Wiki leak and the Bradley Manning...

[BraveUlysses]

wrong.

current ROE (rules of engagement) require viewing hostile act or intent, to engage with deadly force.

i'm not defending this soldier's actions, but you still don't know what you're talking about.

how dare you question our resident keyboard warrior!

[CorvallisBMW]

Standard Liberal lack of logic....
1. It's a war zone.
2. Iraq's know if you're carrying a weapon IN PUBLIC that American soldiers are going to fucking kill you....unless you are an Iraqi soldier.
3. #2 above proves they were not "innocent civilians".
4. Your comparison is beyond retarded....LMFAO....

1. Doesn't matter. Look up "Rules of Engagement", read it (if you can comprehend big words) and get back to me.
2. Again, rules of engagement. US soldiers don't kill anyone they see carrying a weapon just because.
3. yes, they were. They were journalists. How have you not gotten that through your head yet? There were no weapons found at the scene. Zero.
4. How? it's exactly the same situation you described.

[Raxe]

If they had nothing to hide in the video then declassifying it shouldn't have been such a problem. There are plenty of arial war videos from Iraq, it's not like they're protecting top secret technology used in the video. Fact is; they fucked up and someone had the balls to call them out on it.

[joshh]

wrong.

current ROE (rules of engagement) require viewing hostile act or intent, to engage with deadly force.

i'm not defending this soldier's actions, but you still don't know what you're talking about.

1. Doesn't matter. Look up "Rules of Engagement", read it (if you can comprehend big words) and get back to me.
2. Again, rules of engagement. US soldiers don't kill anyone they see carrying a weapon just because.
3. yes, they were. They were journalists. How have you not gotten that through your head yet? There were no weapons found at the scene. Zero.
4. How? it's exactly the same situation you described.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA...."CURRENT"...when the fuck did this happen eh? 2-0-0-7 Ya think the rules of engagement were the same as now? Put your two heads together all you get is BS.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html

Take a look at 3:40 right above the white cross in the middle of the fucking screen. The two guys carrying two things...what are they? A wooden rifle and a wooden RPG? The original video.

Maybe you needed to stop looking at the two journalist...

[decay]

it's always amusing to be told how shit works in a warzone by some civilian chickenhawk who'll never go to one.

[joshh]

it's always amusing to be told how shit works in a warzone by some civilian chickenhawk who'll never go to one.

Yeah and those retards who think the rules of engagement are the same from 2007 to 2010.

[decay]

Yeah and those retards who think the rules of engagement are the same from 2007 to 2010.

they've actually been the same since 2005.

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=429

^that is the exact material i got briefed with when i was on my way there in 2008. you'll note:

2. HOSTILE ACTORS: You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent with the minimum force necessary to counter the hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent and to protect US forces.

Hostile Act: an attack or other use of force against US Forces or a use of force that directly precludes/impedes the mission/duties of US Forces.

Hostile intent: The threat of imminent use of force against UKS Forces or the thereat of force to preclude/impede the mission/duties of US Forces.

...at least one of us isn't talking out of our ass...

[joshh]

they've actually been the same since 2005.

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=429

^that is the exact material i got briefed with when i was on my way there in 2008. you'll note:



...at least one of us isn't talking out of our ass...

For argument sake let's say they are the same. Even though interpretation can vary. Even amongst commanders.

"2. HOSTILE ACTORS: You may engage persons who commit hostile acts or show hostile intent with the minimum force necessary to counter the hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent and to protect US forces."

What part of "...shows hostile intent." don't you understand? I can give you a great link to a dictionary.
Let's see a RPG being carried around on the streets of Iraq, during a war. Golly Wilber I can't imagine why he'd do that?

Now pull your head back out of your ass.

[CorvallisBMW]

For argument sake let's say they are the same. Even though interpretation can vary. Even amongst commanders.

It's not for 'argument sake', it's a fact. They haven't changed since 2005, that's not exactly hard to understand.

What part of "...shows hostile intent." don't you understand? I can give you a great link to a dictionary.
Let's see a RPG being carried around on the streets of Iraq, during a war. Golly Wilber I can't imagine why he'd do that?

Now pull your head back out of your ass.

It says very clearly, in every single evaluation of that video, by every single news outlet (even the Pentagon and US military commanders) that they were carrying cameras, not RPGs. How you managed to misread 'Camera' as 'RPG' is beyond me. But if you think you know how to analyze military video better than, say, a video analyst or military observer, than please, by all means, continue to enlighten us with your earth-shattering mad skillz.

This is the 4th or 5th time you've been proven out-and-out wrong. Yet you continue to flail about, throwing out false 'facts' and making wild accusations and statements that you say to be true. Just give it up dude. The whole world knows the helicopter pilots killed a bunch of innocent journalists. The US military has even acknowledged that. How come you can't?

[joshh]

It's not for 'argument sake', it's a fact. They haven't changed since 2005, that's not exactly hard to understand.





It says very clearly, in every single evaluation of that video, by every single news outlet (even the Pentagon and US military commanders) that they were carrying cameras, not RPGs. How you managed to misread 'Camera' as 'RPG' is beyond me. But if you think you know how to analyze military video better than, say, a video analyst or military observer, than please, by all means, continue to enlighten us with your earth-shattering mad skillz.

This is the 4th or 5th time you've been proven out-and-out wrong. Yet you continue to flail about, throwing out false 'facts' and making wild accusations and statements that you say to be true. Just give it up dude. The whole world knows the helicopter pilots killed a bunch of innocent journalists. The US military has even acknowledged that. How come you can't?

Stop reading and watch the video you idiot. You can clearly see at least one AK and a RPG.
Blindness isn't your problem, it's just stupidity. 3:15 of the video.

[decay]

What part of "...shows hostile intent." don't you understand? I can give you a great link to a dictionary.
Let's see a RPG being carried around on the streets of Iraq, during a war. Golly Wilber I can't imagine why he'd do that?

Now pull your head back out of your ass.

jesus christ, i'm glad you're not one of my troops.

now you get to have 2 more military concepts explained to you-

the first is called "escalation of force".

deadly force is a last resort. if you observe someone transporting an RPG, absolutely you stop and detain them- and they better have a pretty good explanation for having that hardware, or they're going to abu ghraib.

if you observe them taking position and pointing it at something- THAT'S hostile intent, and then you proceed through escalation-

you do not start off with area-affect fire just because you see them carrying it, and the reason for this is called "civil affairs".

when you light up a couple vehicles and kill everyone in them, including a couple kids, you're gonna piss off a few of the locals.

as a result, they'll be much less likely to tell you when they see an al-queda operative planting an IED that's gonna take out a humvee full of your troops.

i'm sure you got a nice big woody watching band of brothers and the pacific, but iraq and afghanistan are not front-line warfare, they're counter-insurgency... it doesn't work the same way.

[CorvallisBMW]

Stop reading and watch the video you idiot. You can clearly see at least one AK and a RPG.
Blindness isn't your problem, it's just stupidity. 3:15 of the video.

It explicitly states in the video that there is one man talking on the phone and one carrying a camera. No weapons that I can see. Again, what makes you a better video analyst than all the experts in the world who have concluded that they were unarmed? Are you the Steven Hawking of video analysis now?

Also, why did they shoot a van full of children? Are you going to tell me the kids had water pistols and therefor represented an imminent threat?

Just give it up, you look like more of an idiot with every post.

[joshh]

jesus christ, i'm glad you're not one of my troops.

now you get to have 2 more military concepts explained to you-

the first is called "escalation of force".

deadly force is a last resort. if you observe someone transporting an RPG, absolutely you stop and detain them- and they better have a pretty good explanation for having that hardware, or they're going to abu ghraib.

if you observe them taking position and pointing it at something- THAT'S hostile intent, and then you proceed through escalation-

you do not start off with area-affect fire just because you see them carrying it, and the reason for this is called "civil affairs".

when you light up a couple vehicles and kill everyone in them, including a couple kids, you're gonna piss off a few of the locals.

as a result, they'll be much less likely to tell you when they see an al-queda operative planting an IED that's gonna take out a humvee full of your troops.

i'm sure you got a nice big woody watching band of brothers and the pacific, but iraq and afghanistan are not front-line warfare, they're counter-insurgency... it doesn't work the same way.

Oh good now I'll explain to you some logic .
And thanks for your interpretation. But that's all it is.
As if the pilot can see the kids in the van.
Keep ignoring the real situation, but I sure am glad you aren't there anymore fucking up the thinking of real soldiers who aren't willing to die before defending themselves.

[joshh]

It explicitly states in the video that there is one man talking on the phone and one carrying a camera. No weapons that I can see. Again, what makes you a better video analyst than all the experts in the world who have concluded that they were unarmed? Are you the Steven Hawking of video analysis now?

Also, why did they shoot a van full of children? Are you going to tell me the kids had water pistols and therefor represented an imminent threat?

Just give it up, you look like more of an idiot with every post.

Jesus Christ you're thick headed. LOOK AT THE VIDEO. DON'T LOOK AT THE REPORTERS. STOP READING OTHER IDEA OF WHAT HAPPENED.The two guys right above the white cross hairs ...one is carrying an RPG the other is carrying an AK. 3:15 of the original video....LOL.

Thankfully they are dead.

[CorvallisBMW]

Thankfully they are dead.

I think this pretty much sums it up.

They were journalists, not terrorists. Everyone in the world has acknowledged that fact including the US military. Why haven't you?