also dangerous. It is more than enough that the military is above the law and cannot be sued; they should hardly also be above public scrutiny.

That's not what he said at all.  Again and again, you continually enter the conversation determined to filter content to your disposition.