Collateral Murder.

[Adam|Note]

So when he hesitated before shooting, and saw them bunched up, half of them not even looking up, he didn't think "Oh wait, we might have got this situation wrong"? Spread out leaving cover? THEY WERE RIGHT BY A FUCKING BACKALLY OF BUILDINGS.

/facepalm

The only reason he hesitated was either waiting for the order or being LOS'd. (I don't remember which, im assuming LOS)

I really don't understand how anyone can defend these people that got taken out. Are you THAT anti-american? They were confirmed to have AK-47's and suspected of having an RPG. Sorry, but everything in my body would tell me to blow them to shit and ask questions later. It's called survival instinct.

How was he waiting for the order when he was told THREE times to fire. I'm not anti-American, I haven't ridiculed anyone other than the gunner. Neither of us have been in a war, but we know that civilians carry guns for their own protection against the corrupt government and extremist groups present in Iraq. I find it strange how we'd know things like this but somone trained to operate the gun of an airship wouldn't consider it.

[lntoxicating]

How was he waiting for the order when he was told THREE times to fire. I'm not anti-American, I haven't ridiculed anyone other than the gunner. Neither of us have been in a war, but we know that civilians carry guns for their own protection against the corrupt government and extremist groups present in Iraq. I find it strange how we'd know things like this but somone trained to operate the gun of an airship wouldn't consider it.

Civilians carry ak 47s? lol? I'm not sure what type of logic you're attempting to come with on this but it isn't making much sense. You're telling me you'd rather "wait and see if they're hostile" and run the risk of getting shot down, rather than taking preemptive measures to ensure the safety of you and your crew? This, my friend, is why they're over there fighting and you're behind your computer ridiculing their actions. If it looks like a dog, shits on the ground and barks.. It's most like a DOG. If you understand my analogy...

[Adam|Note]

How was he waiting for the order when he was told THREE times to fire. I'm not anti-American, I haven't ridiculed anyone other than the gunner. Neither of us have been in a war, but we know that civilians carry guns for their own protection against the corrupt government and extremist groups present in Iraq. I find it strange how we'd know things like this but somone trained to operate the gun of an airship wouldn't consider it.

Civilians carry ak 47s? lol? I'm not sure what type of logic you're attempting to come with on this but it isn't making much sense. You're telling me you'd rather "wait and see if they're hostile" and run the risk of getting shot down, rather than taking preemptive measures to ensure the safety of you and your crew? This, my friend, is why they're over there fighting and you're behind your computer ridiculing their actions. If it looks like a dog, shits on the ground and barks.. It's most like a DOG. If you understand my analogy...

I'll use something that happened a while back as an example. A british vehicle went over a mine leaving all but one severely injured. A truck with several civillians came by and pretty much helped to save their lives. (I'll cut to the chase) It was later discovered that there were semi-automatic rifles under a rug in the truck that they were travelling in which they said they *needed* for protection.

As for waiting and running the risk, there was no need. How grouped up they were was enough of an indication that they weren't hostile.

And in all honesty, i'd be better over there in the seat of a gunship than you, as you'd let your personal opinions sway your decision for the worst. It wouldn't be long untill you slayed some "towel heads" that were innocent.

[TJ]

They need to make sure who the fuck they are shooting before they start fucking shooting -.-

[Cameron]

That's terrible.

[Noah]

I agree, the gunner was a retard...

but at least he didn't fire an RPG into a crowd deliberately to see how many civilians he could hit before he blows himself up to meet 72 virgins

[Casey`]

Just wow.....

[lntoxicating]

I'll use something that happened a while back as an example. A british vehicle went over a mine leaving all but one severely injured. A truck with several civillians came by and pretty much helped to save their lives. (I'll cut to the chase) It was later discovered that there were semi-automatic rifles under a rug in the truck that they were travelling in which they said they *needed* for protection.

As for waiting and running the risk, there was no need. How grouped up they were was enough of an indication that they weren't hostile.

And in all honesty, i'd be better over there in the seat of a gunship than you, as you'd let your personal opinions sway your decision for the worst. It wouldn't be long untill you slayed some "towel heads" that were innocent.

Yes, but I'd be alive. You'd come home in a box because you wanted to "make sure" they were aggressive while getting an ak 47 shot through your cranium. Great logic. Great logic.

The fact of the matter is it's all speculation. You cannot tell just by looking at them who is a terrorist and who isn't. They all look the same in that aspect. He did his job and he and his crew survived. That's a win in my book.

If they were civilians with AK's, don't you think they would've made themselves noticeable and maybe raised their guns up or something to show they are not hostile? You can only speculate that they were not hostile. You would be dead.

[Shut Up Kid]

i can see why they shot the civilians because they were aiding and abetting what looked to be terrorist. But they did not have to fire into a crowd of what could be civilians or terrorist.  now i dont have 20/20 vision and i could see that that was not an rpg he was holding and im sure they had much better vision then i do.  they should have tried to indentify them to see if they would pose a threat to them or not.  yes some were holding AK's and RPG's but still, they didnt pose a threat to them they should not have opened fire, especially with civilians nearby.

[Noah]

i can see why they shot the civilians because they were aiding and abetting what looked to be terrorist. But they did not have to fire into a crowd of what could be civilians or terrorist.  now i dont have 20/20 vision and i could see that that was not an rpg he was holding and im sure they had much better vision then i do.  they should have tried to indentify them to see if they would pose a threat to them or not.  yes some were holding AK's and RPG's but still, they didnt pose a threat to them they should not have opened fire, especially with civilians nearby.

in a war, when the enemies are holding weapons... you shoot at them

[Shut Up Kid]

i can see why they shot the civilians because they were aiding and abetting what looked to be terrorist. But they did not have to fire into a crowd of what could be civilians or terrorist.  now i dont have 20/20 vision and i could see that that was not an rpg he was holding and im sure they had much better vision then i do.  they should have tried to indentify them to see if they would pose a threat to them or not.  yes some were holding AK's and RPG's but still, they didnt pose a threat to them they should not have opened fire, especially with civilians nearby.

in a war, when the enemies are holding weapons... you shoot at them

but what if they had no intention to shoot at you or weren't shooting at you.

[Acclaimed|Jordan]

I am with intoxicating.

If I was one of the soldiers and I saw someone that looked like he had a gun. I would shoot him. If I would have let him go he could have went on to kill one of my countrymen. This is war. It isn't meant to be pretty, there are tons of innocent casualties. What disgusts me the most is that you people care so much about these two guys just because they were something in the media industry when THOUSANDS of other innocent people die.

i can see why they shot the civilians because they were aiding and abetting what looked to be terrorist. But they did not have to fire into a crowd of what could be civilians or terrorist.  now i dont have 20/20 vision and i could see that that was not an rpg he was holding and im sure they had much better vision then i do.  they should have tried to indentify them to see if they would pose a threat to them or not.  yes some were holding AK's and RPG's but still, they didnt pose a threat to them they should not have opened fire, especially with civilians nearby.

in a war, when the enemies are holding weapons... you shoot at them

but what if they had no intention to shoot at you or weren't shooting at you.

Is this really a question? Can you be that stupid? I would love to see you go to war and use that mentality... You will be sent back in a bag.

[Shut Up Kid]

^ i wasn't being serious, im not an idiot lol

[THC]

And the shooting of the wounded? I'm pretty sure that's against the Geneva conventions.

I'm so tired of people trying to play politics when they, themselves, have not been to war.

THIS

I realize that this is terrible and racist to say but I would never ever give any of those people the benefit of the doubt. it's WAR. If I saw a person that I thought had a weapon, I would react this same way.

we need to get mad at soldiers for trying to save lives?

no you're right..I bet they were covering the mic saying "hey actually those are just cameras but lets kill these motherfuckers im bored"

I'm guessing OP isn't American?

[P4|Pink]

FUCKING AMERICA for you. Period.

[Adam|Note]

I'll use something that happened a while back as an example. A british vehicle went over a mine leaving all but one severely injured. A truck with several civillians came by and pretty much helped to save their lives. (I'll cut to the chase) It was later discovered that there were semi-automatic rifles under a rug in the truck that they were travelling in which they said they *needed* for protection.

As for waiting and running the risk, there was no need. How grouped up they were was enough of an indication that they weren't hostile.

And in all honesty, i'd be better over there in the seat of a gunship than you, as you'd let your personal opinions sway your decision for the worst. It wouldn't be long untill you slayed some "towel heads" that were innocent.

Yes, but I'd be alive. You'd come home in a box because you wanted to "make sure" they were aggressive while getting an ak 47 shot through your cranium. Great logic. Great logic.

The fact of the matter is it's all speculation. You cannot tell just by looking at them who is a terrorist and who isn't. They all look the same in that aspect. He did his job and he and his crew survived. That's a win in my book.

If they were civilians with AK's, don't you think they would've made themselves noticeable and maybe raised their guns up or something to show they are not hostile? You can only speculate that they were not hostile. You would be dead.

No i'd be still alive, it was unbelievably obvious they weren't going to open fire, i'll say again they were all grouped up, over half of them not even looking in the same direction as the gunship. Seems like a lot of them weren't even paying attention to it.

If things were done your way the US army would be just as bad as the extremists; and in this case they are.

[Hex`]

And people wonder why the people in Iraq hate americans so much... Thats sick, and Intoxicating, there is nothing that can give justice to their deeds, and you're saying that some of the posters are "anti-american" for feeling sad for those innocent civilians? You're disgusting, you can't back-up those soldiers for what they did.

[gfdgfd]

Until any of you are in the position where you think you see somebody aiming a rocket launcher at you and your friends, do not judge them for reacting so swiftly, it was the cameraman's fault for holding something big and shoulder mounted at a fucking enemy army helicopter, he was a straight up moron.

[lntoxicating]

No i'd be still alive, it was unbelievably obvious they weren't going to open fire, i'll say again they were all grouped up, over half of them not even looking in the same direction as the gunship. Seems like a lot of them weren't even paying attention to it.

If things were done your way the US army would be just as bad as the extremists; and in this case they are.

Comparing preemptive measure to terrorism is laughable. They had guns, they werent sitting in a restaurant waiting for us to car bomb them. Stop being so ignorant to the facts. This really isn't an argument you'll ever win.

[lntoxicating]

And people wonder why the people in Iraq hate americans so much... Thats sick, and Intoxicating, there is nothing that can give justice to their deeds, and you're saying that some of the posters are "anti-american" for feeling sad for those innocent civilians? You're disgusting, you can't back-up those soldiers for what they did.

I'm not going to respond to this pity-party. All I'm going to do is tell you to read the rest of my posts in this thread. Yes, I can and WILL back them up. Stop being such a girl and face reality.

[d72]

As bad as it seems...

I agree with lntoxicated.

We have to face the facts... Although I haven't watched the video due to being at school presently, I think I have taken enough information in to effectively contribute until the video is watched. You have to take into account what exactly is going on there right now before assumptions are made. Believe me, I'm completely against all combat in the Middle East myself, however you have to realize what it is exactly what's going on there. These soldiers are faced with so much shit constantly every day, dealing with unforgiving acts of corruption and death, as well as complete neglect and disrespect from multiple groups worldwide. There have been countless number of allied deaths from these terrorists, and honestly, from what I've heard, the actions of the helicopter pilots might be sick, but for safety reasons can be deemed as necessary.

If somebody is aiming and pointing a shoulder-mounted object at an allied aircraft while that aircraft is currently in flight, there's absolutely no fucking way that the allied force is going to communicate with ground forces beforehand to make sure that it's not an RPG. Instead, they're going to shoot the individual who, according to the posts posted, was clearly on his own away from others, and actually looked threatening towards the individuals on the craft.

Not sure if this is a proper analogy, but this can be related to passive and agressive bees. When we see bees, our first instinct is to get completely defensive and evasive as possible, regardless of whether or not the bees are aggressive or passive. If a bee flies towards us, we're going to swat at it in an attempt to kill it for our safety. Do we check the bees to see if they're really aggressive, or are just interested in us for wearing a yellow shirt? Do we take out a magnifying glass or a microscope to check the bee before we kill it or let it go about doing its work? No, we would rather kill the thing because we assume right away that it's going to sting us and cause us bodily harm. Just like the cameraman appeared to the pilots.

I'm sorry, but as blunt as it sounds it's all the truth. If something is threatening to an individual said individual is going to shoot first and ask questions later, because as humans we rely on instinct and instinct alone when faced in certain situations. I highly doubt that the helicopter's gunner opened fire just to see how many civilians he could kill.

[Adam|Note]

No i'd be still alive, it was unbelievably obvious they weren't going to open fire, i'll say again they were all grouped up, over half of them not even looking in the same direction as the gunship. Seems like a lot of them weren't even paying attention to it.

If things were done your way the US army would be just as bad as the extremists; and in this case they are.

Comparing preemptive measure to terrorism is laughable. They had guns, they werent sitting in a restaurant waiting for us to car bomb them. Stop being so ignorant to the facts. This really isn't an argument you'll ever win.

What's laughable is your argument. Your "shoot first ask later" attitude would cause more harm than good.

[Mester]

It gets a bit suspicious when they say ''Look at those dead bastards''.

[Loco]

wow...

[lntoxicating]

No i'd be still alive, it was unbelievably obvious they weren't going to open fire, i'll say again they were all grouped up, over half of them not even looking in the same direction as the gunship. Seems like a lot of them weren't even paying attention to it.

If things were done your way the US army would be just as bad as the extremists; and in this case they are.

Comparing preemptive measure to terrorism is laughable. They had guns, they werent sitting in a restaurant waiting for us to car bomb them. Stop being so ignorant to the facts. This really isn't an argument you'll ever win.

What's laughable is your argument. Your "shoot first ask later" attitude would cause more harm than good.

I suppose that's why I'll be alive and you'll be another statistic. You're attempting to generalize what I said and ultimately you're arguing the semantics of this whole ordeal as if they ran into a crowd of civilians and opened fire. You're totally missing the facts and buying into the propaganda that these people are attempting to "expose" by making this video. In essence you're not even attempting to think for yourself; You're only thinking what the video makers want you to think.

Don't be a sheep.