Helicopter shooting innocent?

Originally posted by Joe Cat
you can call them freedom fighters if you prefer.......
I wasn't questioning the dead of the first 2, im questioning the need to kill a wounded man....
i wasnt there but neither were you guys there....
so u cant say for sure it was a RPG...

Then what where they doing?

Late night emergency plumbing with a piece of pipe that was the right length to be an RPG? Is that why they had to meet in secret?

Originally posted by Joe Cat
you can call them freedom fighters if you prefer.......
I wasn't questioning the dead of the first 2, im questioning the need to kill a wounded man....
i wasnt there but neither were you guys there....
so u cant say for sure it was a RPG...

Ya could argue that in 3 points, the 1) It could have been an RPG, it could have been anything really, 2) Whats best, a) to leave the guy to die slowly in pain or b) put him outta his misery there and then and 3) if you listen to the radio messages the pilot is told to hit him, and the truck, and if you watch anyway when they kill the 1st bloke the bullets hit all around him so even if the pilot aimed for the truck/van its more than likely he would have hit the soldier/civilian/'terrorist' (that fabled word) anyway

Originally posted by COOL HAND
[No, the right of self defense gave them the right to kill those people in the video.

They had the right to kill the first two but IMO the third kill was a crime, he was wounded....not a real threat...

Originally posted by Joe Cat
They had the right to kill the first two but IMO the third kill was a crime, he was wounded....not a real threat...

He was still moving towards the vehicle. Do we know what was in the vehicle, perhaps another weapon?

If they had left him you probably would complain about them leaving a dying man alone out there.

The point is he was an enemy and we are at war with them. Didn't you ever hear Patton's quote on the subject?

Originally posted by Joe Cat

Originally posted by COOL HAND
[No, the right of self defense gave them the right to kill those people in the video.

They had the right to kill the first two but IMO the third kill was a crime, he was wounded....not a real threat...

Kinda off point... what the heck does IMO stand for?? i put somethin about the 3rd bloke in the last post i made

Originally posted by Joe Cat
you can call them freedom fighters if you prefer.......
I wasn't questioning the dead of the first 2, im questioning the need to kill a wounded man....
i wasnt there but neither were you guys there....
so u cant say for sure it was a RPG...

When you're placed in that situation, you cannot sit there and wait you need to take action.

im not a expert on this but wasnt it supose to arrest the gay, after all POW have rights, the right to medical aid and all......maybe the geneva convetion doesnt apply to the US...i dont know....

Originally posted by Stuey1221

Originally posted by Joe Cat

Originally posted by COOL HAND
[No, the right of self defense gave them the right to kill those people in the video.

They had the right to kill the first two but IMO the third kill was a crime, he was wounded....not a real threat...

Kinda off point... what the heck does IMO stand for?? i put somethin about the 3rd bloke in the last post i made

In my opinion.

IMO means in my opinion...u r going to see that a lot here in ATS.

Originally posted by Joe Cat
im not a expert on this but wasnt it supose to arrest the gay, after all POW have rights, the right to medical aid and all......maybe the geneva convetion doesnt apply to the US...i dont know....

The apache does not have room for passengers.

The Iraqis do not know anything about the Geneva convention, look at how they treated the POWs from the war.

Under the terms of the Geneva convention the prisoner is granted those rights after he surrenders. I didn't see any surrendering going on there.

Originally posted by Joe Cat
im not a expert on this but wasnt it supose to arrest the gay, after all POW have rights, the right to medical aid and all......maybe the geneva convetion doesnt apply to the US...i dont know....

He wasn't a Prisoner of War though, he was just a "freedom fighter" as you would prefer we called them. Point is, the pilot's believed he was attempting to load an RPG and there was no room to wait and confirm this assumption. They had to take action and I believe it was the right action.

Originally posted by Joe Cat
im not a expert on this but wasnt it supose to arrest the gay, after all POW have rights, the right to medical aid and all......maybe the geneva convetion doesnt apply to the US...i dont know....

BTW, yes the Geneva Convention applies to the US.

We were one of th storngest backers of it when it was created. Too bad others that supported its creation did not adhere to it as well.

[Edited on 6/5/04 by COOL HAND]

lets not talk about treatment for the POW...you guys arent treating your POW that well either....
Because i have no room in the heli, that gives them the right to kill....
no room, sorry i have to kill you....

Originally posted by Joe Cat
IMO means in my opinion...u r going to see that a lot here in ATS.

Yeah i know... and its good i like hearin ppls opinions and when theyre argued in a civilised mannor.. s'all good.

IMO (hehe) i reckon the pilot/commander made the right decision in the end, who knows what they were doing maybe if it was daylight then we could understand more but best not to take the risk

Originally posted by Joe Cat
lets not talk about treatment for the POW...you guys arent treating your POW that well either....
Because i have no room in the heli, that gives them the right to kill....
no room, sorry i have to kill you....

You are ignoring the facts, my friend. The pilots believed he was a threat. They belived he was loading up an RPG. That is really all there is to it.

Originally posted by Joe Cat
lets not talk about treatment for the POW...you guys arent treating your POW that well either....
Because i have no room in the heli, that gives them the right to kill....
no room, sorry i have to kill you....

Compared to how they treated our guys, the Iraqis are getting off light.

Did anyone ever consider that maybe they brought this upon themselves based on their treatment of our prisoners in the past? You never heard about Iraqi prisoners being mistreated during DS.

Back to the subject, what would you have had them do?

Call for someone to come in and get them, thus putting more people at risk?

[Edited on 6/5/04 by COOL HAND]

the geneva convention didnt seemed to be aplied at guantanamo(where are afeghans and other terrorists) .......that's why i was asking!

Originally posted by Joe Cat
the geneva convention didnt seemed to be aplied at guantanamo(where are afeghans and other terrorists) .......that's why i was asking!

How do you figure that?

Have you been there yourself and seen how they are treated?

They receive far better care there than they receive from their fellow Taliban.

It's evident he isn't going to change his opinion. At least not with the way he is presenting himself right now, which is a stubborn person who won't accept the facts. I don't mean to be rude, but I say what I feel.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Joe Cat
lets not talk about treatment for the POW...you guys arent treating your POW that well either....
Because i have no room in the heli, that gives them the right to kill....
no room, sorry i have to kill you....

Compared to how they treated our guys, the Iraqis are getting off light.

Did anyone ever consider that maybe they brought this upon themselves based on their treatment of our prisoners in the past? You never heard about Iraqi prisoners being mistreated during DS.

Back to the subject, what would you have had them do?

Call for someone to come in and get them, thus putting more people at risk?

[Edited on 6/5/04 by COOL HAND]

I dunno whats making me think this, perhaps defending the pilots actions, but... whats saying that just up the road from that RPG there were coalition troops?! we dont exactly know where this happened so...