Apache shoot Iraqian farmers with 30 mm

Imagine if you were in the same situation, but you were a soldier in the Brazilian army doing your National Service. You get sent to a neighbouring SA country which has, maybe like Colombia, a problem with drugs and drug barons. You go to a city as part of your patrol, say somewhere similiar to Medellin, where guns are rife and the place (especially the authorities/police) are in a state of fear. Yourself and 7 of your squadmates are on this patrol knowing that, just recently, many of the people you called friends had been killed by what looked like 'civilians'.

You see some guys coming towards you, evil intent in their eyes, hands shifting in their pockets....

Same difference imo.

-glas-

 

It's kinda strange, but the people who are most upset with this footage and everything it stands for, seem to me to be the people who discard unconfirmed media 'lies' in just about every other thread.

But here we have a crap piece of infra red footage from a gunship that no one knows where it struck, with no sources to its origin, with no evidence whatsoever to the identity of the people in the footage. Yet all of a sudden, weve got it all worked out and the 'guilty' are already strung up for their crimes!....

Just thought I would raise what I felt was a valid point.

-glas-

Edit: I could be cynical and add that maybe because it is 'anti-american/west news' it is somehow valid? Seems to be the only reports here which have any validity at times.

 

What you do is challenge them (in loud voice say HALT...HANDS ON HEAD...if they don't stop one and i say one of the group will fire a warning shot over there head...and then you say again in a loud voice...HALT...HANDS ON HEAD...)the only time it is ok to shoot somebody is if they are shooting at you...or shooting at somebody or something that you are charged to protect....as i have said before there are rules of engagment ..

 

Glas, the difference is that you are in your partol, you shoot at guy that scared you (that's ok. it's not definitely bad. it's discussable), and the you see him crawling wounded, you come in cold blood closer and shot his head, three times just because.
your second move is not ambigious. eh?

 

it canґt hurt him anyway if he already was dead - if he was not dead then can simple could have played it to get time and another chance to shoot back

my opinion

 

but not in war - if you get out of your advantage position to shout around - the only thing you will do with that is warn him or get him known your position.
fired shots in your direction will follow.
the thing i learned in army was not to let the enemy know where you are - then you are a little safer.

engagement rulez like you said only count in cases for police i think

 

I think you guys have seen too much Rambo moovies, as i think you haven't idea of how someone feel after that 2 ppl near him get ripped by 30mm, a truck explode in your face and you have to strip out of flames. Only rambo would be able to take his big gun and shot back, a normal person would be simply shocked, confuseed, blinded and deafened.
Anyway nothing change, there are no engagement rules wich are obbligatory when you do not know your "enemy" (if it is a enemy) intentions. Second there is a summary execution 1st on a 100% unarmed civilian then on a wounded person.

 

rambo films are atomary rofl

i took my experiences out of the sfor education wich i participated

 

@ kangaa:I think Airway coveed this point quite well. The last thing you would want to do is give away your position by shouting out. The 'enemy' gets taken out then you check afterwards to see what level of threat they were.

@ exec: As I said above, if it happened like it was described then you could say it was an execution. Read my followin point tho

@ odi: Im not suggesting that this was the crew's thinking, but if that guy got blown up beside the truck and was as badly injured as you believe, wasnt it more humane that they finishedd him off? Or if he wasnt that injureed and could have went for help, then imo he would also have been able to shoot back. But if a truck blows up in your immediate vicinty, if you dont die immediately then its going to be a slow, agonising deeath....but death nonetheless (especially in a country as poorly medically equipped as Iraq).

What if they had turned around the chopper and left him to die in agony? We would all be sitting here calling them inhumane bastards imo.

-glas-

 

right

anyone hit an animal with the car and drove away? the hole international world wildlife found (wwf) will come around and bring you to justice and with humans it nothing would be different except the organisation that would indicate you to the justice

and what i forgot to point out: we wonґt come to an result here until all of us are seing "both sides of the story" clearly with open eyes. there are pro & contraґs in every case

 

The other day a spanish commander was shot in the head. He had the bullet in there, but has been operated, and the bullet extracted. By the moment he's in coma, and maybe unrecoverable coma. But he's alive. Isn't that what the medecin goes about? Save lifes, even in desperated situations.

Maybe, if you were there you would have shot him in the head again? Just to help him, you'd say. The only idea makes me sick....

 

There is 2 fundamental differences there tho Broz. The commander got 1 clean (I assume) wound to the head. By all accounts, a truck blew up in the guys face in the video, the injuries would be much more horrific.

Also, and probably more importantly, the response of the emergency services in Spain is infinitely better than it is in Iraq and the medical attention you could expect to receive once you got to hospital would be much better, meaning you would have a much better chance of survival.

IMO, if his injuries were as horrific as described, then he was probably near death and wanted put out of his misery. At least, I know what I would prefer.

-glas-

 

and its a point of view - i, for myself, would better like to be dead than in uncoverable coma.
others may see it in otherways round.

and broz - i for myself would never go into army for killing people than for helping others that canґt help themselves

 

better read your guidelines again... you are wrong, at least there, where you got your "education"!

i can't believe that has been written with full conscious...

 

it has been - believe me.
although i am against that war in iraque i posted my opinion as seen above. ledada.

we are living in the 21 century.
and belive me - i have read my guidelines very well !

 

So what your saying here is the yanks went to iraq without at least one m.a.s.h unit???

Engagment rules apply in all situations War or not....Solders can and have been charged for murders that took place on battle fields during conflicts...

At this point you can shoot back...What i responded to was Glas's senario if you read it my responce to the situation is correct ....in a diffrent senario you would act diffrent..YOU CAN NOT SHOOT PEOPLE FOR NO REASON...An evil look is a reason to be on you guard NOT a reason to shoot them.....

 

sorry double post..

 

He got a shot in the head in Iraq, shot from a car at Diwaniya. The bullet broke his їskull?, what provocated that pieces of bones entered the brain, together with the bullet, causing severe damages in it. As you can see, it was not a clean shot. He was operated there, in an american hospital (campaign hospital), and it seems confirmed that he will never recover from coma.

About your last paragraph, i, personally, agree with you, but not everybody feels the same, and it's not a doctor's option (or a soldier) to choose if a wounded PERSON (not a dog ) lives. Or so i think

 

Sorry, I didnt realise the incident you had mentioned happened in Iraq.

I will cease arguing about the subject anyway since I havent seen the video. I think we all have our own views on it.

-glas-

 

fasinating , more of these files please.
Who knows why these "farmers" were being watched. The chopper certainly held it's fire for a long time. The fellow who ran out and threw the tube in the field acted as if he knew someone may have been watching him, so why did he do it? Did you notice the first gunfire burst had no visable effect nor produced a reaction from the "farmers"?
As to the coup de grace ...proof positive that war is hell. Shocking, thanks for posting.
Whats with this divx player? why do I have to use it? is it better? whats wrong with plain old window media player? I cant count how many video clips i discarded before I figured that i needed this new player.