why do people just do that on forums read a sentence then form an opinion.

Umm, I didn't, but thanks for your interest in my posterior. I read your whole contribution and quoted your headline, but apparently you don't even mean what you wrote as now you say "And yes there is right and wrong in this case".

What is unbelievable is that anyone can excuse the behaviour of the murderers, regardless of the situation. They were not acting reluctantly, in self defence, and with regard to the consequences, they were just triumphally shooting down innocent people.

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread, I've felt sick about this since I watched it this morning.

The guy with the 'RPG' clearly had a camera. The group were not 'engaging' the helicopter. The guy practically begs the wounded man to pick up a weapon so that he can kill him. They fire on unarmed rescuers. I can't see how anyone can justify it.

DrJ you have out foxed me. I'mcoming out with my hands up, please don't shoot.

I havent watched the vid because its a work computer and I can't install the flash player. My home computer is about 1.5m away, I'm not sure if I actually want to watch the vid though.

DrJ you have out foxed me. I'mcoming out with my hands up, please don't shoot.

Just make sure you put down your DSLR and 800mm lens…. 🙂

too soon?

Or his carton of juice – they can be lethal too !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8582478.stm

Go and ride your bikes..

With respect, many people (including ex- and serving members of HM Forces) opposed the Iraq conflict precisely because they could envisage the massive clusterfeck that was a' coming. As for blaming the nasty politicos for sending soldiers to war – well, yes, quite so. The point stands. But that hardly excuses "if in doubt, shoot" as a rule of engagement, or the brazen gloating of the pilots. I mean, I suppose those people smeared all over the sidewalk could be Iranian-trained ninjas, and that van might contain an entire AA battery…. but I'm pretty sure that none of the soldiers/security operatives on here would be comfortable walking the streets of Baghdad unarmed. Why should it have been any different for the Iraqis, in their own country (not least given what was effectively a state of civil war)? "AK-47 = target" is a pretty crude rule of thumb, even from the comfort of my armchair.

I have no relevant experience to back any of this up – but I suspect the language on here would be far less restrained if this was video/audio of a "blue-on-blue" incident. But let's not second guess the pilots, eh?

I just watched this for the first time how sad to see people gunned down like that and even the children. Then to be denied help makes me ashamed to be british (part of the problem).

my son came back from a cadet shooting day. raving about the guns and what he can fire when he's 16. I asked him what the guns were for. he said shooting. i said shooting what. he said targets. i said they're for shooting people like you and your family who were born somewhere else. i think he gets it. i hope he does. call of duty has much to answer for. maybe I should also take him to Selly Oak

iDave – I used to love shooting. Targets. That's all they were for for me. But your point does indeed need to be made. Thing is I've loved shootemups from most of my younger years, and I love shooting targets when given a chance, but I'd have no interest in shooting people. I would love a try of a sniper rifle.

I've just read this ……

avdave2 – Member

"Americans are imperialist **** who aren't really on the other side of the world to help the local people, shocker"

Ernie Lynch deems all people of one country guilty of the actions of a few shocker!

Seems as if your as prejudiced and as narrow minded as the people you are so quick to condemn. I'm sure that doesn't reflect you're considered opinion and is just a reaction to the horrific events in those videos.

Note the lack in my post of the term "all people of one country" avdave2 ? 💡

To describe America as an imperialist country based on the policies and actions of those who represent and speak on her behalf, is perfectly correct.

And America is indisputably an imperialist country. In fact it is without doubt, today, the most imperialist nation on earth. Indeed the neo-cons in the last administration shamelessly described their foreign policy stance as : "Full Spectrum Dominance".

But I'm sure avdave2 that you'll be able to provide me with a very long list of countries which have a much more aggressive and imperialist foreign policy than the US ?

And yes, the United States doesn't send her armies to the other side of world because of some touching and heartfelt concern for the plight of poor/arab/muslim nations. Anyone who thinks so, is a gullible and naive fool.
I stand by every word I said.

One thing you did get right though avdave2…….I am not in the least bit open-minded and highly prejudiced. And I would be mortified if I thought that I might ever exhibited any other tendencies. I made up my opinion concerning imperialism and wars of aggression a very long time ago. There is no chance whatsoever that I might be in anyway swayed or even, momentarily sit on the fence.

All I can say is there's a big difference between an understandable mistake in a high-stress situation, and covering up afterwards. One isn't just forgivable, it's absolutely inevitable, expecting soldiers to go into a war and have no civilian casualties is absurd. The mistakes/bad calls will always happen, and nothing they do will ever completely stop them.

But covering up for them afterwards is not the same thing at all. That to me is a line crossed.

Can't be bothered reading the whole 4 pages as it's no doubt full of the usual STW theorising from one or other of two standpoints so instead here's my two pennorth – no judgement, I'll keep that to myself, and apologies if anybody's made these comments before and I'm repeating…

It would not be outside the realms of possibility for the Taliban to pretend to be policeman, or infact be policemen, how much do you think an Afghan policeman gets paid, how could he "improve" his incoming cashflow – might I suggest corruption.

Like the ANP copper who shot and killed 5 Grenadier Guardsman last year was later discovered to be Taliban.

Millions of dollars of training and the most advanced hardware of any army and they can't tell the difference between a SLR and an AK47…

Well an SLR is slightly longer, has a straight 20 round magazine, carrying handle and is made mainly of plastic and metal whereas an AK has a 30 round curved magazine and is made mainly of wood and metal. Both use 7.62 rounds though, unless it was actually an AK74 in which case it would 5.54mm.

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.

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".

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

I took Grum's comment : "…..then you wouldn't be posting irrelevant military trivia". 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 an incongruity or discordance that goes strikingly beyond the most simple and evident meaning of words or actions.

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…