'Wikileaks reveals video showing US air crew shooting down Iraqi civilians'
PJ24
Active member
Now? The RPGs and AKM/AKs are visible in the video, even the Wiki version. Perhaps if you used more than one source for all of your information, you'd have known this. I suggest you read the reports and the dates on them.
I've also found that watching the video while utilizing a bit of common sense helps as well. :-D
PJ 24, I dont think there is many sources on this kinds of things...
And there is a high risk of cover ups.
The soldiers can put weapons on the bodies to hide collateral damage. They can try to cover each others...
If we are willing to admit that we are maybe dealing with the famous "few bad apples" this scenario is very probable...
Journalists can meet with insurgents to get informations and to do interviews... As journalists can be in contact with every side in a conflict.
And looking at them, they dont act like if they were in a battlezone. They group to speak, they dont run... They didnt even notice the Apache.
And I dont see guns... I see that some of these men are carrying something on their shoulders, but I wont jump on the conclusion that it's an RPG or an AK...
And there is a high risk of cover ups.
The soldiers can put weapons on the bodies to hide collateral damage. They can try to cover each others...
If we are willing to admit that we are maybe dealing with the famous "few bad apples" this scenario is very probable...
Journalists can meet with insurgents to get informations and to do interviews... As journalists can be in contact with every side in a conflict.
And looking at them, they dont act like if they were in a battlezone. They group to speak, they dont run... They didnt even notice the Apache.
And I dont see guns... I see that some of these men are carrying something on their shoulders, but I wont jump on the conclusion that it's an RPG or an AK...
PJ24
Active member
There is actually a lot on this. And there's no cover-up that I can see other than the video was originally suppressed, that is true of a lot of military footage, that does not imply any type of "cover up". The 15-6s are out for all to see, as are the still shots that indicate frames where weapons are visible. Did you read through all of the links I posted?
The Apaches are there supporting TIC 100m away, no one else is on the street wandering around, meeting in a group to talk. Yet these armed individuals with their two reporters in tow are out there.
If you watch the video that hasn't been edited to fit you will see the known variables intentionally removed from the Wiki video. I have nothing but disgust for any media source that will knowingly publish material after having intentionally removed key elements in order to highlight those that fit an agenda.
The RPG is crystal clear to me. I had some trouble spotting the AK (though I did once I put the video in full screen mode), but the RPG is very obvious. The camera was also visible to me. I cannot say, as there has been too much influence and I have the ability of a large screen and replay that I would or wouldn't have mistaken the reporter's attempt to take a photo around the corner as a hostile act.
Your comments throughout this entire discussion have been nothing more than biased judgements without consideration for the events. Comments referencing what the Apaches were doing, ROEs, etc show a HUGE lack of understanding of air support, general military TTPs, what ROEs actually are and what the LOW actually states. You don't know the climate, context nor events that were occurring that day or even during that time period in Iraq. You have less than 1% of the total information, yet you are ready to call someone a "Nazi," a "cold blooded murderer." You lack the knowledge and experience to come to any conclusion on this, esp. given the "evidence" you've supplied, yet you are ready to label these men with such insults all because a select minority has your ear.
Like it or not, the crew made a decision based on the information they had at the time. They confirmed ID on weapons, they may has misID'd the camera for a RPG (though there WAS an RPG there, that wasn't it) when the journo shot around the corner, but regardless, at the time to that pilot that was an RPG being aimed as HIS TIC. Individuals he was responsible for protecting. His decision was made and he was cleared go.
It seems to me you are unwilling, even in the face of evidence, to come to any conclusion than what you were fed by others.
The Apaches are there supporting TIC 100m away, no one else is on the street wandering around, meeting in a group to talk. Yet these armed individuals with their two reporters in tow are out there.
If you watch the video that hasn't been edited to fit you will see the known variables intentionally removed from the Wiki video. I have nothing but disgust for any media source that will knowingly publish material after having intentionally removed key elements in order to highlight those that fit an agenda.
The RPG is crystal clear to me. I had some trouble spotting the AK (though I did once I put the video in full screen mode), but the RPG is very obvious. The camera was also visible to me. I cannot say, as there has been too much influence and I have the ability of a large screen and replay that I would or wouldn't have mistaken the reporter's attempt to take a photo around the corner as a hostile act.
Your comments throughout this entire discussion have been nothing more than biased judgements without consideration for the events. Comments referencing what the Apaches were doing, ROEs, etc show a HUGE lack of understanding of air support, general military TTPs, what ROEs actually are and what the LOW actually states. You don't know the climate, context nor events that were occurring that day or even during that time period in Iraq. You have less than 1% of the total information, yet you are ready to call someone a "Nazi," a "cold blooded murderer." You lack the knowledge and experience to come to any conclusion on this, esp. given the "evidence" you've supplied, yet you are ready to label these men with such insults all because a select minority has your ear.
Like it or not, the crew made a decision based on the information they had at the time. They confirmed ID on weapons, they may has misID'd the camera for a RPG (though there WAS an RPG there, that wasn't it) when the journo shot around the corner, but regardless, at the time to that pilot that was an RPG being aimed as HIS TIC. Individuals he was responsible for protecting. His decision was made and he was cleared go.
It seems to me you are unwilling, even in the face of evidence, to come to any conclusion than what you were fed by others.
PJ24, I may have been a little hasty... But I didnt go that far.
First, I dont agree with these aggressive tactics they use to fight in Iraq. I believe that the coalition and even their Iraqi allies in the government dont have the right to tell people what's wrong or not.
Iraq's military, police and government are extremely corrupt. They are infiltrated by Iran and Shiite militias. They practice torture etc...
So the people have the right to take weapons and to defend themselves as they can from criminals/terrorists and corrupt officials...
So, opening fire on armed people isnt good enough for me. It's wrong in this context. I say return fire only. And yes, I know the costs. And it's nothing compared to the costs of killing innocent people.
I called names like "nazis" and I think that only a nazi thinks that his life is superior or just to think that killing people is acceptable if it's in his interest.
So this "it's better to kill a few innocent (in fact a lot) than to risk our men's lives." Sorry, but you dont have the right to kill the innocent. Whatever the situation.
Then, let's return to this video. Yes, I didnt see any weapons in the video... I saw only the link that was posted on this forum.
And I still dont see the weapons.
And look how grouped these men are. They really dont look like insurgents actually engaging an enemy... They arent trying to hide, they grouped like if they are talking. Just look at the first burst the Apache shoots. This burst wounded or killed many people, because they were so close from each others...
I know that the insurgents are bloody amateurs... But come on.
Well, I honestly dont see the threat... I dont see the weapons. I see objects, that's for sure. But they can be anything. Not a good reason to shoot.
Now, we have children and journalists that are wounded or killed...
The conclusion is simple, these tactics arent working. They are good when it comes to kill people... But are we solving as complex as a civil war in Iraq and terrorism with just death? And random death at that?
And some reports are just BS and cover ups... They say "and we did everything we could to help them." speaking about the children, and then, they say that their evacuation was denied and that they were sent to Iraqi police to be sent after to Iraqi hospitals...
Yes, I know that laws give you the right to do that, but they shouldn't tell us that they did everything they could... If it was a wounded US soldier he would have received much better treatment...
First, I dont agree with these aggressive tactics they use to fight in Iraq. I believe that the coalition and even their Iraqi allies in the government dont have the right to tell people what's wrong or not.
Iraq's military, police and government are extremely corrupt. They are infiltrated by Iran and Shiite militias. They practice torture etc...
So the people have the right to take weapons and to defend themselves as they can from criminals/terrorists and corrupt officials...
So, opening fire on armed people isnt good enough for me. It's wrong in this context. I say return fire only. And yes, I know the costs. And it's nothing compared to the costs of killing innocent people.
I called names like "nazis" and I think that only a nazi thinks that his life is superior or just to think that killing people is acceptable if it's in his interest.
So this "it's better to kill a few innocent (in fact a lot) than to risk our men's lives." Sorry, but you dont have the right to kill the innocent. Whatever the situation.
Then, let's return to this video. Yes, I didnt see any weapons in the video... I saw only the link that was posted on this forum.
And I still dont see the weapons.
And look how grouped these men are. They really dont look like insurgents actually engaging an enemy... They arent trying to hide, they grouped like if they are talking. Just look at the first burst the Apache shoots. This burst wounded or killed many people, because they were so close from each others...
I know that the insurgents are bloody amateurs... But come on.
Well, I honestly dont see the threat... I dont see the weapons. I see objects, that's for sure. But they can be anything. Not a good reason to shoot.
Now, we have children and journalists that are wounded or killed...
The conclusion is simple, these tactics arent working. They are good when it comes to kill people... But are we solving as complex as a civil war in Iraq and terrorism with just death? And random death at that?
And some reports are just BS and cover ups... They say "and we did everything we could to help them." speaking about the children, and then, they say that their evacuation was denied and that they were sent to Iraqi police to be sent after to Iraqi hospitals...
Yes, I know that laws give you the right to do that, but they shouldn't tell us that they did everything they could... If it was a wounded US soldier he would have received much better treatment...
Last edited:
PJ24
Active member
As someone that's been on the two way range. You're out of your mind on that one.LeMask said:
Your view of war is quite unrealistic.
As to the video, the weapons are there and the fact that you don't see them and refuse to acknowledge them won't change that. Now that Wiki has been caught in their attempt to bend the facts, I've yet to see anyone denying the weapons are present.
You may find what you see on that video rather strange. It's not that unusual in my experiences. You should watch them set up IEDs or watch an armed group move towards your location, stopping to grab a drink en route on a live feed.
This is peacekeeping mate... You cant go over there with all your big guns out blazing like madmen...
I know it's difficult... But in an urban area like this you cant go there opening fire every time you feel a little threatened...
The very point of terrorism and guerrilla tactics is to deny the enemy the use of his superior firepower.
If you still use them anyway, you are not playing the game and ignoring the rules... And this have a cost.
And it's not that I dont acknowledge them. I just dont see them. Maybe that I missed them as the video is long... Can you post pictures or just tell me the time on the scene?
I know that the van is very suspicious... And I know how amateurish they can be. I've seen videos showing that,the idiots shooting machine guns from the hip and firing RPGs without taking time to aim... I know they are dumb.
But this video is very very disturbing. They didnt seem threatening at all. A little suspicious, but not threatening.
I know it's difficult... But in an urban area like this you cant go there opening fire every time you feel a little threatened...
The very point of terrorism and guerrilla tactics is to deny the enemy the use of his superior firepower.
If you still use them anyway, you are not playing the game and ignoring the rules... And this have a cost.
And it's not that I dont acknowledge them. I just dont see them. Maybe that I missed them as the video is long... Can you post pictures or just tell me the time on the scene?
I know that the van is very suspicious... And I know how amateurish they can be. I've seen videos showing that,the idiots shooting machine guns from the hip and firing RPGs without taking time to aim... I know they are dumb.
But this video is very very disturbing. They didnt seem threatening at all. A little suspicious, but not threatening.
Chukpike
Banned
LeMask's view of war is as a civilian, comes from movies, probably never heard the term ROE until he came here.
PJ24
Active member
That's what's wes dumb ole boys in are miletary do. Wes jes go on over thar and fire them sonsabitches up. Runnin' and gunnin and shootin them ole boys right up even iffen theys aint gots no guns. Is a glad yous is a expert on them things like UW and COIN and stuffs cause Is only been doin it fer like 15 years or so. Maybe yous can give me some of them thar lessons likes Is gots when I graduated the 3rd grade. :sniper:
......... :-D
Last edited:
Well, I heard ROE playing video games before that...
And I also had to work with teams working on ethics/morals etc... The question was "how to make money without destroying the world." if we want to put it in simple words...
So you can mock me, but believe it or not, you have a lot to learn from the outside world.
And we are in a democracy my friend. The time of warlords doing whatever they want to succeed in battle is finished... Oh, well, not really... But we are supposed to be over with this kind of things.
Okay PJ24. Let me explain the problem.
You adopted aggressive ROE so you can crush the insurgents/terrorists. But what is the downside of this tactic? Sometimes, innocent people will get shot. And you will piss off ignorant idiots like me and you will lose public support.
You cant go to battle in an urban area asking for complete safety, dead enemies and unharmed innocents... You have to chose.
These are not balanced tactics.
Remember Vietnam... You can win all the battles and still lose the war at the end.
And I also had to work with teams working on ethics/morals etc... The question was "how to make money without destroying the world." if we want to put it in simple words...
So you can mock me, but believe it or not, you have a lot to learn from the outside world.
And we are in a democracy my friend. The time of warlords doing whatever they want to succeed in battle is finished... Oh, well, not really... But we are supposed to be over with this kind of things.
Okay PJ24. Let me explain the problem.
You adopted aggressive ROE so you can crush the insurgents/terrorists. But what is the downside of this tactic? Sometimes, innocent people will get shot. And you will piss off ignorant idiots like me and you will lose public support.
You cant go to battle in an urban area asking for complete safety, dead enemies and unharmed innocents... You have to chose.
These are not balanced tactics.
Remember Vietnam... You can win all the battles and still lose the war at the end.
perseus
Active member
I had some difficulty opening the links, or perhaps they just take a long time being pdfs. However, I think the pictures are the same as included in this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
To me the questions that need to be asked are less to do with if there were 2 weapons on the scene which seems probable, but if morally acceptable ROE allow firing on anyone with weapons not in a designated area, and anyone else who may be talking to them even if they have no weapons. Here we must bear in context
I also understand that the longer video shows apartment blocks being destroyed which was probably an even more indiscriminate action.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
To me the questions that need to be asked are less to do with if there were 2 weapons on the scene which seems probable, but if morally acceptable ROE allow firing on anyone with weapons not in a designated area, and anyone else who may be talking to them even if they have no weapons. Here we must bear in context
- certain militia groups carrying weapons were endorsed by the US military
- the widespread availability of weapons in this culture
- the right to defend oneself
- the country attacking these people has the right to carry weapons as a means of self defence engrained in it's institution.
I also understand that the longer video shows apartment blocks being destroyed which was probably an even more indiscriminate action.
Last edited:
PJ24
Active member
Perseus, that doesn't even need to be a point of discussion. Once the pilot felt the individual was bringing an RPG up, pointing it in the direction of US forces not far down the alley, he had ever legal and moral right to fire.
It seems many of you want to conveniently forget that the pilot believed the camera to be a RPG and therefore an imminent threat to US forces.
LeMask, I enjoy the discussion but let me be quite clear. Their is absolutely nothing you know about any type of COIN or UW or tactics or ANYTHING military related that most E-2s do not know. You have nothing to teach me in this area, I promise and you don't understand a quarter of what you think you do. I have seen more of the outside world than you could ever hope to, so get off of that funny little high donkey and spend less time inflating your inexperience and lack of knowledge and more time just presenting your views. Even if they don't make sense sometimes. YOU could learn a lot, but you aren't interested in learning, you just want to point fingers, pretend to be some expert and make yourself and your opinion invalid. Every time you attempt to instruct on matters of military, or you attempt to talk down to someone about what we don't know and you do, you make yourself look foolish. Without experience? You don't know a thing, and that's just how it is.
So anyway, there's that. :?
It seems many of you want to conveniently forget that the pilot believed the camera to be a RPG and therefore an imminent threat to US forces.
LeMask, I enjoy the discussion but let me be quite clear. Their is absolutely nothing you know about any type of COIN or UW or tactics or ANYTHING military related that most E-2s do not know. You have nothing to teach me in this area, I promise and you don't understand a quarter of what you think you do. I have seen more of the outside world than you could ever hope to, so get off of that funny little high donkey and spend less time inflating your inexperience and lack of knowledge and more time just presenting your views. Even if they don't make sense sometimes. YOU could learn a lot, but you aren't interested in learning, you just want to point fingers, pretend to be some expert and make yourself and your opinion invalid. Every time you attempt to instruct on matters of military, or you attempt to talk down to someone about what we don't know and you do, you make yourself look foolish. Without experience? You don't know a thing, and that's just how it is.
So anyway, there's that. :?
PJ24, you know what we call this in "logics and argumentation"? We call this an argument of authority.
It's like a doctor telling a patient to shove a suppository up his **** and to shut up. And if the sick person doesnt like it, well, he cant do anything, the doctor knows, and the patient doesnt know anything about how the drugs or how the human body works...
So, looks like we have to be clear with you, your highness... You think you are an authority, huh?
Well guess what? I doubt your authority. Is it clear enough?
And I do that because I have the right to do that. I have no obligation, moral or legal to support any military force in the world blindly. I have the right to question your skills, tactics, weapons if I think it's necessary... In a democracy, I and the other millions of stupid civilians are the rulers. And we rule the world, and we are, like kings, always right...
And it's not unfair. Because you sir, have the same right. And we are equals.
And it's through debate that we find solution, good or bad, working or not... It's through debate that we find the best solutions.
So stop calling me a fool. And play the game of democracy and find arguments.
You have a strategy? and a sound one? WONDERFUL... Tell me about it.
Until you explain these tactics... I think that we have an example of soldiers fighting the last war... You use aggressive tactics to destroy the enemy fast, so you can destroy him fast.
But here, you have a poorly armed enemy... endangering civilians to destroy the enemy quickly isnt a sound strategy. You were trained and endoctrined to think this way by years and years of military traditions...
And you are so sure that you are doing the right thing, you forgot that these tactics were made for blitzkrieg like wars... That it's good and cost effective in a quick war... where you have to destroy a big army quickly...
Here you are in a long war, it lasted years for christsake... You are not in a war. You are in a "low intensity war" (your own words)... what's the meaning of these words? well, you just dont want to admit that you are in a civil war... or a peace keeping mission...
But you are stuck with your heavy weapons and your military doctrine and traditions... You are sending Marines to fight angry peasants with cheap rifles...
You are too advanced for winning this battle... You dont adapt. And here, you are trying to calm down an angry country by killing people...
I'm not a soldier, you can tell me that I dont know much about war... But I know some things about politics in an under developed country... And I know a little about oriental culture. And I know a lot about the relation between the people and the government in muslim countries...
It's like a doctor telling a patient to shove a suppository up his **** and to shut up. And if the sick person doesnt like it, well, he cant do anything, the doctor knows, and the patient doesnt know anything about how the drugs or how the human body works...
So, looks like we have to be clear with you, your highness... You think you are an authority, huh?
Well guess what? I doubt your authority. Is it clear enough?
And I do that because I have the right to do that. I have no obligation, moral or legal to support any military force in the world blindly. I have the right to question your skills, tactics, weapons if I think it's necessary... In a democracy, I and the other millions of stupid civilians are the rulers. And we rule the world, and we are, like kings, always right...
And it's not unfair. Because you sir, have the same right. And we are equals.
And it's through debate that we find solution, good or bad, working or not... It's through debate that we find the best solutions.
So stop calling me a fool. And play the game of democracy and find arguments.
You have a strategy? and a sound one? WONDERFUL... Tell me about it.
Until you explain these tactics... I think that we have an example of soldiers fighting the last war... You use aggressive tactics to destroy the enemy fast, so you can destroy him fast.
But here, you have a poorly armed enemy... endangering civilians to destroy the enemy quickly isnt a sound strategy. You were trained and endoctrined to think this way by years and years of military traditions...
And you are so sure that you are doing the right thing, you forgot that these tactics were made for blitzkrieg like wars... That it's good and cost effective in a quick war... where you have to destroy a big army quickly...
Here you are in a long war, it lasted years for christsake... You are not in a war. You are in a "low intensity war" (your own words)... what's the meaning of these words? well, you just dont want to admit that you are in a civil war... or a peace keeping mission...
But you are stuck with your heavy weapons and your military doctrine and traditions... You are sending Marines to fight angry peasants with cheap rifles...
You are too advanced for winning this battle... You dont adapt. And here, you are trying to calm down an angry country by killing people...
I'm not a soldier, you can tell me that I dont know much about war... But I know some things about politics in an under developed country... And I know a little about oriental culture. And I know a lot about the relation between the people and the government in muslim countries...
PJ24
Active member
I never said I was an authority, your ego is upset that there are things in this world that you don't know. All you've done this entire thread is talk out of your ass. You don't have any experience in the military, yet you attempt to talk on subjects like you have some vast knowledge. This is why I said you know nothing that an E-2 would not (and no, I am not an E-2.) It's also pretty logical (were you to possess any) to figure that those of us with military experience would know more about military TTPs, SOPs, doctrines and policies than you. It would also stand to reason that if someone has spent time studying and practicing COIN, UW, HA and various other missions that they might just MIGHT know enough not to need your ignorant advice.
You attempt to speak as if you have first hand knowledge of what occurs in our current theaters, but your comments betray you. Perhaps if you showed a little more knowledge, you would earn respect for your opinions, whether I agree or disagree, if someone at least knows what the hell they're talking about, I'm all for a great discussion. All you care about are talking points and regurgitating what you've read elsewhere, you have no original thought. This is why nothing you say holds weight.
I have not and will not post my personal views on this topic, it's not my place to judge the actions of someone, I wasn't there, I wasn't calling the shots. What I have done is point out the facts that you've so casually ignored in your hunt for sensationalist b******t.
I won't engage you in a discussion about COIN and UW because you don't know the first thing about it and you have no interest in actually educating yourself. If you ever do say something that's not regurgitated off of your most favorite war sites, we'll talk.
With that, I'm done with ya, maybe you will do better in the next discussion that comes up, hope so. Feel free to rant on.
Way to sum up everything I said... You have a way with words.
And you finish with a nice psychological analysis... you are a psychological analyst now?
Sorry, but here is where you are wrong. Closed system are dying systems. When you say "I dont need feedback, I know my stuff." you are a dying system.
The "you dont know what you are talking about" is not an argument to refuse feedback. Good luck explain that to the families of the journalists who died. And the civilians too... I really want to see you explaining that to these people. No, I'm really interested.
And we trusted military knowledge for years now... And there is still a war in Irak and Afghanistan... Okay, I'm ignorant. But dont tell me that these people are holding the universal truth.
They are not humans capable of making mistakes all of a sudden.
If you want me to sound like a top military strategist? I can do that.
Let's bomb the whole country and kill everything that looks like a terrorist... Oh hell, let's kill everybody on earth to stop crime/corruption/terrorism...
That will solve the problem at the source...
And dont tell me it's ridiculous. It's not ridiculous, it's perfectly logic. Once you think that people are guilty until proved innocent, you can kill everybody you want...
But no, you dont have the right to kill. And everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
We forget these things some days when there is a war... But wars dont last... Here we are dealing with a war that will last maybe forever (talking about war against terrorism).
These aggressive tactics cant be used fighting terrorism.
And you finish with a nice psychological analysis... you are a psychological analyst now?
Sorry, but here is where you are wrong. Closed system are dying systems. When you say "I dont need feedback, I know my stuff." you are a dying system.
The "you dont know what you are talking about" is not an argument to refuse feedback. Good luck explain that to the families of the journalists who died. And the civilians too... I really want to see you explaining that to these people. No, I'm really interested.
And we trusted military knowledge for years now... And there is still a war in Irak and Afghanistan... Okay, I'm ignorant. But dont tell me that these people are holding the universal truth.
They are not humans capable of making mistakes all of a sudden.
If you want me to sound like a top military strategist? I can do that.
Let's bomb the whole country and kill everything that looks like a terrorist... Oh hell, let's kill everybody on earth to stop crime/corruption/terrorism...
That will solve the problem at the source...
And dont tell me it's ridiculous. It's not ridiculous, it's perfectly logic. Once you think that people are guilty until proved innocent, you can kill everybody you want...
But no, you dont have the right to kill. And everybody is innocent until proven guilty.
We forget these things some days when there is a war... But wars dont last... Here we are dealing with a war that will last maybe forever (talking about war against terrorism).
These aggressive tactics cant be used fighting terrorism.
perseus
Active member
Chukpike
Banned
So after reading the wired.com link it is clear from someone who was there that the attack was justified.
"Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?
McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don’t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
HokieMSG
Active member
No one has the right to do that. DO YOU REALIZE how difficult it is over there. You have to deal with people who are armed and you don't know if they will shoot you in the back when you turn to walk away. Or if they stop you to ask a question to set you up for an insurgent sniper.
Nope. They do not. It is people like you who want to Mirandize these people when they are captured on the battlefield. Last time I checked, the insurgents were fighting against the LEGITIMATE government of Iraq. Try telling that to an Iraqi policman who has had his family killed by the same insurgents that you want to protect.
Maybe we should just sit aroung the campfire and sing songs. :rockin: Then everything would be alright with the world.