Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445
Results 441 to 447 of 447

Thread: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

  1. #441
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Skateguy View Post
    This can be true. But Dreams are also the blue print of what we do in the Future. I'm living my dream daily. Which is why I smile so much.
    No. That would be the medication.
    If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.

  2. #442
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    No. That would be the medication.
    Hahaha---good try, but wrong. Other than Beers and a little pot, I have been drug free for more than 25 years. Dope did open some doors for me. But then it was up to me to take it from there. And I did.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  3. #443
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Ok, then you're not drug free.

    Pot is illegal. You are still a dope head. Saying "besides pot, I'm drug free" is like saying, "besides speeding, I'm a perfect driver."

  4. #444
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by dontworrybehappy View Post
    Ok, then you're not drug free.

    Pot is illegal. You are still a dope head. Saying "besides pot, I'm drug free" is like saying, "besides speeding, I'm a perfect driver."
    Only a dope thinks pot is a drug. Or someone scared to get out of their safe comfort level, and dare to get high. scared you'll fall??
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  5. #445
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    The ROE changes mission to mission or even during the same mission. The can go from "Do not fire under any circumstance" to "Nuclear weapons are authorized" and every point in between. What they can't do is break the law.
    And hope to hell you're not in the general area where the weapons are about to be deployed.

    At which part of the video did the Iraqi surrender? - He didn't.
    I would argue that the guy being shot up pretty good and not even able to get back up.... that should at least be a condition where the guy would have to at least pick up a gun... and the only thing that guy was doing was picking out a good spot to die anyway... but that's more a matter of opinion then a millitary precedent.

    I've said it before... even in the worst case interpretation of this video is HARDLY the worst kind of warcrime... I mean, in the heat of battle I'm sure I'd make certain that everyone is dead. There were people actually shooting back throughout that day.

    I mean, if the van had a red cross on it (burn if they actually had the bracelets), and they still shot that van down.... then we'd be talking about a serious violation.

    Following the logic you use common practice in war is illegal if you drop more than one bomb because there may be wounded from the first one, or if you shoot someone with more than one round..
    Ok that's taking the logic to the extreme, but it is well to remember that the GCs recognize the fact that the primary job of a soldier is to kill the enemy and it allows them to do that. What they do not allow them to do is to kick them in the nads once they are down so to speak.
    Ultimately yes...

    It was said that the ROE is unknown... ultimately yes, but you can infer the important aspects of the ROE through the conversation the gunners have with their command.

  6. #446
    Educator Alvin T. Grey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Dublin
    Last Seen
    10-08-10 @ 07:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    839

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by BmanMcfly View Post
    And hope to hell you're not in the general area where the weapons are about to be deployed.
    What is wrong with that statement? Are you suggesting that the ROE are inflexible as the situation changes, and that the chain of command can't change the ROE mid mission to address situations that arise in the AO or stratigecally or politically?
    Because you are sadly mistaken. You want an example of a change or ROE?
    A declaration of war would be a good one.
    And the breaking the law part? - A soldier is duty bound to refuse any unlawful order and putting such orders in the ROE is not an excuse. - It didn't work in Nurembureg.



    I would argue that the guy being shot up pretty good and not even able to get back up.... that should at least be a condition where the guy would have to at least pick up a gun... and the only thing that guy was doing was picking out a good spot to die anyway... but that's more a matter of opinion then a millitary precedent.
    If he is moving and there are weapons, and he has been previously identified as a terrorist, and he has not surrendered, then he is a target.
    From an Apache there is no way to tell if he is crawling away, or crawling to cover. And the Apaches job is to make sure that the troops on the ground do not have to place themselves in danger ascertaining which is which.


    I mean, if the van had a red cross on it (burn if they actually had the bracelets), and they still shot that van down.... then we'd be talking about a serious violation.
    Not really, an unmarked van becomes a threat by it's actions in situations like this. I'd agree with you if the van was driving away from the scene, but it wasn't. I'd agree if the van continued driving past the scene, but it didn't. It stopped to render aid. Being unmarked there is no presumption that the occupants are benign in an area where the enemy use just such transport for their operations. Yes kids were killed in this instance, but the pilots had no way of knowing that, they had to go by instruction, experience and proceedure. They did. It was the correct thing to do. It wasn't right, but then again thats two different things.



    It was said that the ROE is unknown... ultimately yes, but you can infer the important aspects of the ROE through the conversation the gunners have with their command.
    I'm trying not to assume because that can lead us anywhere. Was it a warcrime? No it wasn't. Was it a tradegy? Very much so. But the blame shouldn't fall on the Apache crew. IMO the blame for the death of the children rests squarely on the shoulders of the person that ellected to drive them into a dangerous situation. That was the mistake that ultimatly lead to their deaths.
    If life gives you Melons you probably have dyslexia.

  7. #447
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Leaked footage from Apache showing "US military slaughter" in Baghdad

    Quote Originally Posted by Alvin T. Grey View Post
    What is wrong with that statement? Are you suggesting that the ROE are inflexible as the situation changes, and that the chain of command can't change the ROE mid mission to address situations that arise in the AO or stratigecally or politically?
    Because you are sadly mistaken. You want an example of a change or ROE?
    A declaration of war would be a good one.
    And the breaking the law part?
    Oh, you actually misunderstood... I was simply saying that if you're on the ground fighting and the ROE changes to 'nukes authorized' that you better hope that they aren't talking about the area where you're on the ground... what with nuclear bombs being quite fatal if you're in the area where one goes off.


    A soldier is duty bound to refuse any unlawful order and putting such orders in the ROE is not an excuse. - It didn't work in Nurembureg.
    That's the two points that came from nuremburg...
    a) 'following orders' is not an excuse, and
    b) soldiers follow orders.

    If he is moving and there are weapons, and he has been previously identified as a terrorist, and he has not surrendered, then he is a target.
    From an Apache there is no way to tell if he is crawling away, or crawling to cover. And the Apaches job is to make sure that the troops on the ground do not have to place themselves in danger ascertaining which is which.
    You misunderstood what I was saying here as well...

    Not really, an unmarked van becomes a threat by it's actions in situations like this. I'd agree with you if the van was driving away from the scene, but it wasn't. I'd agree if the van continued driving past the scene, but it didn't. It stopped to render aid. Being unmarked there is no presumption that the occupants are benign in an area where the enemy use just such transport for their operations. Yes kids were killed in this instance, but the pilots had no way of knowing that, they had to go by instruction, experience and proceedure. They did. It was the correct thing to do. It wasn't right, but then again thats two different things.
    You misunderstood my point again...

    Actually, the children were NOT killed in this instance.

    I'm trying not to assume because that can lead us anywhere. Was it a warcrime? No it wasn't. Was it a tradegy? Very much so. But the blame shouldn't fall on the Apache crew. IMO the blame for the death of the children rests squarely on the shoulders of the person that ellected to drive them into a dangerous situation. That was the mistake that ultimatly lead to their deaths.
    Yes, but with what the apache gunner is saying to his command you CAN infer the ROE (or relevant aspects at least).

    I mean, the guy sitting there saying 'come on pick up a gun so I can shoot' (to paraphrase) you can reasonably determine that he was only going to be authorized to shoot people with weapons. Which, if you do watch carefully, the gunner DOES lie about the weapons... but my point was missed.

    That point specifically that errors were made in this video, nothing terribly drastic where people would be discharged or whatever... that there are much more blatant violations of the rules of war that could come to light that would be alot more clear cut.

    AKA : we shouldn't be stressing out so much about this topic regardless of your position.

Page 45 of 45 FirstFirst ... 35434445

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •