>defending people that commited warcrimes on film

here we go

>>551205
No one except collateralmurder.com, a few others and internet trolls are saying this brah.

you libs can thank Bush for the stability that's in Iraq now.

Obama wants it to get worse. Fuckin libs were cheerleading the US loss back in those days. Truley disgusting,

OP is faggot enticing another flamewar.

Shit like this happens in war. It's tragic, but unfortunately it's one of the harsh realities of war. To hate America for this is understandable but perhaps a bit harsh considering other militaries likely have screwed up like this as well.

However, the cover-up was plain wrong. They should have just come out and said "we fucked up". Pay their condolences to the victims' families and move on. It would have looked bad, but now it looks even worse thanks to a cover-up.

Also, the dumbfucks who are now photoshopping AKs and RPGs onto them are the cancer killing America. It's bad enough this happened, but these idiots are pissing on their graves to try to dupe other people see America as the great flawless kingdom.

>>551195
Please explain this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8527627.stm

>>551453
>Sep 2009: Up to 142 civilians die in Kunduz province when hijacked fuel tankers are bombed

>May 2009: US says 26 civilians died in raid in Farah province; Afghan officials say 140 died

>Nov 2008: Raid on a Kandahar village destroys a housing complex leaving nearly 40 civilians dead

>Aug 2008: Up to 90 people, including 60 children, killed in Herat province, UN says

>July 2008: Raid in Nangarhar mistakenly kills about 50 civilians at a wedding party

>>551205
>implying there were any warcrimes committed in the video
man, sure is wishful thinking in here

>>551469

>Implying that shooting unarmed civilians isn't a warcrime

>I don't like what I saw in a video presented in an extremely negative light (lolcollatermurder.com, nice name choice, very even handed), so it's obviously a war crime.

>>551480
There was no reason to believe that they weren't insurgents.

>>551480
>implying the pilots didn't have ample reason to believe they were in fact armed combatants and not civilians

>America is the good guy, so it can't be a warcrime even if they got it on film

>Implying implications implying implying.

Pilot 1: Ok this group of 8-10 people seem to be armed with AK-47's and RPG' and they're peeking around a corner where one of our convoys is coming up the road
Pilot 2: Obviously they're just curious civilians, no cause for alarm.
Pilot 1: You're right, I'm sure they're just out for a stroll.

>>551505

/thread

ITT: People resort to oversimplification

>>551506

The guys in the van weren't armed and they were only helping an unarmed wounded man who was later confirmed to be a journalist.

>>551506
>this is what liberals actually believe should have happened

Funny how people that think this is a war crime haven't yet adequately addressed the issue of
a) photojournalists hanging out with weapon-toting individuals in the vicinity of the coalition
b) bringing two children to a warzone

>>551453

What's interesting about the air strike civilian death stories is that if you follow the investigations a lot turn out to be completely false or grossly exaggerated. Not all, mind you, but a very large proportion of them.

A lot of the claims normally come from enemy propoganda sources or career-hungry journalists. The enemy make the initial claim and it gets blasted in the headlines "NATO MAY HAVE KILLED 35 CIVILIANS". People pay no attention to the "MAY" part and after months of investigation when it appears that nothing actually happened that day there is no interest in the press of publishing the development. So it just sinks into public memory that it DID happen when in fact the story was a flat out lie. Journalists also do the same by either accepting rumors or falsehoods as truth or by trying to push their own career forward since the know that what is printed will go do as what actually happened.

It's very similiar to the rape claim cases. Normally some poor guy is labled as a suspected rapist, which to the general public means he IS a rapist. When the legal system find out the woman is lying and drop all charges against the guy he is still labled by the public as a racist despite being completely innocent.

tl;dr We basically live in a society being hit by information overload. People look for quick soundbytes and build up the rest of the story in their imagination. No research is done in depth and what is widely believed as the truth is normally a wildly innaccurate interpretation of what actually happened.

>>551527
From the pilots perspective, they were individuals aiding and abeting an insurgent who moments ago was armed and threatening coalition troops. Making the van fair game.
van

>Implying the war has now been won

>>551538
I don't want to bring up specific examples, or insight a debate, but you're wrong because you disagree with ,me.

>>551545
>Implying the Iraq war isn't over

>>551544
The unarmed civilian they were aiding had been unarmed the whole time.

>>551535

1: If these people were toting weapons, how did those weapons disappear after the event? I haven't heard anything about anybody finding the said weapons at all (this is because no one on the ground actually was armed).
2: You're a dude driving around your town with your kids in the van (which isn't a warzone, but an occupied territory). Suddenly you come across a wounded man, and because you're a decent person you decide to help him to a hospital. Then you and your kids are shot by some air cowboys.

Tell me, why isn't this a perfectly adequate explanation?

>>551545

>implying it was a war after April 2003.

>>551557
Not from the pilots perspective, who didn't have the luxury of going over the tape 10 times looking over every detail.

He saw a group of men, he saw weapons. Therefor all men in the immediate area (5-10 feet) are associated with those with weapons are armed and a threat.

>>551544

Swing and a miss bro. That's entirely irrelevant when it comes to the Geneva Conventions.

>>551569
>If these people were toting weapons, how did those weapons disappear after the event
They didn't? Ground troops confirmed the presence of weapons.

>>551535

Journalists are often accompanied by some form of security and not all of them are US military forces. Many use private security.

Furthermore, if that doesn't explain it (which I believe is the case), it's the simple fact that this is how Afghanistan is. Maybe they were militia members that are not fighting the US at all and are focusing on protecting their neighborhood from the tribal war lords. Maybe they were insurgents but the journalists were filming them for a story. Who knows. We would know better if the US military was less willing to bury this rather than investigate it.

>>551589

Citation needed.

>>551220
This. It really was. The left was really cheering on the insurgents, it was terrible. So desperate to see America fail on Bush's terms it spawned the stupid "Support the Troops" and the hard right as we know it now.

Fortunately, with power the left has changed into cheering and leading with America in mind.

>>551598
The video. Ground forces say they found an RPG round underneath one of the bodies and AKs.

>>551586
>implying this was an engagement between two signatory states and not one force associated with a country smacking armed illegal combatants
>implying the van was marked as a medical aid vehicle

>>551598
didn't watch the fucking video, jesus christ

>>551584

And how does this translate to a van stopping at the scene four minutes later being a threat?

>>551589

The problem with this is that there have been increasingly more prevalent rumors from military personnel that some of the US forces purposely carry AK's, RPG's and IED's with them in case they do shoot up civilians by accident. Then they can just plant the weapons, snap a photo, and they're in the clear.

This event is already proof that there are cover ups going on, and we don't know what the extent of them are. I'm not willingly to give the people who are fighting in the name of the American people the benefit of the doubt when they're actions are directly attributive to me through the negative responsibility principle.

>>551621
aiding and abetting the enemy, this is all very simple

>>551621

How do you know the van, or indeed the group of men (with the exception of the journalists) weren't known about before the video and were being specifically targeted?

>>551626
cool propaganda bro

>>551608

Convention IV, you ignorant dipshit. Civilians are protected persons.

And according to the Conventions, only military vehicles need identifying marks to enjoy protection, civilians trying to help the wounded are protected by default, markings or no.

>>551584
Most people could notice this after watching once without looking for any particular detail. When requesting permission to engage the van, troops had to claim that the people from the van were collecting weapons when clearly they were not in order to get the order to fire.

>>551626
Any sources you'd like to quote?

>the Coalition won the war

lol

>>551626
Let me just get out my tinfoil hat

>>551640
Well it certainly wasn't the Iraqi military or the insurgency...

>>551606
lol there was no rpg's at the site. Or they would have used it as evidence you idiot.

>>551633
>implying complete cock sucking worship of the armed troops and any and every action they commit are justifiable isn't propaganda

If you don't find what was done here a heinous warcrime, stop playing MW2 and dreaming every day of killing unarmed civilians.

>According to U.S. officials, the pilots arrived at the scene to find a group of men approaching the fight with what looked to be AK-47s slung over their shoulders and at least one rocket-propelled grenade.

>A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK-47.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/05/us_iraq_shooting_1/index.html

>>551626

You have got to be kidding me. That is complete and utter bullshit.

>implying the military doesn't admit its mistakes and it's not only the government that tries to cover bad things up

>>551648
Watch the fucking video dumbass. Ground forces said there was an RPG round.

Watch all of the video (yes,it's almost 40 minutes) or read a full transcript before you come in here and shout certainties.

>>551657

Once more the white knighting for the US military fails miserably.

>>551665
>Single spent RPG round
>No RPGs
I see no conflict between these reports.

>>551665

See >>551657

And feel like the moron you are.

HEY, YOU FAGGOTS KNOW WE WERNT TECHNICALLY IN A WAR AT THE TIME?

ENTIRE THREAD IS BABIES!

>>551658
>>551642
>>551637
>>551633
Sure is blind sheeple in here. DURR HURR AMERICAN MILITIARY CAN DO NO RONG

WAKE UP! they already tried to cover up and lie about numerous things, this is not a stretch at all. IT is known they train with AKs and RPGs, and own numerous.

>>551678

Said the kid writing in all caps.

I don't know if any of you actually watched the fucking video, but when that guy is leaning around the corner of the building, he clearly looks like he's aiming whatever he's holding at something. I dare you to say that you would have handled the situation better, if he was right and just sat there and waited instead of taking action they could have been killed

tl;dr Reporters know the risk of parading around in a warzone, they shouldn't QQ when they get caught in the crossfire.

>>551658

No, it's certain comments that have been made by many completely unrelated military personnel about the abuse of power being used by US and coalition forces out there. Just like all the videos on the internet showing US and coalition forces harassing civilians, destroying civilian property purposely when on patrol, and sometimes even attacking civilians through non-lethal means to intimidate them.

What's wrong? Doesn't fit your world view? Don't like some of the facts of what is going on over there? Cry me a river while I cry for the people being abused by people supposedly fighting for our freedom as gullible fucktards like yourself continue to support and rationalize these actions.

Wow there's so much informed debate going on in this thread...

Morons vs morons is the signature of Internet Iraq debate.

>>551687
Civilians should know better than to expect to be able to take photographs in their city of residence.

>>551682
Explain how a news story that broke two years ago and was admitted to by the U.S. military less than a week after it's initial occurrence could be covered up.

>>551687

I wasn't aware RPG's have large lenses on the front of them with microphones attached that even a glancing look at the video shows was plenty visible.

>>551687

Yeah, like a camera. Because he seriously would have aimed an RPG when he has to know that a gunship is hovering near him. With his associates standing right in the open.

Seriously, if this really was an ambush, it has to be the most incompetent one of all time. This is fucking stormtrooper-level tactics.

>>551691

What's wrong is what your saying doesn't fit my experience of working there (as part of an NGO) and my post-grad research of the entire conflict from before it happened to present day.

Of course experienced opinion doesn't matter (on either side of the debate) because the vast majority of people debating it just want to spin things to fit their own personal view what should have happened or is happening.

>>551687
This.

Because some of the people were armed with a battle nearby (no source denies this), the reporters knew and likely acknowledged the risk involved.
Then bringing children in an unmarked van to help aid people just shot is UNSPEAKABLE stupidity and has no one to blame but himself.

>>551716

Yeah because Apache pilots have the luxury of sitting mulling over video in comfortable conditions.

>>551732

Oh my, someone blaming the victim? How unsurprising.

>>551739
Who honestly can't in this situation?

>>551480
>implying they did not have weapons

>>551730
>herp derp im in college im right

Stop being 12 and stop playing MW2. And stop imagining about jacking off in the bowels of your enemies.

>>551737

Yeah, because when in doubt Apache pilots don't have the luxury of taking a better look before mowing down everything in their sight. No, they absolutely have to make up their minds in about a minute and then proceed to destroy everything even if there's reasonable doubt whether the people on the ground are armed or not.

>>551753

With that comment you're basically admitting to being part of the problem like he was saying.

>>551752

I don't know what fairyland you live in, but it was determined after the fact that there were in fact no weapons.

>>551589
before or after the coverup?

>>551789
Dominated in argument, so you resort to conspiracies and tin-foil hats.

>>551772
Source? Groundtroops confirmed the presence of weapons. Most sources say this as well.

All of them were not unarmed, bro.

This was a terrible mistake, there's no doubt of that, and any civilian deaths are horrible, but the Apache pilots didn't go "oh hey look, some civilians, let's shoot them for the hell of it!" They had a convoy taking fire, saw what appeared to be armed men acting in a threatening manner, asked for permission to engage, and received it. If any of you had seen the video without knowing beforehand it was just camera equipment, or that there were children in the van, you'd have been none the wiser.

Also, I love how everyone suddenly has this moral indignation over this event, and people are shouting "warcrimes! American fascists! Slaughter of innocents!"

Meanwhile, on the other side is a group of people who don't follow any rules, don't wear uniforms, have no problem with the murder and torture of innocent people (carbombs, acid, beheadings, etc.), and frequently hide behind women and children. Where's the outcry over that? "Just another day in Baghdad lolol"

I guess any excuse to bash America is a good one, right guys?

>>551842

>A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK47.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_SHOOTING?SITE=KMIZTV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DE
FAULT

>>551864
>>551864
>what appeared to be armed men acting in a threatening manner

wrong watch the video again fag

>>551842

>A military investigation later concluded that what was thought to be an RPG was really a long-range photography lens; likewise, the camera looked like an AK47.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_firefight_video_040510/

>>551864

So because the other side is worse, we aren't allowed to point out the bad shit America does? Try harder, tool.

>>551864
>the Apache pilots didn't go "oh hey look, some civilians, let's shoot them for the hell of it!"
actually, that is exactly what they did. There were no weapons and they lied to their superiors in order to get permission to shoot. Shooting the van, which was assisting the wounded, goes beyond the pale, especially since the pilot was fucking whining like a little girl to his superior in order to get clearance to kill more innocent people.

Apologists like you make me sick.

>>551838
if you deny there wasn't a cover up you're blind

granted, it isn't anything like some people talk about it being blatant targeting of civilians (from the pilot's perspective the damn things looked like AKs and RPGs but then again I'm a civilian) doesn't change the fact that two journalists got killed and the government tried to cover it up

>>551930

Yeah, because that's exactly what I said. Idiot.

>people die

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

>>551958

Bullshit. You regurgigated a dime-a-dozen conservative talking point in a vain attempt to make everyone who disagrees with you look bad instead of actually addressing the point.

Bugger off and don't come back.

>>551976
eurofag detected GET THE FUCK OUT

>>551998

Hey I'm a Eurofag and I think the video is a misinterpreted pile of shit

>car bomb blows up in market
>150 civilians killed
>no one cares
>15 civilians accidentally killed by us forces
>WAR CRIME DEATH TO THE US

>>552065
>implying it was an accident
DURP DE HURRRRRRR

>>Live in Iraq
>> Carry object that looks like RPG/AK from over a mile away

=

>>Get shot

WAR IS HELL AMIRITE?

>implying you could determine a rpg from a long camera lense in the blurry IR camera.

>>551756

Apache crews have the best optics in the world.

>>552166

Camera wasn't IR. Nice try though.

>>552168

On Call of Duty maybe

>>552166
Apache's have much better optics than what was shown in the video, that was just the IR cam for the guns. They have reconnaissance cameras with much better detail that they are able to direct at whatever they are looking at. However they do not record with these cameras, they can only take snapshots.

>>552194

No, in real life moron. Between FLIR and DTV (which is what this video is in), not to mention the best night vision, they have the best optics available. These videos being released record the stuff in a much lower quality than it actually appears to the pilots and gunners.

Even then, the video is still pretty clear.

>>551976

I thought I addressed the point in the first half of my post, but apparently since I didn't outright condemn the pilots as bloodthirsty, baby-killing rednecks, I'm just spouting "conservative talking points". Cool.

It was a terrible event, and it should be looked into by the military, but from the video it seemed to me that they followed proper procedures. They made a mistake, no doubt about that, but they weren't going out of their way to try and kill innocent people like so many here seem to be claiming.

But yeah, I will leave. I'm done here. Enjoy your anti-American circlejerk.

>the current state of Iraq truly is a miracle- no one can honestly deny this).

Bombs killed 30 people there yesterday, this shit happen every day

>>552237

I agree. I'm certain the guy wasn't trying to kill civilians on purpose, but the "I didnt know" excuse doesnt cut it. We have ROE, of which PID is a cornerstone; they neglected that, and in their excitement were begging for the chance to fire on "possibles".

The crew should still be put under investigation and reprimanded for violating ROE. Whatever they do, don't let them back in a gunship for Christ's sake.

>>552237
bye bye faggot.

>>551606

No, he said they found what "looks like an rpg round under a body", they never gave a proper confirmation what it really was, it was probably the camera

>shooting kids is fine

>>551618
>>551606
the "RPG" was a SLR with a long range lens with the guy peeking around the corner,

Take a stroll with rabid dogs and you might get put down

He got put down

>>552451

Still against the U.S. ROE and the Geneva convention.

>>552451

Yes, perfectly reasonable, just like when stalin imprisoned all the returning POW's because they fraternized with the germans.

>>552414
FU.
It was a canon

He could just not stand near the insurgent dudes with guns

With no press markings

at night

in iraq

in 07

pointing stuff at helicopters

That would make far too much sense however

>>552525
...I think that fuckers pointing an RPG at me

This is what happens when you give ignorant hicks the keys to the trigger lock.

Even on first glance you can see the "rpg" was a goddamn camera, if they had any intellectual experiences in life they would have noticed it as well, Instead they are trained to shoot everything that looks like its holding a stick because they simply are too dumb to recognize an RPG from a canon.

>>552534

In the day.

No one in the video had weapons.

Where in the video do they point anything at the helicopter that is probably over a mile away?

Hotel Two-Six; Crazy Horse One-Eight. Have five to six individuals with RPG . Request permission to engage.

>>552573

Dude, just watch the video.

>>552577

We have five to six individuals with what we want to believe is an RPG, is it cool to engage without PID, over?

>>552573
>No one in the video had weapons

>>552589

I have. No one in the video has an RPG. The camera looks absolutely nothing like an RPG.

>>552591
LET ME SHOOT COME ON!!!

>gniylpmi a camera is not a weapon

>>552594

Especially not when they engaged a van with children picking up wounded.

They have guns! Look! I can see their small faces out the window!

Every single one of you will see this picture and misinterpret what it was posted for but it will, nonetheless, perfectly fit whatever it is you say.

Have fun.

>>552594

Watch the video. Read the reports.

You can't PID anything in the video, because guess what? You can't PID a weapon if there isn't one.

My uncle was a pilot in WW2, and he was shot down by a camera, so don't you go saying those troops weren't in imminent danger

Dude hanging out with armed insurgents gets wasted

dude in van shows up moments later also gets wasted

iamokaywiththis.jpg

>>552624

LOOK OUT BRO

07:25 Let me engage.
07:28 Can I shoot?
07:31 Roger. Break. Uh Crazyhorse One-Eight request permission to uh engage.
07:36 Picking up the wounded?
07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
07:41 Come on, let us shoot!


angryamericanhelicopterkidwantstoplaylongbow2.avi

>>552699

Brofist.

The funny thing is, for all these faggots trying to tell everyone what an RPG looks like, etc., they couldnt even tell you about Longbow.

Yes, and once again ladies and gentlemen, at the end of the argument the "liberals" come out on top.

I'm seeing this more and more. It could either be a result of
a) the libertarians don't have what's referred to as "staying power"; that is the ability to stay and argue it out. This is unlikely because the thread was started early afternoon, so school/work is already in session.
b) They lost the argument. The 'Tarians lost the argument and left the thread to start the same basic arguments elsewhere. Again, the process will continue to repeat itself.

God I hope china "occupies" the US and does this kind of shit. I'd love to hear you stupid assholes then.

>>552092
>Implying the Coalition troops knowingly PURPOSELY KILLED civilians
You guys do realize it's all about intent in war crimes, right?

Anyone who actually thinks the United States military INTENTIONALLY kills civilians has lost their mind.

>>552946

These foreigners seem to think that there is no collateral damage when it comes to the US. Everything is intentional.

>>552922

This has nothing to do with politics.

(except for conservatives who'd defend anything the murkan military does)

>>552946

Well sometimes they do.

>>552922
THIS.

>>552946

Maybe not intentional but you cannot deny the Colalition forces showed grave disregard for civilian lives in the war and occupation, its not like they actually put any effort into stopping civilian casulties

>>552957
My statement had a lot to do with politics. In the end someone is right, and someone is wrong; but only if we are allowed to take the contentious points one-by-one. I'm just saying in my analysis of political arguments that take place on forums such as these, the "left" usually takes over at the end.

>>552991
As soon as this was realized, the coalition did indeed make it much harder for airstrikes to go down. Requiring more than what you see on the video, and a much longer process. Just go look at some of the airstrike videos now.

>>553007
>implying that isnt because Obama came to power and the liberals took over from the "moral" conservitards.

>>553017
HAHA OH WOW. Obama has very little, if anything at all, to do with the day-to-day operations of the US military. He never enacted any policy regarding the processes by which an airstrike can be carried out.

Furthermore, this was made stricter under Bush (again, with very little interference from the President) in mid-2008.

>>553033
stop dominating the liberal too much, he may get his feeling shurt

BBC1 is reporting the story now on the 10 o clock news

>>553033
>implying that Bush isn't responsible for all the world's evils.

>>551864
The only person in this whole thread who presents a valid argument.

>>551864
>Meanwhile, on the other side is a group of people who don't follow any rules, don't wear uniforms, have no problem with the murder and torture of innocent people (carbombs, acid, beheadings, etc.), and frequently hide behind women and children. Where's the outcry over that? "Just another day in Baghdad lolol"

It's not like anybody would go to the Middle East and protest against the terrorists, for obvious reasons.

People want to pick on America, because they see it as an easy target.

Military fucked up. Bottom god damn line. If the military wanted to actively kill civilians it would do it in a much more effective and efficient manner.

in b4 suck the military's cock more
in b4 commie

>>553235
That guy really, really wanted to kill them. He was begging to do it. Jesus, he was like a kid.

>>553254
But he only did what he was allowed to do. That's discipline.

>>553147

The reason why people complain about America bombing the shit out of innocent people is twofold. First of all, America is supposed to be a civilized nation and therefore is expected to act better than its enemies.

Second, public opinion has the potential to affect america's actions for the better. Not so with it comes to a cavedwelling group of medieval leftovers.

Therefore, complaining about the bullshit pulled by the US might have some positive effect, while complaining about the bullshit pulled by A-Q is mainly a waste of time.

ARMCHAIR COMMANDERS FUCK YOU

He clearly lied about the van and said "They're picking up bodies AND weapons" just because he wanted more confirmed kills.

He was clearly an american shitbrain who needs to be repeatedly heeled in the teeth.

>>553306
Insurgents in unmarked vans often picked up bodies and weapons. Because they were picking up someone unarmed doesn't mean they would have not picked up weapons later on with the information at the time. It's assumed to be truth at the time.

>>553282
>First of all, America is supposed to be a civilized nation and therefore is expected to act better than its enemies.

Show how to completely avoid civilian casualties in warfare.

>>553263
wouldn't better discipline be only killing when you have to or when its useful?

>>553337
Yes, that's what he did.

>>553337
discipline is obeying orders, morals need to get out of the way

>>553263

Even though he got "permission" the commander on the base had no real impartial view of the situation, he was giving permission solely on the statement of the gunner.

Of course giving permission to someone saying that "they are in a van picking up weapons" is a no brainer, but unless you have impartial confirmation that this is actually happening (obviously only when reasonable), you get situations like this.

>>553327

Don't go to war?

Seriously though, no one has ever claimed that you can avoid civilian casualties completely, but you can minimize them. By not bombing a wedding based on some rumours that a bad guy is hiding there, for example.

>>553318
They didn't pick up weapons, they did nothing that posed a threat, to say "they can assume they would pick up weapons later on" makes you an american shitbrain.

>>553343
He was asking to be ordered. He didn't just state what he thought he saw, he indicated multiple times that he really wanted to shoot those people.

>>553318

Shitbrain logic at its finest. Hey, can I play too?

You see, terrorists use vans all the time, that's why we should blow up every van in Iraq!

So /new/ what do you think of my clever plan?

/thread

>>553374
Because a van that drives into a hostile situation should be treated like a tourist?

>>553378
I see shoulder bags, not necessarily cameras.

>>553380
It wasn't hostile, it was a bunch of guys with cameras.

>>553389
>>Is blind to the sight of weapons.

>>553378

>AK47 !!!
>Tripod

>RPG!!!
>camera

>>553403
Because tripods have pistol grips and cameras are up to shoulder height.

>>553380

A civilian vechicle is to be respected as such and left alone. A civilian vechicle used to evacuate wounded is to be treated as a medical transport and respected as such.

This isn't any big secret you know.

>>553406

>hasn't ever seen professional photography equipment

>>553403
You guys like the new tripod I bought at Ritz Camera?
It works pretty nice...

>>553415
>hasn't ever seen professional photography equipment

>implying a professional photographer, with a high-end camera would need a tripod on a bright sunny day in the middle of the desert.

lrn2 photography bro

OH THIS TOPIC

AGAIN

FOR THE 20TH TIME IN THE PAST 2 DAYS

Fuck you, sandnigger Muslim OP. You people go into other peoiple's countries and kill innocent civilians ALL THE FUCKING TIME, but when it happens to you, suddenly you're the victims and you expect the world to feel sorry for you?

Lemme see: do I feel sorry for people who were celebrating in the streets and cheering and laughing when 9/11 happened, harbor and support terrorists, and flood into other countries where the'yre nothing but a violent burden that's a cancer slowly killing other countries? Fuck no I don't!

>>553436
lol far more iraqi civillians have died than western civillians enjoy your fox news

War is wrong.
It's built into our history and our nature, and we cannot change this, but that does not make it right. The United States military is not designed just to protect America, but also to serve as a protective force for civilians who can not help themselves again the forces of tyranny and oppression.

The killing of these civilians was wrong; period. That is it.

It's not about who thought what or what was misinterpreted by the soldiers in the situation; when you sign that dotted line and are sworn into the United States armed forces, you have an oath to protect people. PEOPLE; not just Americans. In this aspect they failed, and so you cannot justify their mistakes by claiming misjudgment on there part because they took an OATH to be better than that. They have training to make informed decision in tense situations to prevent mistakes such as this from happening.

We are supposed to hold them in a higher standard than ourselves, so stop trying to defend the substandard actions of a group of people whom are supposed to be considered "trained soldiers".

It's all wrong. Nothing is right in war and the killing of others. Stop trying to sell your feelings toward the value of human life short just because these people killed civilians. They do not need your sympathy.

>>553407
How would you have known it was civilian in that situation?

>>553436
Fuck you, american poster. You people go into other peoiple's countries and kill innocent civilians ALL THE FUCKING TIME, but when it happens to you, suddenly you're the victims and you expect the world to feel sorry for you?

>>553407
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The only vehicles that are off limits are the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Period.

If anyone else has probable cause (and they defintely fit that category) then they are a viable target.

At no point was the Law of War ever broken. Moral Law is subjective and strangely becomes irrelevant during war. Go figure.

>>553442
No proof that they weren't civillians.

You and I will probably never kill any civillians from now until the end of the universe, why should these guys choose to over the course of a few minutes?

>>553453

>Hasnt actually read the stipulations in the convention

>>553442

Because they're neither in uniform nor carrying weapons you scumsucking faggot. That makes them civilians by any reasonable estimate, and by the standards of international law as well.

>>553453
Well, if you're correct, then the law of war needs changing then doesn't it?

>>553460
How could he have known there were no arms in such a situation? Things like this have happened before with losses to American troops. To prevent such a situation and to protect the arriving troops on the ground, they were assumed as non civilian.

if you spot someone you don't know wielding an RPG, in 99% of the possible scenarios you are justified in shooting them

>>553459
I fucking teach the class, asshole.

It doesn't make you any less wrong.

Let me spell it out for you. The only Ambulatory Vehicles that are off limits by all parties are >THE RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT

It does not get any clearer than that. ...and no, there is no room for interperation.

>>553464
That's an argument for another day.

>>553458

Cus they're AMERICAN SOLIDERS! They're fighting the good fight!

You would think the higher-ups would realize that the ever increasing civilian death toll is detrimental to their goals of stabilizing the region. What are the family members going to do if they haven't already? Join the US army? Get real faggots, every civilian killed by US hands just gives more reason for the insurgents to kick us out and continue to cause problems.

>>553453

You're a fucking idiot who obviously hasn't read the Geneva Conventions. To wit:

Convention IV, Art. 3

"(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."

Civilians are protected and may not be shot upon. It's that goddamn simple.

>>553473

Convention I, Art. 18:

"The military authorities shall permit the inhabitants and relief societies, even in invaded or occupied areas, spontaneously to collect and care for wounded or sick of whatever nationality. The civilian population shall respect these wounded and sick, and in particular abstain from offering them violence.

No one may ever be molested or convicted for having nursed the wounded or sick."

>>553484
How, in that situation, would you have known they were civilians?

>>553484
What part of you were an idiot did you not understand. I told you, I teach the fucking class. I don't make this shit up.

>Art. 7. A distinctive and uniform flag shall be adopted for hospitals, ambulances and evacuation parties. It should in all circumstances be accompanied by the national flag.
An armlet may also be worn by personnel enjoying neutrality but its issue shall be left to the military authorities.
Both flag and armlet shall bear a red cross on a white ground.

Try harder.

>>553493
>>shall permit

there we go

>>553506

Which convention are you quoting, faggot?

>>553505
How would you know they were enemies? It's most likely that they weren't and they had no reason to believe so.

>>553534
Hey, shut up turd.

>>553547
I find that they were most likely enemies based on the situation.

>>553505

Everyone not in uniform is assumed to be a civilian by default. Unless that were positively and without doubt ID:d as carrying weapons or actually attacking someone, they shall be treated as civilians and given the protections they're due. And guess what, neither of those criteria was ever fulfilled.

>>553566
The hostile situation and armed combatants undid the default.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFol
der=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&a
mp;FolderCTID=&View

PDFs of the reports and statements.

American soldiers should all be skinned alive and paraded through New York City. Fucking pigs.

>>553596
Like you deserve any better.

who gives a fuck about dead muslims, seriously

>Geneva Convention

>>553583

In before they lied/planted weapons

>>553577

No, it fucking doesn't. There was no hostile situation until the gunship opened fire, and even if there was a hostile situation, you're still not justified in opening fire on civilians under international law.

>>553596
no one would go. maybe tourists?
Poor choice of cities. Perhaps individuals with your mind frame, Mecca or Tehran would be more suitable.

>>553621
>Can't tell that a camera lens is a camera lens because of BAWW TINY SCREEN
>Claim that they could have seen a press badge.

In during logical backflips.

>>553625

you can waste anyone with a weapon under ROE

>>553647
>implying bravo company was the helicopters, and not the group which arrived on the scene later

>>553648

That's dandy, but you can't waste unarmed people picking up the wounded under international law, and law trumps the ROE.

Do you finally understand, or do I have to use smaller words?

>>553625
Yes,it did.

>>553666 orly

bahahaha well better send the UN to arrest them then, under "international law"

>>553666

smaller words please.

i love it when libs die

>>553714

You can't shoot unarmed people. No exceptions.

>>553772

there are always exceptions

>>553772
"OH NO GUYS! That Kraut dropped his gun! STOP FIRING!"
"Wait he picked it up!"
"No WAIT! He dropped it again!"
"Picked it-"
"Dropped it!"
*sees 3 dead friendlies from this pick up and drop charade*

>>553822

>implying that constitutes unarmed

Fail thread is fail.