Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so essentially what you're saying walt is that dippin is correct.
|
In what way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
you speak for the Manly Men of the American Military in a war zone in a way that assumes whatever happens to the civilians and children is their fault.
way to go.
war crime? impossible so long as the Manly Men of the American Military are involved.
that's basically the argument, yes?
|
I'm having trouble taking you seriously when you (as a moderator) would use an Ad Hominem attack and a Straw Man fallacy in the same sentence. Way to go.
I will simplify and restate my argument regarding the civilians in the video:
1) The alleged reporters had more than a little experience working in a war zone. They knew they were taking a considerable risk in walking around with armed men in civilian clothes - and then moving down the street, towards a group of US ground forces who were engaged in a gunfight...with armed men in civilian clothes. The reporters took a gamble and it bit them in the ass. They have nobody to blame but themselves.
2) The children getting shot was a tragedy. They got shot because their father put them in a situation/position that would get them shot. The gunship had no way of knowing that there were children in the van.
3) The guy walking in front of the building (from which armed insurgents were actively shooting at US ground forces) as it took a hellfire was an idiot for being there. Still, his death was a tragedy and avoidable.
The guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Were I the gunner, I would have done a sweep of the buildings perimeter with my targeting system. Were I the bystander, I wouldn't have been hanging out in front of a building that bad guys were using as a fighting position. But that is armchair quarterbacking.
I don't see anything in the video that leads me to believe that he was an intended target.
4) Based upon what I understand of ROE, all of the shootings were justified and no war crimes were committed.