Horrific video from Iraq

[benburch]

Friends,

You have to see this to believe it. Go to my site, http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org/ and scan down to the section titled "If you ever wonder why the Iraqi People hate us..." and play the video linked there.

-Ben

[shrlnaw]

1. Can't find it...

I can't seem to locate that section. Could you help me out?

[Cannikin]

4. click the word 'video' in the why they hate us paragraph.

[Clark4VotingRights]

2. I get a dead link.

eom

[tkmorris]

3. Bad link <eom>

[Cannikin]

6. I got a radio show....

[benburch]

5. Link now fixed

Sorry!!! I fumbled with the paste key!

[Cannikin]

7. still wont play..

[benburch]

8. When you get to the page, hit refresh...

... I just tried it from here and it did play.

Otherwise, download the link and play it with Media Player.

-Ben

[dutchdemocrat]

13. Paste the link .

So people can watch the video instead of looking for it.


If you are talking about the 224Helicopter_Kills video it is right here

http://www.caribsailing.com/images/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg

[benburch]

17. Yes, that is the same video clip.

If anybody knows any more history of it, please let me know.

Since my source was unsure of its exact origin, I can only relate the story that he said came with the video. I want to know the facts of this one.

-Ben

[Columbia]

18. The video has been posted here several times

Supposedly there is a longer video that shows the people in the video with an RPG. The Apaches were also supposedly following these men after an earlier attack on a convoy. I have not seen this longer version, but I think there is a story linked to this video somewhere as well that explains this.

[petronius]

20. ABC has a longer story

abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/apache_video_040109-1.html

[benburch]

22. Thanks!

I'll post that link, too.

[countmyvote4real]

9. OMG

Where did you get that?

[benburch]

10. It was on a web site...

... where they were crowing about how effective the Apache guns are.

[wuushew]

11. Is combat footage considered public domain?

I really doubt the pentagon would have released this willingly. Bravo for the mole in the military.

[benburch]

15. If not...

then they can come and arrest me.

Fsck it. I cannot support this sort of murder one more second.

[DrWeird]

12. Won't be long...

before the war mongering apologists with blood on their hands show up to try to justify that.

[Guaranteed]

14. Just a heads up...that particular section of the page doesn't show up on

AOL.

I had to switch to IE.

[Renew Deal]

16. I heard about a video like this out of Afghanistan

pre-Iraq. I would like to know more. That was some gory shit.

[manfriend]

54. afghan video

http://www.sftt.org/AC130_Gunship.wmv

[manfriend]

56. here's a link to the mpeg

http://www.nata2.info/war/AC-130U_gunship_video_hi.mpg

It's a big file.

[manfriend]

19. "Horrific video from Iraq"

I'd want to see the rest of the video before I pass judgment. I think it's inflammatory, at best, to accuse these guys of cold blooded murder based on a partial tape. I know lots of soldiers and they're not like that. Why are these Iraqis out "working the fields" at night? I'm sure there's a curfew and they know it. This is obviously an infrared video, the work 'flir' is on the video. Forward Looking Infrared.

[DrWeird]

21. "there's a curfew and they know it"

Ah, the old blame the victim approach.

Sure she was raped, but we don't know the whole story, maybe she was acting like a slut.

[mike1963]

24. Well (slapping forehead), of COURSE if they were out after dark, its

certain they were engaging in 'terism'. How could I have missed that?
I couldn't help wondering about your little avatar...

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

31. Maybe he never saw a Dreidel before?

Some people are nearly ignorant of Judaism.

To them I suggest this web site; http://www.jewfaq.org/

[mike1963]

33. See my reply # 32.

geez.....

[mike1963]

32. No, I didn't say any such thing. Are you?

I know a lot of Jews. Leon Kravetz and Stuart Goodall are two of my very closest friends since about 1950. I can put you in touch with them if you have any sort of idea I'm anti-Semitic. Actually, I can't recall ever knowing a filthy Jew - every one I've ever known has been extremely clean. You will have to speak for yourself, though.
:eyes:
My comment about the avatar was prompted by me wondering if your opinion might have been influenced by an attachment to the policies of Ariel Sharon with which I happen to disagree. Or is it politically incorrect to dissent with the Israeli leadership as I do with the American "administration"?

Edit: spelling bungle

Shalom

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcuno]

44. It's also "in fashion" to call those who don't agree w/ Israel's policies

anti-semitic.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

47. I think the RPG they had....

was more indicative of terrorist activities than being out after dark. Another poster in another thread said that it's been reported that these guys were meeting up after attacking a US convoy, where US troops were injured. If this is true, and it was in fact an RPG launcher that they were throwing into the field, then I can't see how it was unjustified.

[manfriend]

23. Here's what rose society didn't tell you

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/apache_video_040109-1.html

Rules of Engagement
Videotape Shows U.S. Helicopter Crew Firing on Suspected Iraqi Insurgents

The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.

The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

Nighttime Scene

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men.

The White Rose Society should show the entire video. Instead they edited out the Iraqis handling the weapons. The original video in mpeg format was over 12 megs, rose society's is just over 3 megs.

[benburch]

25. Before you go accusing folks...

... know that this is all of the video I have, and I was asking for more information.

I find your response to be rather more than mean spirited, especially as I had already posted the link to the ABC News story.

[mike1963]

29. You can be assured many of us have seen the whole video.

And there is no way to know precisely what the "long thing wrapped in cloth" actually was. But even if it WAS a RPG, the guy was apparently trying to get RID of it. So any theory that he and it were a potential danger to the occupying presence is simply convenient speculation. It is of course in accordance with the pre-emptive policy espoused by the disgusting bastards in the Bush administration...kill 'em all, let gawd sort 'em out.

This situation is analogous to one where some cops see a guy throwing a gun (as they suspect) into a ditch, then blowing him to bits "just in case."

BAH.

You wanna apologize for some gung-ho murdering bastards? Fine. You can live with your conscience as I hope those pricks will as well.

[manfriend]

30. speaking of speculation

saying he was getting rid of it is a bit speculative too. Especially considering they could have turned it in to the US soldiers. I think they're paying a bounty for weapons.

[mike1963]

35. Yes, they are paying bounties. But could it have been a "legal" AK47?

I guess we won't know. Maybe it's just me, but I find blowing people to bits with 30 mm cannons isn't the best way to win hearts and minds.

If they had been pointing whatever it was AT the chopper, I'd be less critical. But the whole thing comes across like a bunch of redneck assholes shooting turtles for sport. Sorry, I am not supportive.

[DoNotRefill]

48. I saw the whole video...

and the bundle thrown was too big to be an AK. It looked like a RPG tube to me.

[mike1963]

58. Well, gosh, I can't imagine why you aren't providing the CPA/occupation

forces with such expertise! They could clearly make good use of your clairvoyance (or the x-ray button on your TV set) to determine the precise contents of long thingys wrapped in blankets. Please share this technology with the DOD, they need all the help they can get!

(I have a 30.06, if wrapped in a blanket, would be very close to the size of the package that poor SOB was throwing away.)

My RPG wouldn't be much bigger, though, I grant you that.
:eyes:

[DoNotRefill]

62. Disability...

but when I was able to, I've "been there, done that".

And a .30-06 (unless it was some kind of custom job with an oversized stock) wouldn't have nearly the girth of a RPG launcher, much less the flared end-cap.

[benburch]

36. Even if the ABC story is totally spot-on

This is still horrific. We only know that the one fellow in the pickup truck was a "bad guy" if that analysis is right. We do not know about the guy on the tractor, or the guy on the truck. All we know is that they were there. We cannot know (nor will we ever know) what conversation was going on. The other fellows could have been yelling at the pickup driver;

"What do you mean by throwing that rocket launcher into my field!? Do you want to get us all killed!?"

Nope. No arrest. No trial. No evidence. Summary execution based on some rather tenuous data.

No doubt though that the Apache crew were "just following orders."

-Ben

[Columbia]

39. War is horrific

But that does not mean these actions are not justifiable during war time. You were not there and do not know what these pilots and crew were experiencing day in and day out. Would you have rathered that the one with the RPG was killed and then let the other ones pick it up and shoot the Apache down or attack a supply convoy? We can all sit back in our comfy, ergonomic computer chairs and second-guess these guys, but the fact remains, it is kill or be killed out there. Any hesitation can kill in combat.

[benburch]

43. If I follow your logic...

... then it is always best to bomb a whole country into oblivion before sending in ground troops, as to do otherwise would be to hesitate and would put the ground troops in danger, and war is by its nature horrific.

If a little collateral damage does not matter, why should a lot matter either?

No, I demand more than that from soldiers making war in the name of my country. War is dangerous to warriors, but for them to attempt to reduce their own danger at the expense of unarmed civilians is my definition of Horrific.

-Ben

[Columbia]

45. Strawman argument

So I won't address your first statement.

As far as them being "unarmed civilians," you must have missed the part about the RPG. Would you have waited until they shot down the Apache before you acted? Seriously, what would you have done since you want to engage in armchair quarterbacking?

[DoNotRefill]

49. Throwing away a weapon...

doesn't turn a warrior into a noncombatant.

[mike1963]

53. That is one of the most astounding statements I have ever read in print.

I guess the order "throw down your weapons" has ceased to apply?

Ah, I get it. This guy HAD a weapon, got rid of it, but he might go back and pick it up later, so we blow him away just to be sure.

Is that how it works now?

So, to be safe, let's shut down the Internet because somebody might say something deragatory about Geo Bush. Got it.

[DoNotRefill]

57. Nope...

If somebody puts down their weapon and surrenders, then they get protection. If somebody puts down their weapon and doesn't surrender, then they don't get protection.

Let me put it this way. If somebody wants to harm you and has a gun in their hands pointed at you, they're a threat, right?

Now suppose that same person puts the gun on a desk, sits in a chair, and props their feet up. They still have control of that weapon, even though it's not in their hand and pointed at you, right? After all, they still pose a threat. And they sure as SHIT haven't surrendered...

[mike1963]

61. That doesn't compute. The guy ran a couple hundred feet, DROPPED

whatever it was, then went BACK to the road. He had no way to use it.
He posed no threat at that time. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

We expend a lot of energy here on DU explaining that Saddam was little or no threat for the exact same reasons, yes? How and why is this different?

[DoNotRefill]

64. In a criminal context....

it's called "disposing of evidence".

If you expect to be treated as a POW, you have to SURRENDER first. That's pretty simple, and I don't understand why you can't seem to grasp that.

Combat isn't about getting into a "fair fight". It's about killing enemy combatants before they can kill you. This guy was obviously an enemy combatant. The fact that his weapon was out of arms reach means nothing, any more than the presence of a battalion's weapons in the armory instead of the barracks means that they're no longer a battalion.

As for Saddam not being a threat, he WAS a threat. He didn't pose a threat with WMDs, but he sure as shit didn't have "clean hands". There are more ways to pose a threat than with NBC weapons. This war would have had my support if Bush had gotten world approval before going in. Saddam should have been removed in '91.

[...Alltogethernow]

55. Agreed

... I'm dismayed at the armchair commanders here passing judgment on actions they have no idea of the circumstances that lead to this.

[ParanoidPat]

69. What war? Was a war declared??

This is a preemptive invasion and occupation of sovereign nation. No "war" was ever declared.
How do you think they're getting away with labeling POW's as 'enemy combatants'? :shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

73. Ummm...They're calling POWs POWs...

Enemy combatants are a whole 'nother legal ball of wax.

People who fought in the Iraqi Army, wore uniforms, and were under a formalized chain of command and then surrendered were accorded POW status.

[JohnyCanuck]

41. Looks like a contravention of the Geneva Convention to me.

Maybe it was a case of someone trying to dispose of an RPG. However as the US forces have been known to make mistakes about this type of stuff before, e.g. a US soldier gunned down a Reuters cameraman in Iraq because his camera allegedly looked like shoulder fired missile apparatus and USAF pilots hyped up on speed bombed and killed Canadian troops in Afghanistan when the pilots thought they were under fire from the Canadians, I find myself somewhat reluctant to just accept the word of the US military that this was the case here.

Even if it was the case of an RPG being hidden or disposed of, I think the killing probably contravened the Geneva Convention. Note that the person who had been driving the tractor was killed first, and that person had not been seen offering any active resistance. Of course you could say that the tractor driver was probably involved in supporting members of the Iraqi resistance etc. etc. and deserved what he/she got. However, that still appears to be a possible contravention of the Geneva conventions (see below) about killing people not taking part in hostilities. Where is the evidence the tractor drive knew what was going on or wanted to participate in the hiding of an RPG? Also shooting the wounded man attempting to crawl away was a contravention of the Geneva convention and I also understand that there are rules which state that canon shells etc. (as in the Apache ammo) cannot be used against human targets, i.e. it's only supposed to be used against armored vehicles, tanks, APCs etc.

I am sure there will be many who say it was just these Iraqis tough luck to be caught and to hell with the Geneva convention when American lives are at stake. However, I think this video will reinforce a negative stereotype among Iraqis, Arabs and other non-Americans of Americans troops being a gang of shoot'em up cowboys who just pay lip service to things like human rights and observing the Geneva convention and rules of warfare etc. but who easily ignore the rules when it suits them to do so.

Of course it is quite possible considering that at least one American commander in Iraq has been reported to say that they want to instill fear in the Iraqis to keep the unruly elements under control that the Pentagon really doesn't give a damn in a case like this whether or not any rules were broken. As long as it leaves the Iraqis with the strong impression that there will be nowhere to hide from the might of the US armed forces, it will have served its purpose and to hell with what the rest of the world thinks.

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

[DoNotRefill]

50. Huh?

"I also understand that there are rules which state that canon shells etc. (as in the Apache ammo) cannot be used against human targets, i.e. it's only supposed to be used against armored vehicles, tanks, APCs etc."

What do you base that on?

Gee, don't APCs and tanks normally have people inside them?

These guys hadn't surrendered. I doubt seriously that they were in uniform. As such, different rules apply to them than would apply to POWS.

[JohnyCanuck]

59. Based on this.

This was posted in the readers letters section at www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters

Let me resolve this once and for all,
I served in the US Army as a gunner doing this exact same job in the late-Reagan era. It was told to us 1000 times a day that it is illegal to shoot *anybody* with our weapons systems that was not inside a foreign weapons system.

Yes, we could shoot those occupying foreign weapon systems but, we absolutely, positively, could not engage *anyone* running around a field *even if they were shooting at us!*

This video is evidence of a such a war crime it is not even funny. And, yes, I am now a lawyer, so I can say this.

All of this translated means: You cannot fucking pump thousands of 30mm high-explosive incindiery tracers rounds into people running across a fucking field.


Also from another letter at the same web site:

I noticed you quoted the Geneva Conventionin relation to the "Apache Killing Video". I am not sure what chapter or sub-document it is contained, but it is my understanding that it is against the convention to use anything much more than 7.62mm ammo on personnel. You may want to look into that.

DoNotRefill says:
These guys hadn't surrendered. I doubt seriously that they were in uniform. As such, different rules apply to them than would apply to POWS

Whether or not the Geneva convention would apply in this circumstance, the cold blooded nature of the exchanges between the US personnel involved and their apparent lack of concern that they could possibly be killing at least one quite possibly innocent bystander (the tractor driver), it still makes the US forces look like cold blooded killers. Of course once your president illegally starts an unjustified war that kills almost 10,000 civilians, one more dead person is neither here nor there and maybe the US population by and large doesn't really give a shit how their armed forces are perceived by the rest of the world. That is as long as the rest of the world is scared enough to fall into line and ask, "How high?" when the dipshit in the White House says, "Jump." Seems to me the road to empire is going to be a long one.

[manfriend]

60. pumping rounds

You can use those weapons if people are inside vehicles or hiding under them.

[DoNotRefill]

63. That's SO good to know.

I guess our 105mm howitzers are now illegal too? After all, their primary purpose is....survey says...anti-personnel.

As for somebody being a lawyer and that giving added credibility....well....ummmm....what'm I? Chopped liver?

And based upon the reports I've heard and seen, a combatant meeting up with two people after pulling an ambush sounds NOT like the people he met were innocent bystanders, but rather like a subordinate reporting to a superior to deliver an after action report.

[manfriend]

65. I agree with you

I think they were justified 100%. Those guys were under trucks, behind a tractor, and the guy running was going for shelter. No one made an attempt to surrender.

[ET Awful]

74. The audio on the tape . . .

Clearly has the people in the chopper acknowledging that the third individual is wounded and instructing them to move up and hit him again.

Even barring violations based on the type of weaponry used, executing a wounded individual is a violation.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Geneva Conventions were violated in this instance.

[DoNotRefill]

81. Please quote the relevant section....

and watch the tape again, and then provide your evidence that the wounded person had somehow surrendered.

There's no affirmative requirement that a combatant provide an opportunity for the opposition to surrender before firing on them. The person seeking protection must make the first move to surrender. And if the person hasn't made a move to surrender, even if wounded, they're still a legal target. Military history is full of examples where wounded people continued to fight. The exfiltration of the uninjured and walking wounded British paratroopers during Operation Market-Garden during WWII while the seriously wounded held their positions and continued fighting is a prime example.

This reminds me of the old SNL skit parody of the "World At War" television series with Richard Burton about the WWII British "Walker Brigade", a parachute unit that supposedly parachuted into Normandy carrying walkers, and claiming handicapped status under the accords so that the Germans couldn't shoot at them while they shot at the Germans.

This could have easily been a war crime, if the Iraqis had taken different actions. For instance, if the guy who took cover under the truck had thrown his hands up in the air and stood still, that would have been strong evidence of a desire to surrender, and would have shown up clearly on the tape. Running for cover doesn't qualify as surrendering, however.

[benburch]

83. Yeah, right.

Like I'm going to stand there with my hands in the air after I just saw two other men obliterated by 30mm rounds from a flying Rambo.

[DoNotRefill]

84. So, you're saying you wouldn't surrender, right?

in which case, shooting isn't a crime.

[benburch]

88. I'm saying...

... that only a fool tries to surrender to an unseen gunship raining death from above.

You know as well as I do that they would have wasted him anyway.

A gunship cannot take prisoners. In that it is like the U-boats of old. To land and take prisoners is to give up its tactical advantage and make itself a target. And it has no capacity to either transport prisoners nor to rescue survivors. No, once the order to open fire was given, the job was going to be finished no matter what the men on the ground did.

[DoNotRefill]

89. Surrendering to helicopters worked...

in Gulf War I. Hell, even journalists took prisoners. And there were US ground troops in the area, if they had surrendered, don't you think the message could have been radioed to them so they could pick up the prisoners? After all, a live prisoner is a potential intellegence source.

There are more ways to take prisoners on land than to pile them into the helio...

[benburch]

90. Only if you have ground support.

Which we have already established they did not in this situation.

[DoNotRefill]

92. it's been reported....

that there had been an attack on a convoy in which US troops were injured, and which was the basis for following these people. If that is true, there sure as hell WERE ground troops in the vicinity...maybe not within half a mile, but not that far off.

The people who got shot didn't TRY to surrender.

[Silverhair]

96. You are wrong about the Geneva convention.

Nowhere does it say what weapons can be used on what target. Artillery is routinely used by ALL world militaries on troops.

Further, the rules that civilian USA police operate under don't apply in combat. The other dudes were with an armed dude and cooperating with him. That makes them enemy combatants and may be killed without warning.

Nor is it required than an enemy combatant have his weapon in his hands to be fired upon. The phrase you cite about laying down their arms means to surrender. It doesn't mean, taking a break, or hiding the weapon for later retrieval.

[manfriend]

26. My apologies

Okay, I didn't see tha tyou had posted the link to the ABC story on your site. I just clicked the video link.

[benburch]

28. Apology accepted.

nt

[Nomad559]

40. Afghanistan Video

I found this video the other day.

Afghanistan

[0007]

52. I'd say that was an over kill -

Play it several times and still don't understand why they wiped those people out.

[psychopomp]

66. Couldn't they hear the helicopter?

It seems strange to me that the helicopter was w/in firing range and the men did not take some kind of evasive action.

Did they think they were unseen? Was there nowhere to run?

I have to admit that I know nothing of this incident, really. Whether "justified" under the rules of engagement or not, it is another bloodstain on the U.S. flag in a corrupt "war."

[maggrwaggr]

67. It's the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Killing

We think these people MIGHT want to do us harm, but even though we have no evidence, let's just kill 'em.

It's kind of like seeing a suspicious person in your neighborhood and just killing them. Heck, they might want to break into your house, right?

[not systems]

68. If they didn't kill the wounded man...

he might have lived to see his wife, children, and parents some
day after being held as a prisoner of war.

Assuming he did anything to be held for.

That would be the civilized way to wage war and
what we would hope for our troops.

That is why they made up rules about this stuff.

[NickB79]

70. Thats what really gets to me

I can accept the possibility that they were disposing of or hiding weapons that might later be used against US forces, and thus were acting as combatants. In that respect the shooting was justified. What I can't accept is that they wounded a man, and then after he was incapacitated and totally incapable of offering resistance, they shot him again. That is execution.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. Shoot first and ask questions later?

Is that what you are saying?

[not systems]

78. Exactly.

This "take no prisoners" attitude is not civilized.

Many seem to take pride in how far we can stray from
norms that have been agreed on by all people in the past.

[aeon flux]

72. It was an execution

They could have arrested those farmers instead of shooting them.

Why did they shoot these farmers who were obviously UNARMED and were not firing back? It was a cold-blooded excution.

[SOS]

76. Many unanswered questions

in regard to this video. But one thing is certain, based on the Soviet experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The male relatives of these four men will take up arms against the US.

[benburch]

77. And that is the point I was trying to make.

This is why they hate us!

[liberalmuse]

79. Oh Christ.

I guess all those years of raising Americans on video games paid off. 'Hit him.' Oh my god, we have become the monsters. To anyone who supports this war, the blood be on your heads.

[benburch]

80. Yeah, I got sick to my stomach...

... when I first heard that "Hit Him" as well.

I wonder; Does the Apache fire Depleted Uranium rounds? If so, this does not bode well for that patch of fam land, either...

-Ben

[Pontus]

86. Our soldiers aren't monsters!

They are protecting themselves. More power to them.

[RebelOne]

91. Protecting themselves from what?

They had the helicopters and superior fire power. And those guys that they blasted away weren't firing on them.

[DoNotRefill]

93. Ah. So you can only shoot when they're shooting at you.

If they ambush you and have to change magazines, are you supposed to stop firing until they reload?

[TexasMexican]

82. repost x eleventy billion

I think the apache crew was justified.

[Pontus]

85. I have to agree.

You rarely hear about the times our military take out combatants that, if they had gotten away with their plans, would have killed many of our soldiers. Just like in Israel, many suicide bombers never get the chance to martyr themselves and get their 72 virgins.

[RBHam]

87. Cold blooded slaughter by a superior force

Very brave

[ElsewheresDaughter]

94. i agree

[Djinn]

95. Given that this "war" is illegal

under any international (or even US law) and that it is perfectly LEGAL to resist occupation by a foreign power the actions of the entire "allied" force in Iraq are illegal - you really don't need to get into specific semantics about who held what or who was suspected of what.

While I think that pre Saddam's capture the vast majority of the "resistance" (or terrorsists or jihadis or anti-americans or whatever you want to call it) were supporters of Saddam and the Baath party - they probably still are in the main - however not all of the attacks against allied forces are carried out by pro-saddam or pro-Osama fighters and certainly not all of those in opposition to the US occupation are pro-Saddam, and as time drags on you'll see more and more Kurds, Shiites, communists, socialists etc etc who all had ample reason to cheer the demise of Saddam loudly calling for the US to leave their country.

Whatever you beleive are the overarching aims of the "resistance" they are in fact completely entitled under international law to take up arms and defend their cuontry against a foreign force.

Regardless of whether it was a bunch of sticks, an RPG or the entire stockpile of Iraq's mythical WMD's the US soldiers STILL had no right to murder them.