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.

 

CNN: Leaked video reveals chaos of Baghdad attack

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

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.


Apparently so. I say it looks like a tripod and not an RPG.

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.




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
And we all know that this "RPG" was never pointed at the copter. Like I said, CNN wants to spin that the insurgents never knew they were there because of the superiority of American technology. Yet how can you justify that, in not knowing the Americans were there, that a RPG was brought out.

Perhaps they were going to use it for some type of "let's see who can hit those bottles on those posts the most times" game, since they definetly never aimed their "RPG" at the copter.

10 times out of 10 I would shoot. If I were certain. If I took the time to realize the sitatution and see that none of those insurgents looked worried or anything, and no weapons were pointed at me, then I would probably use my training, assuming they train you to be intelligent in your decision making, to sit back, analyze the situation and then react. The fact that 2 teams screwed up is ridiculous.

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. An RPG could be fired from any part of the city. So next time we're in the air, I say we just shoot every moving thing just to be sure we don't get shot down.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Apparently so. I say it looks like a tripod and not an RPG.


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.


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.


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.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

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.


If you carry an RPG in a war zone, you're a target, too.


So you're saying that the helicopter should have waited until the guy fired the RPG before they did anything?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

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.


Yeah um...you are completely missing the third hand where people could really care less about any of that because the wounded man crawling and the van full of children clearly presented no threat and offered ample time in which to assess. Keep pretending it is all about whether or not someone had an RPG though.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

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.


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.


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.


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?

[edit on 9-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   
There was no RPG. Quit smoking stuff.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

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.


Because you can't get enough of it:

mypetjawa.mu.nu...

And here's a good picture of what you see:

en.wikipedia.org...

Go about half way down in that article, to the "Iraq" section. 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.


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?


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]

[edit on 9-4-2010 by jerico65]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

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.


Oh, my bad. If only you had already repeated it 21 times. It was this last time that really sells it. Thanks so much. Repetition makes me believe.


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.



A 30MM round will destroy an RPG, especially if it strikes that grenade and sets it off. No hunch there.


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?

Maybe you can point out that detonation on the video.


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]


Sure, that is exactly what I said.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

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.


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.



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?


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?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

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.


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.

I have brought up the van and the wounded man over and over again yet you keep harping on about an RPG that may or may not have been present at first but was most definitely not when the van pulled up or the man was crawling away.

Show some backbone and address the entire scene and not just the one point you think you can win on.



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?



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.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   

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.


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?


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.


Sorry, that was a "win" for me.



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.


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.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

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".


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.


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....


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?


The wounded guy? Same deal. Is he out of the fight, or is he crawling for a weapon?


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.



Sorry, that was a "win" for me.


Actually that was a "think you can win" but obviously you only see what you want to.


[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.


That is proof? Looking at a blurry picture is absolute proof to you? Are you even serious about anything you are posting?



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, one little hook.
People have been posting that the Iraqis are authorize to have AKs and "X" number of rounds of ammo, which is true. They can have that for self-defense. But an RPG? What do you think that is, Joe Iraqi playing, "Can you top this?" with his neighbors?


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?


In their homes? I thought they were in the street? Get your story straight.


They drove an unmarked van into an area where a bunch of guys just got gunned down by a helicopter. Sure, they were probably trying to do good, but they really didn't think it thru, did they? Did they think that there wasn't a possibility that they could get shot?


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.


"I dare you".
Well, until you're in that position, I guess you'll never know.


Originally posted by K J Gunderson
Actually that was a "think you can win" but obviously you only see what you want to.


Sorry, it was a win. You don't want to admit to seeing anything.


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?


Since I know what I'm looking at from personal experience, and you don't, yes, it's proof.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   
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. I have pointed out several times that AK-47's are allowed by permit and having one doesn't make you an insurgent. My husband, who has been there twice, told me one has to get it cleared because of all the private security working in the area. According to him many in the press do in fact hire private security to accompany them. Considering the proximity to Sadr City and the time frame, I'm more likely to believe the RPG fire was coming from that area.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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.



I love this.
Like I've said before, it seems to me like these detractors propose we just blow up the entire city, civilians and all, since there are weapons all over the city and we don't know when they are pointed at us.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 11:47 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 10 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   

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.


I am not being the least bit defensive with you. You presented a huge lack of ignorance of the issue at hand with your two rigid scenarios. I could understand were the thread brand new but enough people have discussed the van, the children, the wounded man enough that you should realize it is not all about whether or not the journalists appeared to be a threat. There is much more to the video than that.


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.


War is not gunning down a wounded man as he crawls for his life. War is not shooting a van with children in it for attending to the wounded. That is not war, that is murder. I guess what you see as defensive, I see as a lingering reverence for human life.

If you can show me where these people asked for war in the first place, then you might have something. Until then, I am not buying.


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.


Did you watch the video? The order to open fire came from the chopper. The reported what they claimed was a threat and begged for the OK to shoot. That ok was given based on what the chopper reported. Do you not see the problem there? Honestly?


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.



It already turned out that innocent civilians were gunned down and no RPG was found. What exactly are you waiting for?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join