Fishstyx
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 1,527
- Reaction score
- 766
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The point is there are obviously unarmed people in the cross fire. (hence every single adult was killed) And the decission to fire was made even though the people never fired one shot. (never to their death) If you stand by what you say then you are saying militairy law makes it ok to kill unarmed people standing around people with guns when a shot was never fired.
Militairy law makes it ok for a gunship to light up an unamred man trying to help out another wounded unarmed man? If so those sound like some ****ed up evil laws that need to be dealt with before stupid people do too much harm with it.
The ROEs allow for what they did there. And you keep repeating "unarmed," implying that this was known by the crews of the gunships. They understandably mistook their cameras for RPGs. Watch the video. Its pretty easy to see how they made that mistake. The guy with the camera was crouching behind a wall and the gunship crews mistook the long tubular thing in his hand (camera w/ telephoto lens) for an RPG. The video actually exonerates the gunship crews.
I'd bet the just about anyone watching that video, objectively, could see how this occurs. Bottom line, they thought the entire group was armed hostiles. Hostiles in an extremely active combat zone.
And as far as the unarmed guy, assuming you mean the van that pulled up. Yeah, they're authorized to engage to prevent the recovery of weapons on scene.
Last edited: