[Closed] Iraq gun camera footage

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but the vid linked to by the OP is a shorter/edited version (17min or so) of a longer video also released at the same time by wikileaks (around 33min long apparently). The longer video apparently makes it clear that there were operations underway in that sector, with American troops under fire from small arms and RPG's, these ground troops ahd called in the Apache support...

in these circumstances (live firefight underway, your troops and comrades in imminent peril etc) it's perhaps not suprising that the Apaches were eager to engage and provide support, they spot a group of men (perhaps moving towards the hot zone) who appear to be armed, and request permission to engage, which they receive...

To me, in some ways, it would appear that that group of folk on the ground were in the wrong place at the wrong time... being a photographer myself, I know that you need to be where the action is, right in amongst it really, to get the best shot (have never been in a warzone, but the same principle applies regardless), so it's not unlikely that the photographer here was trying to get close to the engagement, probably escorted by armed men (good guys or bad guys, who knows?)...

Still a sickening video to watch... chilling the detachment of the gunner and pilot, but that's what their training instills, right?

Can't see that any of the above excuses/explains the taking out of the van rescuing wounded? That seems to me to be a fairly clear cut war crime?

I think SLR in the quoted passage was referring to a camera (single lens reflex) not the old British army rifle of the 70s (self loading rifle).

Can't be bothered reading the whole 4 pages

Maybe you should have done then you wouldn't be posting irrelevant military trivia.

So you've both completely failed to pick up on my sarcasm (or maybe troll) there. I suspect in Grum's case it's because you're letting your opinion get in the way. I had read the posts that caught my eye, namely the ones from the usual suspects who have plenty to say, and skimmed the rest. But now, just to keep you happy, I've read it all.

ROE:

If the military act out of the ROE (I think the US and UK ROE are quite different)

There is a huge variance in the US and UK ROE, the general principle for British Forces is "to act in self-defence" (as enshrined in British law and applicable to any one of use walking down the street) including shooting first if there is a clear and imminent threat. The Americans have a much more loose set of rules. I could go further in to the British ROE if you want as they are actually very complicated, there are different rules for different missions/tasks - for example a deliberate op against an identified target may allow a relaxation of the rules, e.g. an ambush against an identified group or using grenades to clear a compound that has been identified as occupied by the Taliban. In all cases though, clearance for variance to the self-defence rule comes from much higher up the (British) chain of command than your Joe Average private soldier and is subject to legal advice before it is granted, even if it is required at very short notice.

PS Porter - 60s, 70s and 80s for the SLR. There you go Grum, more military trivia. By the way, just so we're clear - I'm being SARCASTIC again.

here's some useless trivia for you Dave, most of the old SLRs are still in service! they were sold to the Sierra Leone army. I know because I fired some whilst there!

Along with all our old Saxons that went to Africa when we took the new Bulldog in to service. Sorry, did I say new - 40-50 year chassis recycled...

Ah, Saxon - the armoured ice-cream van...

davetrave - Member

So you've both completely failed to pick up on my sarcasm (or maybe troll) there. I suspect in Grum's case it's because you're letting your opinion get in the way.

.

Let me help you with the word "sarcasm".

[i]
sar·casm
? ?/?s?rkæz?m/ Show Spelled[sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
[b]harsh or bitter derision[/b] or irony.
2.
a sharply ironical taunt; [b]sneering or cutting remark[/b]: a review full of sarcasms.[/i]

I took Grum's comment : [i]".....then you wouldn't be posting irrelevant military trivia".[/i] as harsh derision and a sneering and cutting remark.

Obviously you completely failed to pick up on Grum's sarcasm.

My apologies I was mixing up my sarcasm and irony, although the two are, of course, closely related:

Sarcasm is the rhetorical device of using a characterization of something or someone in order to express contempt.[1] It is closely connected with irony.

Irony (from the Ancient Greek ???????? eir?neía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary technique, or rhetorical device, in which there is [u]an incongruity or discordance that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions[/u].

However, the intial post commented on the Americans' training, to military personnel the difference between an SLR and AK47 would not be trivial and they would be more interested in the long barrelled, shooting kind of SLR than cameras:

Beginning in the 1960s, the plural trivia in particular became used for knowledge that is nice to have but not essential

Then again, the Americans never used the SLR so I suppose their weapons recognition really isn't up to much. Which brings us nicely back to the original issue...