It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by jerico65
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Keep just assuming, that seems to really help you out.
Well, you have all the answers, obviously.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Apparently so. I say it looks like a tripod and not an RPG.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
We both know they went in after to clear the area and found no RPGs so I guess yes I do have all the answers.
Originally posted by Portugoal
And if you're going to say that they couldve been shot down, to that I say, obviously, you're in a war zone. If you're in the air in a war zone, you have a huge target on your back.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Interesting to read both sides on this.
On one hand, there are those that are seemingly wanting it to be a camera man (it could might very well be) so they can endless talk about how the US Military is going around shooting civilians and journalist at will.
On the other, there is what looks like a shoulder fired weapon being brandished; thus giving a green light to fire upon to eliminate the threat.
The largest thing I have been reading is that side A is claiming proof via a blurry picture that it was a camera man and discounting any other possibilities because it is too blurry to positively identify it as an RPG.
Circular logic at its best.
Originally posted by signal2noise
You're wrong. If you're talking about this:
mypetjawa.mu.nu...
What you're seeing in that repeating video clip is a guy with an RPG. You can tell by the way the front half "swells". That's the grenade.
No, I don't think you do. If a round from the Apache hit that RPG in the grenade, it probably exploded and blew the launcher to bits.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I sure was hoping someone would post that link once again. Being on every page did not seem to be enough. You see what you want to see as evidenced by your clear inability to see that link plastered all over the place including about halve of jerico65's posts.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Probably huh? That makes it all better. You have a hunch about what happened to the evidence to prove your first hunch. Good thing the only thing at stake is the life of human beings so hunches about hunches make perfect sense, right?
Originally posted by jerico65
Because you can't get enough of it:
mypetjawa.mu.nu...
And here's a good picture of what you see:
en.wikipedia.org...:ISF_member_armed_with_RPG-7.jpg
Compare the way the soldier in the picture is holding it by the foregrip, the same way the guy in the video is holding it.
A 30MM round will destroy an RPG, especially if it strikes that grenade and sets it off. No hunch there.
And your opinion is that since they didn't find an RPG, it didn't exist? If you can't see it, it's not there?
[edit on 9-4-2010 by jerico65]
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
This is still just your opinion and just a further attempt to completely avoid the real point I have been making all along. I guess it would take a certain amount of courage to address the entire thing but instead this is what I get.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So you know for a fact that an RPG was present and hit with a 30mm round thus destroying it...or is that still a hunch?
Originally posted by jerico65
I guess it takes a certain amount of courage to open your eyes and see that the man in the clip was holding an RPG. If you don't want to show any courage, be my guest.
So you know for a fact that there wasn't an RPG present and it wasn't hit with a 30MM round? Or is that your hunch?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Again you prove my point by failing to address the wounded man crawling or the van with children in it. The courage would lie in addressing the entire situation and not just trying to justify one small aspect with one small guess. Feel free to explain where my lack of courage lies. I am all ears.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Show some backbone and address the entire scene and not just the one point you think you can win on.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Uh, yeah. I never stated that I knew for a fact that there was no RPG. You are the one who said there was no hunch so please show me where you got your facts from or admit it is just a hunch.
Originally posted by jerico65
The lack of courage comes from covering your eyes while the video clip is playing and saying over and over, "No RPG".
The van? You know, you're right, I didn't address the van in this thread. It was in another. Sorry, that was my bad.
The van is the really only "iffy" deal. The Apache could have waited to see what was going on, but then again, the van wasn't marked in any way showing it was a non-combatant. No red cross, red lion, etc, on the side. So, it could have been a van of people trying to help, or a van of insurgents. Coulda/Woulda/Shoulda; we weren't there, so....
The wounded guy? Same deal. Is he out of the fight, or is he crawling for a weapon?
Sorry, that was a "win" for me.
[Geez, I don't know. Probably comparing that video clip to the RPGs I've seen in person, handled in person, and the numerous pictures that I posted links to. No hunch there, Gus.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Nope. I have already stated that my problem would still exist were there an RPG or not. That is my point. You are stuck hiding behind one little hook that is really kind of a moot point for me anyway given the whole picture.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
So what are you trying to justify exactly? The van was not painted the way you wanted it? People should not try to rescue people in their homes without the proper paint job? Seriously? Would you really accept that were it the other way around and you were wounded in the street?
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Wait and see if he even reaches for or gets near a weapon or just blow him to pieces? Justify it for me. I dare you.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Actually that was a "think you can win" but obviously you only see what you want to.
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
That is proof? Looking at a blurry picture is absolute proof to you? Are you even serious about anything you are posting?
Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by K J Gunderson
I think it should also be noted the link detractors keep spamming also has the full report embedded in it. In this report the Army admits no RPG launcher was recovered nor were there any RPG rounds in the area where the people were killed. RPG's were being fired that day from a different part of the city.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by K J Gunderson
What I don't understand is your complete defensive nature. I took no sides and merely pointed out the observation of the conversation.
War is hell. Bad things happen. There are mistakes, there are unfortunate atrocities and their is death. It doesn't excuse what may or may not have happened, but it is a reality that many seem to neglect.
The order to open fire upon a target is sent up channel and back. If through such a process someone deemed it necessary to engage, then it happened.
If this incident turns out that innocent civilians were gunned down, then let justice be served, but people will see what they want. Some see a only cameras, others see a camera and an RPG launcher.