Not this shit again. Iraqi citizens are allowed to have AK-47s. Carrying one is not an excuse to be gunned down. If the gunner was able to 'see' an RPG and AK-47, they would have also seen the children in the van. So either he saw both, in which case he is a cunt, or he saw neither, in which case he's a cunt. Also, a camera with a telescopic lens doesn't look anything like an RPG. The gunner's video was a lot clearer than the YouTube-encoded version, and is displayed in a reticle over the eye, providing a much larger image. He knew what he was doing - that much is obvious.
The commentary by the gunner indicated he was simply exaggerating any perceived threat. He saw the camera tripod, and instantly reported multiple people with AK-47s. That's bullshit.
They've actually had brief periods where they've performed actual journalism. From Wikipedia:
For a time the Enquirer sought recognition for journalistic research and news scoops. In 2001, the Enquirer uncovered that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child. Salacious details of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair were first made public by the Enquirer. The Enquirer was regarded by some as having the best media coverage of the O. J. Simpson murder trial. For example, when a distinctive footprint from a Bruno Magli shoe was found at the crime scene, Simpson vehemently denied owning such a shoe. The Enquirer, however, published a photo by a freelance photographer showing Simpson in the shoes, then dug up another one again showing him in such a pair.
Tiny, miniscule bombs that deploy life-saving airbags. They're only dangerous is you don't wear a seatbelt. The fact you'll be happy with your kid driving at 70mph into something hard with only more hard things for them to bounce off is staggering.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. The US doesn't have the right to get all scared and start lashing out at people it perceives as threats (without any evidence). AK-47s are perfectly legal for anyone to have in Iraq. The RPG the gunner claimed to have seen didn't exist. I'd like to see the source for your "embedded with enemy troops" claim. No markings on the minivan? That's what it'd take someone to not fire on a family picking up a wounded man crawling down the street? You sick fuck. I hope you never get invaded and have to put up with that shit - you'd hit the roof.
The gunner wasn't given an order to shoot at those people. He told his commanding officer that he saw guns that he clearly didn't see. He was clearly aching to kill some people. He trumped up the situation, saying they saw multiple armed people, and asked to engage them. This isn't a case of a superior officer commanding someone to do something, but someone asking for permission to do something they clearly know is wrong. Disgusting.
But they didn't surrender after the second one. They surrendered after Russia invaded, and even then they got their conditions in. It seems like a massive show of force to the Russians, at the expense of the Japanese. Pathetic.
1. There was no RPG. 2. The children were with their family who were driving through the area (people do live in Iraq), and they saw a severely wounded man and had the audacity to try to help. That cost them all their lives.
If the gunner actually used his brain instead of itchy trigger finger, and didn't see a tripod on a guy's shoulder and jump to the conclusion that there are five or so armed people, they would all be alive. Yes, shit happens in wars, but that is no excuse to ignore the woefully under-trained state most US troops enter the battlefield in.
The US military shouldn't be shooting at people they only think have weapons - they should be shooting at people they know have weapons, and know said people are shooting at them. You are insinuating that every person in Iraq who hasn't actively identified themselves to US troops is a real target. That is pathetic.
They don't wear uniforms because: a) there is no organised army for them to fight with, and b) if they did they'd be killed immediately. If a people is put up against an overwhelming force, of course they'll stop wearing uniforms. The British had plans to do just that if the Germans invaded in WWII, and indeed the SAS often didn't wear uniforms when out killing bunches of people. Stomping your feet and getting upset because the other guys aren't playing fair is pathetic.
Iraqis are allowed rifles. That's not a reason to kill the person holding the alleged rifle, and the dozen or so people around him, and the family trying to rescue one of the injured people. The "RPG" in question was a camera tripod.
It seemed to me the gunner was aching to kill some people. When they "identified" the "rifle", their radio message claimed multiple people with weapons, when they saw one alleged weapon (which turned out to be a camera tripod). Then they saw the flat, round shape of a camera pointing round the side of a building, and suddenly that became an RPG. They were looking to kill.
They certainly were heavy-handed, sometimes killing a bunch of innocent people at a time. For the most part, however, intelligence gathering was the most effective weapon.
Totally justified? Shooting at a family trying to rescue a dying man, who was clearly unarmed? That's fine? And if one of the guys has an RPG (which the gunner never saw properly), does that mean they are allowed to kill everyone in the vicinity? You can hear from the audio that they saw one guy with something on his shoulder, then announced over the radio that there were multiple armed people. They were obviously hyping up the threat these people trained - either due to poor training, being cunts, or both.
They didn't ID anyone. The square was quiet, with about 10 folks walking around. One of the guys had a tripod on his back, and the camera looked (to the gunner alone) like an RPG. That was enough evidence for them to open fire with a 30mm cannon into a crowd of people, then shoot at some family in a minivan who had the audacity to help a wounded man (who was crawling around in the street), eventually killing everyone. To top it all off, the A humvee arriving on the scene drove over one of the dead bodies. Yes, war is brutal and messy, but if the gunner was trained properly, none of that would have happened. If one of the folks had an AK-47 (which Iraqis are legally allowed) or an RPG (which they're not), they could have sent for the troops on the ground to investigate, who were a hundred metres or so away. Lazy stupid trigger-happy gunner.
It wasn't a hostile environment. There was no fighting in the square, the people were just milling around. From the footage they saw a tripod and a shoulder strap, and then they saw a camera lens before losing sight of the whole group of people. The gunner was a fucking moron.
They saw a shoulder strap and that, to them, was license to kill people. And yes, in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, an AK-47 is perfectly acceptable as a self-defence weapon, and are allowed to be owned. They then shot at a guy who was clearly unarmed (almost literally), and his rescuers. If the guy in the Apache could see the alleged gun, he could clearly see the children in the SUV. As it was, he saw neither until it was all over, indicating a disgusting lack of care for civilians. Fuck him.
An accident? They clearly didn't know what they were looking at, and instead of paying all due care and attention before attacking people they had not clearly seen were carrying weapons (which, by the way, Iraqis could and can carry legally), and had not seen using those weapons against anyone, they simply opened fire, repeatedly. They were negligent, not accident-prone. Don't try to make this a simple mistake. They didn't even see a gun, yet decided to destroy a family trying to help a wounded man crawling around in the street. Fuck them.
If they're not sure of what's an RPG and what's a camera, they shouldn't fire. It's that simple. They had ground troops 100m away - why weren't they used, instead of the idiots in the Apaches? How could they be mistaken for insurgents? Because they were in a street? Fucking pathetic.
If the gunner can't see two children, how can he see the gun he alleges was there, that enabled them to attack the people trying to help? The video is linked at the top of the page - it's rather obvious where all this happens. He either saw the children and the gun, in which case he's an evil cunt, or he didn't see either, in which case he's an evil cunt.
This is what happens when you don't train those kids enough, and simply give them more and more toys in some vain attempt to make up for a lack of training. It's fucking disgusting. Yes, it happens, but no we should not accept it. The cover-up is even more disgusting. No wonder loads of folks around the world hates the US military.
How did they know the person with the alleged gun wasn't on their side? It was (and is) perfectly legal for Iraqi citizens to have AK-47s, and the vast majority of Iraqi citizens were not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or whatever they were called those days.
Slashdot Mirror
Not this shit again. Iraqi citizens are allowed to have AK-47s. Carrying one is not an excuse to be gunned down. If the gunner was able to 'see' an RPG and AK-47, they would have also seen the children in the van. So either he saw both, in which case he is a cunt, or he saw neither, in which case he's a cunt. Also, a camera with a telescopic lens doesn't look anything like an RPG. The gunner's video was a lot clearer than the YouTube-encoded version, and is displayed in a reticle over the eye, providing a much larger image. He knew what he was doing - that much is obvious.
The commentary by the gunner indicated he was simply exaggerating any perceived threat. He saw the camera tripod, and instantly reported multiple people with AK-47s. That's bullshit.
"Shit happens" is not a valid legal defence.
For a time the Enquirer sought recognition for journalistic research and news scoops. In 2001, the Enquirer uncovered that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child. Salacious details of the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair were first made public by the Enquirer. The Enquirer was regarded by some as having the best media coverage of the O. J. Simpson murder trial. For example, when a distinctive footprint from a Bruno Magli shoe was found at the crime scene, Simpson vehemently denied owning such a shoe. The Enquirer, however, published a photo by a freelance photographer showing Simpson in the shoes, then dug up another one again showing him in such a pair.
Actually, ACCESS Co. owns BeOS, after they bought PalmSource.
Media Markt != German Government :) The distinction is pretty obvious, as MM clearly states "Ich bin doch nicht blöd".
Tiny, miniscule bombs that deploy life-saving airbags. They're only dangerous is you don't wear a seatbelt. The fact you'll be happy with your kid driving at 70mph into something hard with only more hard things for them to bounce off is staggering.
Yeah, you missed the 40-minute uncut version of the footage, it seems.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. The US doesn't have the right to get all scared and start lashing out at people it perceives as threats (without any evidence). AK-47s are perfectly legal for anyone to have in Iraq. The RPG the gunner claimed to have seen didn't exist. I'd like to see the source for your "embedded with enemy troops" claim. No markings on the minivan? That's what it'd take someone to not fire on a family picking up a wounded man crawling down the street? You sick fuck. I hope you never get invaded and have to put up with that shit - you'd hit the roof.
No moral dilemma? They shot at a minivan with kids in it. Awesome.
The gunner wasn't given an order to shoot at those people. He told his commanding officer that he saw guns that he clearly didn't see. He was clearly aching to kill some people. He trumped up the situation, saying they saw multiple armed people, and asked to engage them. This isn't a case of a superior officer commanding someone to do something, but someone asking for permission to do something they clearly know is wrong. Disgusting.
But they didn't surrender after the second one. They surrendered after Russia invaded, and even then they got their conditions in. It seems like a massive show of force to the Russians, at the expense of the Japanese. Pathetic.
1. There was no RPG.
2. The children were with their family who were driving through the area (people do live in Iraq), and they saw a severely wounded man and had the audacity to try to help. That cost them all their lives.
If the gunner actually used his brain instead of itchy trigger finger, and didn't see a tripod on a guy's shoulder and jump to the conclusion that there are five or so armed people, they would all be alive. Yes, shit happens in wars, but that is no excuse to ignore the woefully under-trained state most US troops enter the battlefield in.
The US military shouldn't be shooting at people they only think have weapons - they should be shooting at people they know have weapons, and know said people are shooting at them. You are insinuating that every person in Iraq who hasn't actively identified themselves to US troops is a real target. That is pathetic.
They don't wear uniforms because: a) there is no organised army for them to fight with, and b) if they did they'd be killed immediately. If a people is put up against an overwhelming force, of course they'll stop wearing uniforms. The British had plans to do just that if the Germans invaded in WWII, and indeed the SAS often didn't wear uniforms when out killing bunches of people. Stomping your feet and getting upset because the other guys aren't playing fair is pathetic.
Iraqis are allowed rifles. That's not a reason to kill the person holding the alleged rifle, and the dozen or so people around him, and the family trying to rescue one of the injured people. The "RPG" in question was a camera tripod.
It seemed to me the gunner was aching to kill some people. When they "identified" the "rifle", their radio message claimed multiple people with weapons, when they saw one alleged weapon (which turned out to be a camera tripod). Then they saw the flat, round shape of a camera pointing round the side of a building, and suddenly that became an RPG. They were looking to kill.
They certainly were heavy-handed, sometimes killing a bunch of innocent people at a time. For the most part, however, intelligence gathering was the most effective weapon.
Which video were you watching? There wasn't a single gun in the whole video, until the US troops turned up.
Totally justified? Shooting at a family trying to rescue a dying man, who was clearly unarmed? That's fine? And if one of the guys has an RPG (which the gunner never saw properly), does that mean they are allowed to kill everyone in the vicinity? You can hear from the audio that they saw one guy with something on his shoulder, then announced over the radio that there were multiple armed people. They were obviously hyping up the threat these people trained - either due to poor training, being cunts, or both.
They didn't ID anyone. The square was quiet, with about 10 folks walking around. One of the guys had a tripod on his back, and the camera looked (to the gunner alone) like an RPG. That was enough evidence for them to open fire with a 30mm cannon into a crowd of people, then shoot at some family in a minivan who had the audacity to help a wounded man (who was crawling around in the street), eventually killing everyone. To top it all off, the A humvee arriving on the scene drove over one of the dead bodies. Yes, war is brutal and messy, but if the gunner was trained properly, none of that would have happened. If one of the folks had an AK-47 (which Iraqis are legally allowed) or an RPG (which they're not), they could have sent for the troops on the ground to investigate, who were a hundred metres or so away. Lazy stupid trigger-happy gunner.
It wasn't a hostile environment. There was no fighting in the square, the people were just milling around. From the footage they saw a tripod and a shoulder strap, and then they saw a camera lens before losing sight of the whole group of people. The gunner was a fucking moron.
They saw a shoulder strap and that, to them, was license to kill people. And yes, in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, an AK-47 is perfectly acceptable as a self-defence weapon, and are allowed to be owned. They then shot at a guy who was clearly unarmed (almost literally), and his rescuers. If the guy in the Apache could see the alleged gun, he could clearly see the children in the SUV. As it was, he saw neither until it was all over, indicating a disgusting lack of care for civilians. Fuck him.
An accident? They clearly didn't know what they were looking at, and instead of paying all due care and attention before attacking people they had not clearly seen were carrying weapons (which, by the way, Iraqis could and can carry legally), and had not seen using those weapons against anyone, they simply opened fire, repeatedly. They were negligent, not accident-prone. Don't try to make this a simple mistake. They didn't even see a gun, yet decided to destroy a family trying to help a wounded man crawling around in the street. Fuck them.
If they're not sure of what's an RPG and what's a camera, they shouldn't fire. It's that simple. They had ground troops 100m away - why weren't they used, instead of the idiots in the Apaches? How could they be mistaken for insurgents? Because they were in a street? Fucking pathetic.
If the gunner can't see two children, how can he see the gun he alleges was there, that enabled them to attack the people trying to help? The video is linked at the top of the page - it's rather obvious where all this happens. He either saw the children and the gun, in which case he's an evil cunt, or he didn't see either, in which case he's an evil cunt.
This is what happens when you don't train those kids enough, and simply give them more and more toys in some vain attempt to make up for a lack of training. It's fucking disgusting. Yes, it happens, but no we should not accept it. The cover-up is even more disgusting. No wonder loads of folks around the world hates the US military.
How did they know the person with the alleged gun wasn't on their side? It was (and is) perfectly legal for Iraqi citizens to have AK-47s, and the vast majority of Iraqi citizens were not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or whatever they were called those days.