If you were the driver for an insurgent operation and saw one of your comrades wounded would you carry your weapons when you jumped out to carry him into the van? They were assisting the (mistaken) enemy, and that classified them as enemies, regardless of the presence of weapons. Shooting a gun is only one way to be hostile.
don't know, I haven't seen the bullet wounds, and I have no idea if they teach bullet wounds in Iraqi schools. If you are a civilian, who probably doesn't even know the difference between 30mm and 7.62mm except that one sounds larger, are you sure you could, when you come about a bunch of bodies and a guy bleeding profoundly, identify the type of wound?
To start with, the rounds from the heli are over three times as large as a 7.62 round. That is a huge difference. Not everyone might be able to tell the difference, but those living in a warzone probably have seen their share of combat wounds and should know that something wasnt caused just by small arms.
.In a city where someone is shot every few hours, I may look carefully around a corner before going around it, yeah.
Going back a bit, in a city where someone is shot every few hours, its not smart to put yourself in the shooting zone. As for peeking around, you wouldn't huddle there in a group and point something around it though would you?.
"could they have avoided this mistake?" and "what can be done to avoid it in the future?".
Indeed, very important questions with answers ranging from better optics to see the targets, to encouraging civilian journalists to stay with their escort, out of a warzone, or cooperating with the military to report their position. Mistakes were made by all involved. The heli crews misinterpreted what was on the ground. The journalist was just acting plain dumb and suspicious. The good Samaritan went out of his way to put himself and his family in danger. Portraying the heli crew as the only ones responsible and as blood thirsty savages is a misrepresentation of the situation however.
1)If the original presumption that the first group were insurgents was correct (which it really did appear to have been at the time) then the presumption that the van was also is a valid logical jump.
2)They did find weapons with the group after the fact. That means that the gunner HAD correctly identified them.
3)It doesn't have to be mentioned in the chatter. I just picked those out of the blue to show that there are many other possible targets other than the heli itself.
I dont deny that mistakes were made, and I'd wager those involved still have nightmares about what they did. To crucify the soldiers and portray them as gun happy rambos is an intentional misrepresentation of what happened though.
PS. They were shot with a 30mm cannon. Those make a much different hole than a m16 or ak47 and anyone who saw it should have known that it was made by a MUCH bigger gun. That leaves the heli to have been the shooters. Not smart to put yourself between a heli and its targets, even if you are only trying to bring it to the nearest hospital. They HAD followed procedure. They identified the targets (although incorrectly) and requested permission from command. You want to send a messenger down in person to check out every target? Not possible. It wasn't so much what they were carrying, but how they were handling it AND HOW THEY WERE ACTING AT THE CORNER that brought them under so much suspicion. Had they not been pointing something around the corner, they would have likely been left alone. Do you poke your grocery bag around corners?
They fired on the van because it was presumed to be insurgents trying to escape with a comrade. That would have been a valid shoot, notice how they requested permission to fire. The guy begging permission to shoot wasnt because he wanted to kill someone, but because the targets were escaping and he had little time left. Also, let me point out that after arriving on the scene they DID find weapons with the group, just not as many as they had expected. The model is easy to assume because what else would they be carrying? The AK47 is the bread and butter of many millitary groups (legit and terrorist) around the world. They weren't going to have a HK G36 or anything... They also didn't have to be firing at the heli. There are plenty of civilian targets around. When they were peaking around the corner it looks very much like they had something long and tubular, like an RPG. We dont know what was down the street, it might have been a school or playground for all we know. Thats just as good a target for some people.
They were not clearly unarmed. They were carrying weapons, including what appeared (and was being handled like) an RPG. The fact that you claim no weapons were mentioned in the chatter proves you didn't watch it, as there was frequent mention.
If you actually watch the video, its pretty hard to find a lot of fault with the heli crew. There were known combatants in the area and the way the guys on the ground were huddled at the corner looked exactly like preparations to fire what looked exactly like an RPG. They requested permission to engage (both times) and ceased fire when the targets were down. They did just what they were trained and expected to do. Its easy to sit back and blame them for a bad shoot, but in their position you would (or should) likely have done the same thing. Had that really been an RPG and they didn't fire then there would just be a video on WikiLeaks about how the army watched a couple insurgents launch and attack and sat back doing nothing, and blaming them for what ever deaths had happened as a result.
Its sad that some people died as a result, but a large part of the fault lies with them. They were doing things they should not have been doing in an area they should not have been doing it at, and they likely knew it. The good Samaritan with his kids was well intentioned, but didn't think it through either. There obviously had just been an attack and with two helicopters flying around, it doesn't take much to figure that the place is still being watched. Not that he deserved to die because of it, but it was unwise to put himself and his family in that position.
You're an idiot. Just because kids bounce doesn't mean you leave them to their own means. We do not need laws to protect adults from themselves. Down that road lies Big Brother.
There is a difference between a postal system and a package delivery system. Postal delivery is dying, but package delivery is another story. FedEx and UPS don't do postal delivery. IIRC, it is technically illegal for them to handle mail. That is protected for the subsidized USPS. They will still send a single sheet of paper if you want (like resumes/legal paperwork that has to be there by 4pm the next day) but they handle it as a package and charge way more than USPS would.
I'm talking 2 lanes each way at 70mph. Europe doesnt have a lot of those compared to the US. Sorry, you're an idiot.
For your states, notice how they are all 10mph apart. 22.7 and 25 are statistically grouped. Your own numbers support me. I'm done talking to morons. Good bye.
When I lived in Europe, it wasn't uncommon for a "highway" to be a two lane back road with a speed limit of around 55. By that measure, its easy to pad the numbers.
For kinetic energy, the point is that if you are in the car, it is already designed to handle far far more than the "extra" 20% difference between 22.7 and 25. If you are outside of the car, then it is already far too much. You're just as dead.
I don't like replacing intersections already in place. Unless the intersection is in need of major repair anyway it is just a waste of money to tear it down. For new construction, especially in residential zoning projects, I find it theoretically preferable. Due to peoples own preconceptions and unfamiliarity though, I think they are often over used.
Do you really need a citation to show that America has more highways? My state is the size of their entire continent.
How about a nice [citation needed] right back at you for
Only 4% of the fatal accidents occur on the highways
Since you were nice enough to provide a hard number, lets see where that comes from. Please also include numbers showing cases of multiple fatalities per crash, since you are also more likely to have everyone in the car die at higher speeds. Another point I saw someone elses post that I hadn't caught the first time, they are only counting drivers. How about including pedestrians too? After all, they are the ones that would be in more danger in an urban area. Being nice and squishy, getting hit at even 15mph is going to be a damper on their day. The difference between 22.7 and 25 might be statistically significant from a abstract perspective, but for real-life-on-the-ground scenarios it isn't.
We all know about the german autobahn. The thing is, it is an anomaly. You don't have grandmas driving it as a daily routine like you do here. The types of vehicles allowed on it is restricted. Contrary to popular belief, there actually are speed limits for many areas and/or vehicle types. (The recommended speed is only 80mph btw). The people driving really fast on it are tourists that are driving it for the sake of driving it and impatient young blokes. You know, the ones that go 90 in a 65 anyway.
I actually favor roundabouts when done properly. There are a few things that Europe has that we should adopt after all. Another is the metric system, and both roundabouts and the metric system share a common problem here in America. Namely, most people don't know how to use them, and resist learning.
I dont think i slow down when entering, but i have noticed that unless there is traffic ahead of me exiting where i can see it, i do slow down when exiting because it is a prime area for something to fall/be thrown/etc from the sides.
It's really pissing me off how almost every day another story comes out about how great they are doing things across the pond and how us dumb Americans are behind. Even our roads are under scrutiny? You know, the ones that we have dozens of times more than they all do combined? Their roads are cramped, twisted, uneven, and generally unsafe. (Much of that is because they were first made for horses!) Now we want to copy that to "encourage drivers to slow down?" Stupidest idea of the day. Nice how they try the line about how
Dutch drivers are less than half as likely as their American counterparts to die in a road accident.
but fail to mention if they are counting urban and highway accidents separate. Thats kind of a big difference as you are much more likely to die in a accident at 70 than 25, yet Europe has a tiny fraction of the highways we have. I can absolutely see some idiot city planner designing a new residential zone following these rules, only to have home shoppers refuse to buy anything in the area because the roads suck. People won't want to live with this crap. Further, they are happy over a reduction of 2.3mph? That's less than the margin of error on your speedometer! Hit someone at 22.7mph and you will do just as much damage as at 25mph, and with less visibility and tighter proximity, collisions are going to be more likely.
Maybe, maybe not. That they (allegedly) didn't make any effort at all is tantamount to an endorsement in my opinion. I'm sure you've heard the quote along the lines that "All evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing."
You're still missing that lead-210 is a product of uranium decay. The only way to have had lead-210 in a sample to begin with is if uranium is also present. Lead ore that is sitting in the ground is already polonium free.
Again, unless that lead is coming directly from uranium, there wont be any polonium in it. Polonium has a short half life so sitting in the ground as an ore it has already had ample time to decay to stable forms. With the exception of Po-210 (138 days) and Po-207 (8 days) they are all under a few hours. Most are counted in milliseconds or microseconds. If you really want polonium free lead, just let it sit for a while. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the natural concentration of Po-210 is.
Slashdot Mirror
Wounded enemy laying in the dirt w/o weapon != escaping enemy in van w/o weapon
If you were the driver for an insurgent operation and saw one of your comrades wounded would you carry your weapons when you jumped out to carry him into the van? They were assisting the (mistaken) enemy, and that classified them as enemies, regardless of the presence of weapons. Shooting a gun is only one way to be hostile.
don't know, I haven't seen the bullet wounds, and I have no idea if they teach bullet wounds in Iraqi schools. If you are a civilian, who probably doesn't even know the difference between 30mm and 7.62mm except that one sounds larger, are you sure you could, when you come about a bunch of bodies and a guy bleeding profoundly, identify the type of wound?
To start with, the rounds from the heli are over three times as large as a 7.62 round. That is a huge difference. Not everyone might be able to tell the difference, but those living in a warzone probably have seen their share of combat wounds and should know that something wasnt caused just by small arms.
.In a city where someone is shot every few hours, I may look carefully around a corner before going around it, yeah.
Going back a bit, in a city where someone is shot every few hours, its not smart to put yourself in the shooting zone. As for peeking around, you wouldn't huddle there in a group and point something around it though would you?.
"could they have avoided this mistake?" and "what can be done to avoid it in the future?".
Indeed, very important questions with answers ranging from better optics to see the targets, to encouraging civilian journalists to stay with their escort, out of a warzone, or cooperating with the military to report their position. Mistakes were made by all involved. The heli crews misinterpreted what was on the ground. The journalist was just acting plain dumb and suspicious. The good Samaritan went out of his way to put himself and his family in danger. Portraying the heli crew as the only ones responsible and as blood thirsty savages is a misrepresentation of the situation however.
1)If the original presumption that the first group were insurgents was correct (which it really did appear to have been at the time) then the presumption that the van was also is a valid logical jump.
2)They did find weapons with the group after the fact. That means that the gunner HAD correctly identified them.
3)It doesn't have to be mentioned in the chatter. I just picked those out of the blue to show that there are many other possible targets other than the heli itself.
I dont deny that mistakes were made, and I'd wager those involved still have nightmares about what they did. To crucify the soldiers and portray them as gun happy rambos is an intentional misrepresentation of what happened though.
PS. They were shot with a 30mm cannon. Those make a much different hole than a m16 or ak47 and anyone who saw it should have known that it was made by a MUCH bigger gun. That leaves the heli to have been the shooters. Not smart to put yourself between a heli and its targets, even if you are only trying to bring it to the nearest hospital.
They HAD followed procedure. They identified the targets (although incorrectly) and requested permission from command. You want to send a messenger down in person to check out every target? Not possible. It wasn't so much what they were carrying, but how they were handling it AND HOW THEY WERE ACTING AT THE CORNER that brought them under so much suspicion. Had they not been pointing something around the corner, they would have likely been left alone. Do you poke your grocery bag around corners?
They fired on the van because it was presumed to be insurgents trying to escape with a comrade. That would have been a valid shoot, notice how they requested permission to fire. The guy begging permission to shoot wasnt because he wanted to kill someone, but because the targets were escaping and he had little time left.
Also, let me point out that after arriving on the scene they DID find weapons with the group, just not as many as they had expected. The model is easy to assume because what else would they be carrying? The AK47 is the bread and butter of many millitary groups (legit and terrorist) around the world. They weren't going to have a HK G36 or anything...
They also didn't have to be firing at the heli. There are plenty of civilian targets around. When they were peaking around the corner it looks very much like they had something long and tubular, like an RPG. We dont know what was down the street, it might have been a school or playground for all we know. Thats just as good a target for some people.
They were not clearly unarmed. They were carrying weapons, including what appeared (and was being handled like) an RPG. The fact that you claim no weapons were mentioned in the chatter proves you didn't watch it, as there was frequent mention.
If you actually watch the video, its pretty hard to find a lot of fault with the heli crew. There were known combatants in the area and the way the guys on the ground were huddled at the corner looked exactly like preparations to fire what looked exactly like an RPG. They requested permission to engage (both times) and ceased fire when the targets were down. They did just what they were trained and expected to do. Its easy to sit back and blame them for a bad shoot, but in their position you would (or should) likely have done the same thing. Had that really been an RPG and they didn't fire then there would just be a video on WikiLeaks about how the army watched a couple insurgents launch and attack and sat back doing nothing, and blaming them for what ever deaths had happened as a result.
Its sad that some people died as a result, but a large part of the fault lies with them. They were doing things they should not have been doing in an area they should not have been doing it at, and they likely knew it. The good Samaritan with his kids was well intentioned, but didn't think it through either. There obviously had just been an attack and with two helicopters flying around, it doesn't take much to figure that the place is still being watched. Not that he deserved to die because of it, but it was unwise to put himself and his family in that position.
You're an idiot. Just because kids bounce doesn't mean you leave them to their own means. We do not need laws to protect adults from themselves. Down that road lies Big Brother.
I had a witty, insightful reply all written up. Then I noticed your sig and realized you're one of those socialist, progressive idiots.
I hate socialism.
Well, thats why California is already in the shitter...
There is a difference between a postal system and a package delivery system. Postal delivery is dying, but package delivery is another story. FedEx and UPS don't do postal delivery. IIRC, it is technically illegal for them to handle mail. That is protected for the subsidized USPS. They will still send a single sheet of paper if you want (like resumes/legal paperwork that has to be there by 4pm the next day) but they handle it as a package and charge way more than USPS would.
I'm talking 2 lanes each way at 70mph. Europe doesnt have a lot of those compared to the US. Sorry, you're an idiot.
For your states, notice how they are all 10mph apart. 22.7 and 25 are statistically grouped. Your own numbers support me.
I'm done talking to morons. Good bye.
When I lived in Europe, it wasn't uncommon for a "highway" to be a two lane back road with a speed limit of around 55. By that measure, its easy to pad the numbers.
For kinetic energy, the point is that if you are in the car, it is already designed to handle far far more than the "extra" 20% difference between 22.7 and 25. If you are outside of the car, then it is already far too much. You're just as dead.
I don't like replacing intersections already in place. Unless the intersection is in need of major repair anyway it is just a waste of money to tear it down. For new construction, especially in residential zoning projects, I find it theoretically preferable. Due to peoples own preconceptions and unfamiliarity though, I think they are often over used.
I second the motion.
How about a nice [citation needed] right back at you for
Only 4% of the fatal accidents occur on the highways
Since you were nice enough to provide a hard number, lets see where that comes from. Please also include numbers showing cases of multiple fatalities per crash, since you are also more likely to have everyone in the car die at higher speeds. Another point I saw someone elses post that I hadn't caught the first time, they are only counting drivers. How about including pedestrians too? After all, they are the ones that would be in more danger in an urban area. Being nice and squishy, getting hit at even 15mph is going to be a damper on their day. The difference between 22.7 and 25 might be statistically significant from a abstract perspective, but for real-life-on-the-ground scenarios it isn't.
We all know about the german autobahn. The thing is, it is an anomaly. You don't have grandmas driving it as a daily routine like you do here. The types of vehicles allowed on it is restricted. Contrary to popular belief, there actually are speed limits for many areas and/or vehicle types. (The recommended speed is only 80mph btw). The people driving really fast on it are tourists that are driving it for the sake of driving it and impatient young blokes. You know, the ones that go 90 in a 65 anyway.
I actually favor roundabouts when done properly. There are a few things that Europe has that we should adopt after all.
Another is the metric system, and both roundabouts and the metric system share a common problem here in America. Namely, most people don't know how to use them, and resist learning.
I dont think i slow down when entering, but i have noticed that unless there is traffic ahead of me exiting where i can see it, i do slow down when exiting because it is a prime area for something to fall/be thrown/etc from the sides.
Except that you spend more time on the road because there is more road to travel and you are going slower.
Dutch drivers are less than half as likely as their American counterparts to die in a road accident.
but fail to mention if they are counting urban and highway accidents separate. Thats kind of a big difference as you are much more likely to die in a accident at 70 than 25, yet Europe has a tiny fraction of the highways we have.
I can absolutely see some idiot city planner designing a new residential zone following these rules, only to have home shoppers refuse to buy anything in the area because the roads suck. People won't want to live with this crap.
Further, they are happy over a reduction of 2.3mph? That's less than the margin of error on your speedometer! Hit someone at 22.7mph and you will do just as much damage as at 25mph, and with less visibility and tighter proximity, collisions are going to be more likely.
basic social standards of courtesy and respect
Where I come from, those include defending those that aren't able to defend themselves.
Maybe, maybe not. That they (allegedly) didn't make any effort at all is tantamount to an endorsement in my opinion.
I'm sure you've heard the quote along the lines that "All evil needs to win is for good men to do nothing."
You're still missing that lead-210 is a product of uranium decay. The only way to have had lead-210 in a sample to begin with is if uranium is also present. Lead ore that is sitting in the ground is already polonium free.
Again, unless that lead is coming directly from uranium, there wont be any polonium in it. Polonium has a short half life so sitting in the ground as an ore it has already had ample time to decay to stable forms. With the exception of Po-210 (138 days) and Po-207 (8 days) they are all under a few hours. Most are counted in milliseconds or microseconds. If you really want polonium free lead, just let it sit for a while. Admittedly, I'm not sure what the natural concentration of Po-210 is.