I've started building a scale model of an AH-64D Apache so I can do reenactments.. little plastic people, the ack-ackac-kack-ackack sounds, and even with some witty banter like "they just drove over bodies... lol" and "look at those dead bastards! muahhahahaha!"

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3462/img02252.png
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/5572/img02262.png

I just finished getting getting the front gear and tail rotor on. The cockpit is amazingly hard to detail, and the nose gun is next. The main blades are one of the last steps.

we're gonna need grainy video of the reenactment.

We're all going to hell.

Yes you are.


..and especially Gucci...his spot's already been spoken for. I've made prior arrangements.

My spot was reserved before you and your virgins tried to convert me to allah Dlish.

:D

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.
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.

you have the benefit of playing the video over and over and in slow motion..

they didn't.

I didn't know they had cameras like that until you posted it in this thread. Does that make me an idiot or baby killer?

WikiLeaks – “Collateral Murder”

here's another commentary on the clip. unlike alot of military-relativist arguments, this guy is both sympathetic and quite critical--and unlike alot of folk, to do that he makes separations between actions within the continuum that you're shown. and he's a bit snippy about the presentation from wikileaks in places as well. have a look.

We also have the benefit of knowing that those were photographers before even viewing the film. If that knowledge was erased, and we were given just the information those soldiers had - grainy images of a group of people, some of them armed, not far from a firefight - I think most of us would have come to the same conclusions the gunner and pilot came to.

maybe---**maybe**---with respect to the photographer. but no way in hell with respect to the van. that's why i think this is an actionable situation. the people in the van were murdered straight up. strange that so many are good with that. maybe because it's just another bunch of iraqis, yes?

I tend not to remember the "van incident" as a separate event, I suppose. Does that make me an awful human being? Forgetful, maybe. I watched the video twice and don't really intend to watch it again.

pony:
not at all...i didn't mean the language to sound that way. the thread's been bugging me i think.


shifting back out to pick up on a more general point, not talking specifically at you now, pony:

all this swimming about at the shallow end of the pool thinking o it's all good bad things happen in a way no rules no problem why i'd have done the same thing. i don't think i would have. i don't think alot of people would have done the same thing. i don't think what we see in that clip is acceptable. i think there's a difference between whether one *can* explain something and the idea that because a sequence of events *can be* explained that therefore it's justified. i don't get it.

I definitely see the initial attack and the part with the van as two separate incidents. Add to that the man crawling on the ground and the eagerness to kill him, because I think that directly leads into the van incident.

Anyway, mistakes do happen, and while I would have liked to see them actually witness ANY sort of hostile intentions before firing, I'm willing to classify the first section as "unfortunate" in my brain. I really can't find any way to excuse the attack on the van though.

I'm having a hard time finding anything more accurate that roach's last link, WikiLeaks – “Collateral Murder”.

Of course, before the discussion over whether mistaking the camera for an RPG is justifiable, there is (or should be) the discussion about whether action should be taken based on what everyone acknowledges as grainy and poor quality video. There is nothing that says that those sorts of things must be used, and there is a lot that can be mistaken for a gun or an RPG in a densely populated area.

Sure, relying less on these ultra long distance videos might lead to a few more military casualties. But they would almost certainly result in less civilian casualties.

That's an excellent link RB - I totally missed the RPG that he pointed out.
Whether or not they mistook the camera equipment for an RPG is separate from the fact that another guy clearly had an actual RPG. What in the hell was that guy doing there and what was he hoping to accomplish with his grenade launcher?

I can't in good conscience condone the van shooting though. Those folks were unarmed and contrary to what the pilot claims I can find no evidence in the video that they attempted to pick up any weapons or do anything other than provide assistance to the wounded. On that count I find myself in favour of legal action.

You too, huh? Yeah. It makes me want to post personal stories, but then I'd most likely be dissected / attacked by people who get their knowledge from the modern equiv of Max Headroom. At the end of the day... you see it as wrong and requiring legal action. I see it as tragic and acceptable.

I guess it's a good thing that we have the jobs that we have, no?

i have not posted in this thread for obvious reasons...

i love ya', brother...

...BUT I'M A MONSTER! *tears up, clutches face in palms*

.

.

.

No, seriously.

...

Ya know, I was really hoping people would be offended by Jinn's helicopter model talk.

It was way brutal. And you have the nuts to call us military dudes callous assholes?

In the words of Sgt. Lester Garcia: "Yeaaah, riyeeeht."

I'm going to paint the little target guys on the ground with TS-8 Italian Red, TS-18 Metallic Red, and TS-11 Maroon. If you mix it up enough before the spray it looks just like recently coagulated blood.

http://www.tamiya.com/english/produc...y_img/ts11.gifhttp://www.tamiya.com/english/produc...y_img/ts18.gifhttp://www.tamiya.com/english/produc...ay_img/ts8.gif

I was recently toying with some simple animatronic stuff based off watch batteries, and I might be able to make the plastic people 'squirm' if I wire it up right..

And I found these cool RPG scale model toys at Hobbytown..

http://www.48specialmodels.com/48pic...us-rpg-set.jpg

I'm going to paint them like cameras for my reenactment.

Don't you have some gunfire to run toward?

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.
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: http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rpg-16.jpghttp://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...AW_1960_lg.jpg

• 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?

Except as the video makes clear, the "really big American gun" was more than a few blocks away from where the bodies were, which was a densely populated neighborhood. Whatever you think about the initial shooting, shooting the van is pretty indefensible.

And the whole "I'm more of a man because I care less" attitude in this thread is bullshit. As is the whole "I'm a manly man, therefore only I can judge the morality of anything."

Lots of people around the world live in places where violent deaths on a per capita basis (not to mention an absolute basis) far, far outstrips anything American troops have faced in over 60 years. Lots of people actually go to these places to try to help a bit. And the funny thing is that these people don't become indifferent to random killings. If you think it's tough being a serviceman, try being on the other side of those guns for a bit. Not everyone who has seen crap or even been subjected to crap in their lives becomes a moral relativist.

Edit: of course, the moral relativism would probably disappear if the video was of someone else doing that to Americans.

You really don't have the first clue how loud those things are, do you?

Let me give you some perspective on this issue alone.

I sell, and shoot, .50BMG rifles. This thing fires a round about the size of a carrot, with a projectile 12.7mm (1/2 inch) in diameter. Effective range is about 1.25 miles. This weapon's muzzle-blast can be heard from well over a mile away, will rupture eardrums at close ranges (less than 5 meters or so), and echoes for several seconds in mountains or built-up areas. With the proper loading, it can penetrate an inch or so (20mm) of Rolled Homogeneous Armor, at a range of 100 meters, at an impact angle of 90 degrees.

The 30mm Hughes chain-cannon fires a round the size of a paper-towel roll, with a projectile the size of a potato that's designed to knock out tanks and can penetrate around 12in of RHA. Compare the size of the two rounds, and you have an idea of just how loud this weapon is. Now, the 30mm doesn't normally use AP rounds; rather it's a sort of high-velocity grenade launcher. This means that besides the noise, there's a lot of blast and shrapnel damage, at least in the immediate impact zone. Again, this thing is pretty obvious.

Now, consider that the insurgents don't use 30mm cannon, or anything even close. Bombs, rifles, light machineguns and mortars, rocket-propelled grenades...lots of noisy stuff, but nothing that produces a number of VERY loud explosions in short order, combined with an identically-spaced series of very loud muzzle-blasts. Remember, and as the video shows, this thing is a giant machinegun. The only other things on the battlefield which would produce a machinegun's distinctive cadence writ so -very- large are the Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher and the various 25mm and 30mm cannon carried by Army/Marine APCs; none of which, nor anything like them, are commonly fielded by Iraqi insurgents.

Either way, this is the kind of noise that anybody with a brain could identify as Pissed Off Yankees Tearin' Shit Up. It's not the kind of thing anybody with kids and more than two braincells runs TOWARDS. Even if you have to go (family in danger, etc), anybody half-sane would have at least gotten the kids behind some cover and told them to stay put -before- racing into the near vicinity of some sort of airborne explosive barrage in this gallant but sadly fatal rescue attempt.

Was the death of the "good samaritan" and the wounding of his innocent children a tragedy? Absolutely. Was it avoidable? Again, absolutely, but on the parts of -both- parties. Papa could have done the reasonable thing and not driven towards the sounds of Pissed Off Yankees, and the Apache crew could have been more careful about whom they shot at. More than enough blame to go around there.

As for the reporters killed with the armed men; they knew the risks and went anyway. This is why we admire combat correspondents and read their work. One should not be surprised when, if one insists upon hanging around with armed men in an area known to be a zone of conflict between such fellows and aforementioned Pissed Off Yankees, one gets killed by Pissed Off Yankees. I can't summon too much outrage over the death of someone who, fully appraised of the risks, goes into such a dangerous situation. Edited to Add: This is akin, IMO, to the deaths (likewise tragic and frequently preventable, but consensual) of not only soldiers but also of dangerous-game hunters, spear-fishers, explorers, sailors, firefighters, dissidents righteous or misguided or just plain mean. They chose to dance with death every bit as much, and just as every now and again an elephant takes his dying revenge or a building collapses onto some gallant would-be savior of life, every now and again combat reporters pay the Ferryman's price to practice their chosen trade.

All those paragraphs and you still miss the point. My point wasn't whether the van could hear the gunfire, but whether it was driving towards it, which is what has been used to justify the shootings.

In fact, when you look at the video, you see that while the van is driving TOWARDS the bodies, it is driving AWAY from the helicopter and the position where the shots came from. As such, it is fairly obvious that the van is not driving towards the firefight, but away from it.

9er, I wouldn't think of you as a monster or a murderer, but merely a man performing the duties he was called to do by his boss. Now as far as the bosses go, I'll more than happily stick a murderer tag on them and see them in a court.

While there are some things that soldiers do that need to be prosecuted, I can't in good conscience blast a man that is following orders when that is his duty. In war things are rarely black and white, but the government and the big brass tend to see in only those two colors.

They knew that the man on the ground being helped did not have a weapon. If they did not know, you would have not heard the gunner pleading for the injured man to pick up a gun. I'm not buying that 'close enough to count' line either. It was clearly a distinct enough incident to require separate permission to engage and should have been weighed on it's own merits. Those folks in the van, at the time they were engaged, were not posing a threat to anyone.

What are you talking about? Examples, please.

You're purposely oversimplifying this. The fact that the van was moving towards the gunfire is not what has been used to justify the shooting. The fact that the van was moving towards the gunfire was one of many contributing factors.

HOWEVER, there is no question as to whether the van was moving towards the scene of the shooting. At some point or another it had to be. Thats where it got shot up.

I think it was you that missed Dunedans point. Summary: Big guns make big noise. It doesn't matter which direction the van was traveling at the time of the shooting, or if it was even in motion at the time. What does matter is the van's proximity to the scene of the shooting. As the van arrived on scene roughly 2 minutes after the shooting, one can surmise that it was pretty darn close and would have been aware of the gunfire.

The van's proximity to the scene of the shooting is easily explained by the fact that it's a residential neighborhood. I thought that that was clear from the video. And as you noted, the van got to the square (which it had no way of knowing was the target of the shooting until it got there) in a very short amount of time. Again, the idea that this van was driving towards the fight is bullshit unsupported by the video. So you have a van, in a residential neighborhood, which is driving away from the source of the gunfire noise, which comes up in a square full of dead or injured people, and then decides to stop and help out.

To which I respond with something similar to post #143, which is more or less a repeat of post #42. You come back with some slightly different version of the points you keep bringing up. I come back with a reworded version of post #66.
http://chazdrums.files.wordpress.com...dead_horse.jpg
I'm done with this thread. To all: no hard feelings.

So people shouldn't even be in that residential neighborhood? Which would have been an acceptable direction for the driver to go to? One which doesn't make his shooting justified? You might have restated what you said, but you still ignore the basic stuff we know about the van: it's a residential neighborhood, and he was driving away from the source of gunfire. This isn't some guy picking his kids up and saying "hey, let's go to that gun fight." This isn't some guy driving a few miles to get in the middle of a battle. This isn't some guy getting his kid in the car, leaving the house, and deciding to play ambulance. All we know is that there was a van in a residential neighborhood driving away from the gunfire who stopped to pick up the wounded when there was no battle in sight anymore, in a battlezone that, as is clear in the video, includes a several dozen city blocks in a residential neighborhood. And yet that is somehow enough to claim that he wanted to be there.

I wasn't being sarcastic when I said I'm not surprised. I'm sorry you can disagree all you want, people know ahead of time that the military is tool of war, and war involves killing hundreds of thousands of people just because a few overly important people have a severe disagreement or fear of eachother.

This is a chicken vs the egg argument obviously, the difference is, the concept of government, the concept of military, the concept of authority is a manmade concept. War is a giant exercise in strawman-esque tactics to settle a dispute.

"this land is mine"
"no! it's mine!"
"I disagree so I'm going to tell these people I pay to shoot the people you pay"

Ever play chess? Many of the pieces have much more relevance and importance in carrying out strategy and winning the conflict, but fuck those guys, it's the king that matters.



Yeah that's the 2nd time you've said something "witty" about my tagline, considering you have dick-all knowledge about why I put it there and it being my own inside joke, I will offer you the chance to explain the irony if you so choose to do so.

You seriously think my post is a violation because I used the word pawn? Your response is a perfect example of why conflict exists. Instead of asking me to explain myself, instead of trying to UNDERSTAND what makes me different from you, instead of respecting that people ARE different than you and will think/act differently than you, you've secured yourself in a position of "knowing" it all, being infallible, and lashing out at me firing off the verbal first strike with operation "Fuck yourself, dickwad" all shock and awe style. *shrug*

Why is this your 1st reaction? You're only making my case against the military think-tank process by admitting you were previously enlisted yourself. In fact you're not the only enlisted to jump my ass about my views, but you know what? not a single fucking one of you bother to ask me to explain, you instantly jump in to hostile mode and it's up to me to act the part of being civilized and making the peace, enlightening people that knowledge, acceptance, negotiation, compromise and a more selfless vision of the future is all I'd rather focus on in the grand view of humanity in 10,000 years. I am by no means a perfect representation of the human I'd like to see in everyone, but I would sure as hell try to opt for the more peaceful path, not only in conversation, but physical manifestation.

The military trains people to kill other people, then tells them to go kill other people.They do it because if they don't, they get thrown in prison amongst other things. Soldiers are not civilians, they don't get the freedom to say "no, I don't want to fight, I just want the paycheck" Regardless of the many other things the military does. I'm not just slamming the U.S. Military here, I'm slamming pawns in general from any nation.

I understand the concept of nationalism from an economic standpoint, being the mess that it is anyways, I've never really understood it from a conflict perspective though. how does drawing lines that defines "which people I can kill, vs which people I will protect" serve humanity as a whole? Everyone standing in that circle is my friend, everyone outside of it? We'll just wing it.


Yeah I know I come across like an unrealistic peace sign flinging hippy but guys..

War is just an ouroboros, the cycle won't break, the chicken & egg shit has been done to death on this, the point is even with all the hyperbole of "we'd all be speaking another language" (which btw, why does it really matter?) the point is, as an individual, I think it's rather clear that the function of the military is to kill. Knowing that, if you enlist, you're a pawn to that directive even if you were hoping not to kill anyone, because they can stick you in a sandbox halfway across the world in a situation where you have no choice but to comply or suffer the fate of being killed yourself by the other team, who, ironically, might just so happen to be in your shoes.

Whether a US soldier dies, or an insurgent dies, it changes nothing, it's the idea, the motive, the will, the reason... that needs to die. The idea that killing a couple hundred thousand people here and there makes you "right" in the global theatre of things.

Anyways, I don't spit on people who serve, I have friends who currently serve, the military does offer a compelling lifestyle in financial incentives, education, and travel experiences to people who feel hopeless to attain the status via civilian methods, but it doesn't mean that everyone who joins is gambling on a better life vs hoping they don't have to kill someone.

Man don't take my word for it, even the recruiters try to go after kids who would join gangs by telling them that the military is the biggest gang in the world. So again, it does not surprise me, it disappoints me.

Is that clear?

I swear to god, you act like I kicked your puppy with this barrage of over-reactionary responses I just had to deal with.

You know, this changes the entire viewpoint of the video if this is true. Where did this information come from? Is there a source?

About 11:30 into the unedited version.

That's sort of the problem with this entire war. There are no clear cut enemies. They don't wear uniforms and have bombs strapped to their bodies or rpgs under their clothes. It's not like they're walking around in red British uniforms saying "we're really the bad guys, go after us".

this is a colonial occupation. the occupier is by definition in an adversarial relation to the population as a whole, which typically resists being occupied through all kinds of means some formal or overt-to-violent, many more diffuse. the problem is being in the position of a colonial occupation force. there is no good way to be in that place. the bush administration should never have placed the military in that position. such occupations, particularly this one, are a structuring crime from which others flow. and the situation brutalizes all sides, dehumanizes all sides. you could say that by the time that gunner is opening up on the crawling man, something of his humanity had already been taken from him by the situation of being part of a colonial occupation.

but this is not news. this is what enables the israel/palestine dynamic to unfold as it has.
(there's a whole long glorious european history dehumanization and brutality beyond that.)

so this isn't just any combat situation. and it really makes no sense to float versions of the "shit happens" defense simply because the first move that "shit happens" entails is a bracketing or putting aside of the simplest fact of the matter: the americans are a colonial occupation force in iraq and this is the kind of situation that colonialism opens onto.

the solution is to get the fuck out of iraq.

everyone knows what the solution is, but until the murderers who hold the purse make that order, it's a bit pointless isn't it?

tl;dr--I'm just going to assume this is bloated verbiage by a poster who employs generalizations on subjects he knows nothing about.

Previous assessment still applies.