Q&D: If the guys with the camera's were Reuters journalists (3 years later and Reuters hasn't confirmed this) then they knew the risks involved in what they were doing. They decided to go for a stroll down the middle of a street in Iraq, accompanied by a large group of armed men, in an area where US ground forces were engaged in a firefight. They gambled in the hopes of getting what may have been a really cool story/pictures and paid for that gamble with their lives.
The guy in the unmarked civilian van showed up roughly two minutes after a large group of armed men got shot to shit by a 30mm chain gun. A 30mm chain guns are loud and very distinctive sounding. If you are within two city-minutes of drive time away, you will hear it and know what it is.
If the driver was in no way associated with the guys who just got shot and was just a good Samaritan on his way to drop his kids off at school, then he knowingly brought his kids in to a gunfight and proceeded to use the van they were in to collect and aid in the escape of guys the US military was shooting at. He gambled with his kids lives to help bad guys and ended up getting his kids shot.
On the assumption that the driver of the van was deaf: He rounds a corner and finds a bunch of still-smoking guys who have been shot to shit in an area where US ground forces are engaged in a gun fight (again, not a quiet affair). He should have thought of his kids and GTFO.
After the gunship fires on the alleged reporters, they get a call from ground forces stating that they are taking small arms and rocket fire from such-and-such building. The gunship goes to provide support and the camera catches two armed men trying to discretely enter said building. Moments later, two military aged males (unarmed), who are walking at an increased interval, enter the same building. The gunship fires a hellfire and the building goes away.
As the gunship fires the first missile, there is a random dude walking down the sidewalk in front of the targeted building. He and the two kids inside the van are the only innocents I see in all of this. The field of view on the gunships target display is surprisingly narrow at max magnification. The gunner couldn't have anticipated the guy walking in front of the targeted building right at the moment they were about to fire. That said, I would have done a quick sweep with my camera to check the street for bystanders but thats arm chair quarterbacking.
The kids were victims of their fathers negligence. There was no way for the apache gunners to know they were in the van and to suggest that the pilots shouldn't have fired without knowing is idiotic.
---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by guccilvr
I think the sticking point for most people in this is how the soldiers seemed so blood thirsty.
|
Most people have never put on the uniform. Their knowledge of war is limited to playing Call of Duty. They have made themselves believe that the good guys are always reluctant to go to war and always fight fair. If war become a necessity, they want other people to fight it, but according to their lofty rules and ideals.
Most people avoid confrontation. Most people are repulsed by the thought of taking a life. To them, any person who is willing to do so must be a sociopath.