Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
And I'm pretty sure our soldiers should have the restraint to not outright violate the Geneva Convention by attacking those assisting those who are wounded and not engaged in combat.
|
When the Apache gunship engaged the reporters, they believed them to be enemy combatants for the reasons repeatedly stated (and re-stated below). The people in the van showed up about two minutes after the reporters had been shot. That means they were in the immediate area at the time of the shooting. If they were in the immediate area, then they knew that the people in the street were shot by a really big American gun. US ground forces were also in the immediate area and that they were in a gunfight. Taking that in to account, the folks in the van displayed an irrational behavior by moving TOWARDS the gunfire and still-smoking bodies. Their van displayed no markings in accordance with IRCRS policy or anything to indicate that they were medical personnel. If the Apache crew had only this information to operate on, then for all intents and purposes, it is understandable that they interpreted the actions of the vans occupants to be aiding in the escape of an injured, possibly armed insurgent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
I maintain my position that if anybody who identified that camera as an RPG has a severe enough deficiency in either judgment or vision that he has no business flying or shooting anything.
|
I respectfully disagree. Your position is based on information that was unavailable at the time of the engagement. Please consider the previously mentioned situational facts:
- The Apache gunship was in the area because there were US ground forces in the immediate area taking small arms and RPG fire from folks in civilian clothes.
- The two reporters and the large group of people accompanying them were wearing civilian clothes and advancing towards the US ground forces. Some of the people in that group were visually confirmed to be carrying weapons.
- One of said weapons was easily identified as an AK. The other looks longer: it could have easily been an RPG (without a rocket inserted) or a LAW.
Example:
- Their actions - advancing towards a firefight involving US ground forces while carrying weapons - are consistent with those of insurgents.
- @ 4:01, As the gunship circles the building the group is near, the camera loses sight of them. Immediately, a man can be seen peeking his head around the buildings corner as well as a large, cylindrical object consistent with a LAW or RPG.
- The US ground forces and gunship support had no idea there were reporters in the area. The reporters did not inform anyone that they would be in the theater as required per SOP. The reporters were not wearing anything to identify their protected status.
Deny yourself the benefit of hindsight and the armchair generals ability to analyze and re-analyze the helpfully labeled video. Place yourself in the situation the gunship crew was in - one where American soldiers are in immediate danger - and take all of the listed factors in to account.
What conclusion do you come to?