A friend's mother recently died of lung cancer, and I'd love to see lives extended by this that would otherwise be cut short. Of course, in a world with limited dollars to pay for medical care, one has to wonder if treating lung cancer or emphysema this way might sometimes come at the expense of treating someone else with a non-"consensual" condition like cystic fibrosis.
Prior to that, US troops on the ground reported taking fire from this direction, and it was believed that it was from this group of people. There was at least one individual in the group with an AK-47, and at least one other with a RPG . While an Iraqi civilian might be carrying an AK-47, it is doubtful that a civilian would be carrying a RPG. Concluding that these guys were insurgents is reasonable based on the info the helo crew had at the time.
Because it doesn't fit with the prewritten narrative of "teh evil gummint". The intent of the edited, leaked, and then edited again video was to create the impression that the US military was indiscriminately hunting down unarmed civilians. Among those who are predisposed to believe this, the video succeeded.
I find it ironic that people who have the luxury of examining the footage over and over in the safety of their homes miss details like that (which the gunship crew in more adverse circumstances obviously didn't miss), and yet still feel comfortable condemning the actions of the crew
I'd like to see the full footage myself, and I'd also like to hear the government's explanation. That said, I don't think we'll ever get it, and I can understand why the government doesn't seem interested is transparency here. What I've found is that very few people have open minds about it. Most have already reached conclusions that they are reluctant to reconsider their condemnation of the gunship crew. No matter what the government releases or doesn't release, these people will bend it to fit their narrative. Right or wrong, I don't see much upside for the government here. Furthermore, the Obama presidency has been even more closed than the Bush presidency was, judging by the denial of FOIA requests.
I think the footage explains itself pretty well. Ground troops reported taking fire from a group of insurgents in the area. Helo crew responded, found a group of people, some of whom were armed, approaching the troops on the ground. When it appeared that people in the group were getting ready to fire, the helo crew requested clearance to fire, received it, and fired. They later also attacked the van, believing it to be more insurgents.* The first indication that the helo crew realizes that they might have engaged the wrong target comes when members of the squad on the ground refers to the group of insurgents having been "on the roof", and the helo crew responds, saying something to the effect of 'be advised, the group we fired on was on the ground, was at ground level'. Not long after that transmission, American ground forces arrive and discover the wounded kids in the van. At that point, it becomes obvious that the helo crew had caused civilian casualties, albeit unknowingly.
With that being said, I'm willing to reconsider my position, if contradictory information comes to light. I doubt that could be said about many people either here, or at HuffPo, or Salon, etc.
* Insurgents have been known to alter the scene of a firefight, removing weapons, bodies, and/or intel on the bodies in order to make it appear as though US forces opened fire on civilians. Clearly there were real civilians killed in this encounter.
It depends how you call them whores. If you call her a whore because that's the best smooth talk you've got, yeah, it sucks to be you. OTOH if, whilst at the height of passion, you call her a hot, dirty, slutty whore while firmly gripping her hair and smacking her ass, she very well may really dig it.
Of course by the time you get to that stage, hopefully you've got an idea whether you can get away with that or not.
True, although considering they devote so many articles to GUI-based software, you'd think the concept wouldn't be foreign to anyone here. Wouldn't be surprise to learn that a few here read this in Lynx though.
I'm not looking to excuse crass or wasteful behavior by slathering the problem with cash. I just expect that when I buy food and service at a restaurant, it's not going to come with an EULA.
False choice. The alternative to "killing for religion" is not "killing for atheism". It could well be "killing for money and power in the name of religion".
That guy was also "Redundant" when I first checked, as well. Although you could argue that technically, he was redundant, seeing as this guy got it in first. But they have the same timestamp, so if I had been handing out points, I would have given him a break.
Mods, please explain how a first post can possibly be "Redundant"? Extra credit if you can explain this as something other than censorship, since the OP actually has a valid point that applies to TFS...
Because a) you're not considering the benefits of these things, and b) losing the freedom to choose whether to participate or not is worse than being able to exercise that freedom, even at one's peril.
Does the alcohol ban prevent all kids from accessing alcohol? Or just the ones who are well-adjusted enough to follow the rules? Can you categorically state that because of the ban, there is no problem with underage drinking?
Does the game ban keep all unrated games out of AU? Or just those that an enterprising young kid doesn't download?
Does the handgun ban keep all handguns out of the hands of criminals? Or just out of the hands of law-abiding people whose legitimate right to adequate and reasonable self defense has been abrogated by the state?
By your logic, and the logic of nanny-state politicians, the rights of many responsible people can and should be restricted to the level of the least responsible members of society. Should all right to free speech be curtailed because some small number does not exercise it responsibly?
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree.
How nice. Have handguns been used in any non-spree killings? Perhaps other crimes, like robbery or rape? If so, the criminals are winning, and your ban only makes honest people more vulnerable.
Slashdot Mirror
I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Emory.
Actually, the heart is controlled by the brainstem. Decapitation should stop the human heart fairly quick.
A friend's mother recently died of lung cancer, and I'd love to see lives extended by this that would otherwise be cut short. Of course, in a world with limited dollars to pay for medical care, one has to wonder if treating lung cancer or emphysema this way might sometimes come at the expense of treating someone else with a non-"consensual" condition like cystic fibrosis.
There was an RPG being carried by this group. Thanks to martyros for the link. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
Come on, that's hardly a fully truthful representation of events
Yes it is. It just doesn't agree with what you want to believe.
Firstly, yes, they thought they saw an RPG
As others have pointed out, they did see one. See for yourself. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php
The misidentification of the camerman came later.
Prior to that, US troops on the ground reported taking fire from this direction, and it was believed that it was from this group of people. There was at least one individual in the group with an AK-47, and at least one other with a RPG . While an Iraqi civilian might be carrying an AK-47, it is doubtful that a civilian would be carrying a RPG. Concluding that these guys were insurgents is reasonable based on the info the helo crew had at the time.
Because it doesn't fit with the prewritten narrative of "teh evil gummint". The intent of the edited, leaked, and then edited again video was to create the impression that the US military was indiscriminately hunting down unarmed civilians. Among those who are predisposed to believe this, the video succeeded.
I find it ironic that people who have the luxury of examining the footage over and over in the safety of their homes miss details like that (which the gunship crew in more adverse circumstances obviously didn't miss), and yet still feel comfortable condemning the actions of the crew
I'd like to see the full footage myself, and I'd also like to hear the government's explanation. That said, I don't think we'll ever get it, and I can understand why the government doesn't seem interested is transparency here. What I've found is that very few people have open minds about it. Most have already reached conclusions that they are reluctant to reconsider their condemnation of the gunship crew. No matter what the government releases or doesn't release, these people will bend it to fit their narrative. Right or wrong, I don't see much upside for the government here. Furthermore, the Obama presidency has been even more closed than the Bush presidency was, judging by the denial of FOIA requests.
I think the footage explains itself pretty well. Ground troops reported taking fire from a group of insurgents in the area. Helo crew responded, found a group of people, some of whom were armed, approaching the troops on the ground. When it appeared that people in the group were getting ready to fire, the helo crew requested clearance to fire, received it, and fired. They later also attacked the van, believing it to be more insurgents.* The first indication that the helo crew realizes that they might have engaged the wrong target comes when members of the squad on the ground refers to the group of insurgents having been "on the roof", and the helo crew responds, saying something to the effect of 'be advised, the group we fired on was on the ground, was at ground level'. Not long after that transmission, American ground forces arrive and discover the wounded kids in the van. At that point, it becomes obvious that the helo crew had caused civilian casualties, albeit unknowingly.
With that being said, I'm willing to reconsider my position, if contradictory information comes to light. I doubt that could be said about many people either here, or at HuffPo, or Salon, etc.
* Insurgents have been known to alter the scene of a firefight, removing weapons, bodies, and/or intel on the bodies in order to make it appear as though US forces opened fire on civilians. Clearly there were real civilians killed in this encounter.
Mad cow? I don't know, but I'll bet she sure wasn't happy about it.
It depends how you call them whores. If you call her a whore because that's the best smooth talk you've got, yeah, it sucks to be you. OTOH if, whilst at the height of passion, you call her a hot, dirty, slutty whore while firmly gripping her hair and smacking her ass, she very well may really dig it.
Of course by the time you get to that stage, hopefully you've got an idea whether you can get away with that or not.
Behold the power of marketing.
Customer: "So, will this cologne get me some pussy?"
Salesman, barely able to keep a straight face: "Yes sir, if you don't mind really big ones."
Sorry, but it had to be said.
Funny, yeah, but you know poachers will start using this trick, if they aren't already.
True, although considering they devote so many articles to GUI-based software, you'd think the concept wouldn't be foreign to anyone here. Wouldn't be surprise to learn that a few here read this in Lynx though.
Good point; hadn't thought of that. Curiosity satisfied.
I'm not looking to excuse crass or wasteful behavior by slathering the problem with cash. I just expect that when I buy food and service at a restaurant, it's not going to come with an EULA.
No. You'd be a pirate if you somehow managed to rip it to VCD size and torrent it.
I'm wondering about the environmental impact of all the stray dogs that are probably wandering in from downwind.
False choice. The alternative to "killing for religion" is not "killing for atheism". It could well be "killing for money and power in the name of religion".
Many people seem to be able to treat pets well
[cynic]
Maybe because you're much less likely to be fucked over by dogs and cats (well, dogs at least) than by other people.
[/cynic]
That guy was also "Redundant" when I first checked, as well. Although you could argue that technically, he was redundant, seeing as this guy got it in first. But they have the same timestamp, so if I had been handing out points, I would have given him a break.
Mods, please explain how a first post can possibly be "Redundant"? Extra credit if you can explain this as something other than censorship, since the OP actually has a valid point that applies to TFS ...
Because a) you're not considering the benefits of these things, and b) losing the freedom to choose whether to participate or not is worse than being able to exercise that freedom, even at one's peril.
Does the alcohol ban prevent all kids from accessing alcohol? Or just the ones who are well-adjusted enough to follow the rules? Can you categorically state that because of the ban, there is no problem with underage drinking?
Does the game ban keep all unrated games out of AU? Or just those that an enterprising young kid doesn't download?
Does the handgun ban keep all handguns out of the hands of criminals? Or just out of the hands of law-abiding people whose legitimate right to adequate and reasonable self defense has been abrogated by the state?
By your logic, and the logic of nanny-state politicians, the rights of many responsible people can and should be restricted to the level of the least responsible members of society. Should all right to free speech be curtailed because some small number does not exercise it responsibly?
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree.
How nice. Have handguns been used in any non-spree killings? Perhaps other crimes, like robbery or rape? If so, the criminals are winning, and your ban only makes honest people more vulnerable.
unsolicited marketing is foisting it on others ...
That's in large part what many middle-east and other terrorists are objecting to.
Are you saying that adblock and a do-not-call list could solve all this terrorist shit? Why didn't you speak up before?
Even wars that are fought in the name of religion are usually fought in reality for land, money, power, and revenge. Just like all the other wars.