@smotpokerYou do realize there were troops on the ground right? Bradley's driving in front of what looks like an RPG. 9/10, your scenario will end with an RPG killing 4 US soldiers.No offense, but small groups of mens with what looks like weapons on their shoulders rarely enter a battlefield for reasons other than battle. In fact the only one I know of who would do so is a reporter, and they are supposed to wear identifying clothes so the chopper pilot would have known. Unfortunately they decided to go into battle without advising troops in the area and wearing no identification.
Not to mention you can clearly see the projectile protruding from the front.Of course people are going to assume wikileaks interpretation that the camera was mistaken for an RPG . . . idiots.
Swellin- Why the f**k are you so angry, and who's lying? No one ever said it was ok to shoot at the van. Who the hell even said that?How the hell was a helicopter up in the air supposed to know who was in the van. They saw a man peek around a corner with a large dark cylindrical object that appeared to be an rpg, so instead of possible getting shot out of the f**king air they killed him first.You need to calm down and take a f**k'n chill pill homie.
z0rk, you're a f**king retard. What do you think happens in a f**king battle? Lollipop and teddy bear give outs? Hopefully your thinking is illogical and ignorant only because you don't know the full story of the video. Read the back story then watch the full video thinking that they are insurgents and, hopefully, you'll understand something.
I have read the full story behind the video. Even reading the full story shooting the van is wrong, and the gunner should be tried for war crimes. It is never right to shoot someone who is clearly not a threat. Even the gunner states they are collecting the wounded. The correct course of action would have been to surround them with ground forces to stop them from leaving the scene, only shoot if threatened/fired upon.
So you, as an American, is openly verbally attacking your own "terrorist state" that "invades" other countries out of "arrogance" in order to "free" their people?What's funny is you get 150+ ups for this comment while complaining about other people?s logic?Last time I checked, freedom is not solely an American ideal. It?s not that complicated, either you accept our overall goal is to free Iraqi people, or you don?t accept that as our goal. If you don?t like the war, that?s fine and understandable. But if you really believe what you say, feel free to leave the country, no one is stopping you.
shecoApr 7, 2010
if only there was a way for the soldiers to get a closer look, like.. I don't know... binoculars?
naieveApr 7, 2010
@smotpokerYou do realize there were troops on the ground right? Bradley's driving in front of what looks like an RPG. 9/10, your scenario will end with an RPG killing 4 US soldiers.No offense, but small groups of mens with what looks like weapons on their shoulders rarely enter a battlefield for reasons other than battle. In fact the only one I know of who would do so is a reporter, and they are supposed to wear identifying clothes so the chopper pilot would have known. Unfortunately they decided to go into battle without advising troops in the area and wearing no identification.
zinjashikeApr 8, 2010
Not to mention you can clearly see the projectile protruding from the front.Of course people are going to assume wikileaks interpretation that the camera was mistaken for an RPG . . . idiots.
buddhabadboyApr 8, 2010
nope nothing original, but someone has to keep saying it right? Cause Americans just don't get it...
Closed AccountApr 8, 2010
There will never be a tribunal. They acted correctly within RoE. In fact I'm willing to publicly bet you $1000 cash. Money where your mouth is.
qwed88Apr 8, 2010
Swellin- Why the f**k are you so angry, and who's lying? No one ever said it was ok to shoot at the van. Who the hell even said that?How the hell was a helicopter up in the air supposed to know who was in the van. They saw a man peek around a corner with a large dark cylindrical object that appeared to be an rpg, so instead of possible getting shot out of the f**king air they killed him first.You need to calm down and take a f**k'n chill pill homie.
leekmiblesApr 9, 2010
z0rk, you're a f**king retard. What do you think happens in a f**king battle? Lollipop and teddy bear give outs? Hopefully your thinking is illogical and ignorant only because you don't know the full story of the video. Read the back story then watch the full video thinking that they are insurgents and, hopefully, you'll understand something.
z0rkApr 9, 2010
I have read the full story behind the video. Even reading the full story shooting the van is wrong, and the gunner should be tried for war crimes. It is never right to shoot someone who is clearly not a threat. Even the gunner states they are collecting the wounded. The correct course of action would have been to surround them with ground forces to stop them from leaving the scene, only shoot if threatened/fired upon.
chippy948Apr 9, 2010
So you, as an American, is openly verbally attacking your own "terrorist state" that "invades" other countries out of "arrogance" in order to "free" their people?What's funny is you get 150+ ups for this comment while complaining about other people?s logic?Last time I checked, freedom is not solely an American ideal. It?s not that complicated, either you accept our overall goal is to free Iraqi people, or you don?t accept that as our goal. If you don?t like the war, that?s fine and understandable. But if you really believe what you say, feel free to leave the country, no one is stopping you.
ieatskunkApr 13, 2010
Hmm...should i go into a warzone or not.....let me think on this...
ieatskunkApr 13, 2010
People don't want to hear what you are saying because then they couldn't preach about how evil the US is.