It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That uniform you wear is MINE! I ALLOW you to wear in on MY BEHALF. It belongs to ME and represents MY WISHES. If you DISHONOR IT, you dishonor ME! And if I SAY you DISHONOR it, then there is no question YOU HAVE. Every deed you do while in MY uniform reflects on ME, either GOOD or BAD. And, if you deny anything I just said, then you are NOT an ‘American Soldier!’
Originally posted by BeastMaster2012
I also don't know how i feel about it. The cameras did look questionable but come on, they weren't pointing their "weapons" at the helicopters.
I'm going to try not to get into a semantic debate about the realities of war versus civilian perception of war, but I do want to clarify a little of what's happening in a technical sense so that the viewer understands what is and is not allowed in these situations. And I'm sure that, despite my best abilities, my personal bias as an Active Duty US Soldier will ultimately show through in the end. I'm currently deployed to a region in southeast Baghdad, near where this incident took place, and the Rules of Engagement that dictate the use of lethal force state 51% certainty that the individual represent a threat to you or another US Soldier. (To my knowledge, it always has been.)
First off, I would be interested in knowing whether or not Reuters reported the presence of journalists to the US Forces who were responsible for operating the battlespace they were located in. That fact that the Bradley unit's ground commander clears the Apaches to engage without further target description implies that this was not the case, and if so it means that these journalists were operating completely independent of any ability of the US to track them, or even know they were present somewhere. This is incredibly dangerous, even now in 2010. Back in 2007, that sort of thing would have been damn near suicidal.
Despite the video's hesitancy in acknowledging that several of the men 'appear' to have weapons, it is clear to me that several of them are carrying AK-47s. If you look at graphics representing the positioning of these journalists from a Bradley convoy only a few blocks away, I think that it is entirely reasonable that the pilots would consider them a threat - particularly after mistaking a massive zoom lens peaking out from behind cover on the very street that an American patrol was taking place for an RPG. Complex ambushes with 8-12 men with AK-47s and RPGs were very common back in early 2007. I can't speak as to why the two Reuters journalists were walking around with men carrying AK-47s trying to sneak pictures of an unaware American combat patrol, and I certainly do not assume that the reason was nefarious.....
Originally posted by cessationoflife
Agree, or disagree, but in a war without morals, none of the casualties are justified anyways. It is unfortunate that innocent people were killed, but it really shouldn't be a surprise at this point.
Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by redhorse
If you hesitate, you are risking their lives, and possibly your own. I have no doubt that at least a few of those voices we heard had been in the situation in the past
Yes, if you hesitate, some one could die.
But these guys weren't hesitating.....they also weren't exercising caution.
You could hear the eagerness in their voice to "LET ME FIRE LET ME FIRE"
"look at those dead bastards"
I mean for Christ sake - they opened up fire on an UNARMED van that was doing nothing more than trying to pick up dead bodies.
THat isn't being cautious and protecting ground troops
Originally posted by SnarfThat's called playing too much Modern Warfare, going for a kill streak.
Originally posted by SnarfWell, looks like he got about 15 kills from the Chopper Gunner....guess it's time to call in the tactical nuke?
Originally posted by Fastercaddy
I believe it was an honest mistake that was taken too far..
Originally posted by tigpoppa
um their holding ak-47s and their in the street.
if they were innocent why were they in the street?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Did you really post that? Two people were carrying guns legally in their own country.
If they were innocent, why were they in the street??? Are you serious? Only guilty people are found in streets is that it? Maybe you can point out the lawns or sidewalks they were supposed to be in to show they were innocent for me?