on the apache video
 

just thought id post this because I just found this out about it.
here is the full version, what you saw earlyer was just a clip

http://home.comcast.net/~antman01/apach ... n_iraq.avi

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/a ... 109-1.html

in the article the excuse isent that good "He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops." I could go kill my nebiro right now. does that mean he can come over & kill me?

I cant download the clip but if its the same version shown on tv here, you can clearly see a guy run
past that tractor and hide a long tube in one of the ploughed furrows....what do we think that was,
a fucking trombone? sounds like some of you guys would rather have seen these iraqis let go to fire
the thing at US troops...WTF!? eek: , why was that other thread locked BTW?

The engaging of the enemy was justified.

Simply awsome. How do you save that file ??

Well, that excuse is like Minority Report. How can you accuse someone of Murder if they haven't done it yet. Now this is a little different situation. This is a war, so I guess any armed Iraqi's are up for grabs.

Ok, i'll ask again. How do you save a file like that? ....and don't tell me to right click and choose save.

I think that is the only way to save from a link....

when i right click it it works fine.

Saw it on the news.

shure leave the gigantic flame war threads open, but close mine...


gg mods

What would you guys say if those three men were capable of killing 100 coalition toops? And the possibility to down 2 or more aircraft if they had not been killed. Would it be differnt? What if it were canadians in the apache instead?

Eight i love you because you see through the bullshit biggrin:

I don't think it matters who is in the helicoptor, watching people die isn't cool.

were they armed?
In the other vid I thought I saw two hand with no gun between them on a couple of guys.

And what's up with murdering a wounded, combat ineffective man? We kill active enemy combatants, gunning down wounded was practiced by the nazis, imperial Japs, and chi-coms, all of whom I consider war criminals.
Shooting a wounded man was not only uncalled for, but it sure as hell was a waste of money too, you know how much 50 30mm DU rounds cost?

I agree, and that should have definatly not been video taped. But you guys act like those men were saints, their job was to kill up and ours was to get them.

i think that stuff is awsome, and i would like to see more videos
sure its not cool to see them die but just the technology that they use to do this stuff is mind blowing.

anyone know how high up they are?

[quote="T.Hunter":bfe90]shure leave the gigantic flame war threads open, but close mine...


gg mods[/quote:bfe90]

I was wondering that myself, why was yours closed?

[quote="Sgt Stryker":085bc]were they armed?
In the other vid I thought I saw two hand with no gun between them on a couple of guys.[/quote:085bc]
They were transporting arms, they were probably armed...

also, is this taken during the actual invasion or closer to now (ie when government council is in place)?

Little things like that make all the difference, if it was after the war they are no longer combatants of an enemy country, not subject to Geneva, etc.


My other concern about striking a convoy and gunning down survivors (rather than, say, taking prisoners) is: are we always sure they're enemy?
The last vid I saw like that was on the History Channel, and it was an Apache accidentally killing an M-113 and then murdering its American crew with the gun.

any other videos similar to this? brings you closer to whats really going on over there

[quote="Sgt Stryker":e12fc]also, is this taken during the actual invasion or closer to now (ie when government council is in place)?[/quote:e12fc]
It's after the ''war'' ended, and the insurgency is gaining momentum.

the apache crew was doing its duty. they even sat there and waited to get authorization to fire on hostiles in a war zone (which is retarded). Its a sad reality of war...people die, its only our responsibility to make sure that its the enemy doing the dieing and not us.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":30eac]were they armed?
In the other vid I thought I saw two hand with no gun between them on a couple of guys.

And what's up with murdering a wounded, combat ineffective man? We kill active enemy combatants, gunning down wounded was practiced by the nazis, imperial Japs, and chi-coms, all of whom I consider war criminals.
Shooting a wounded man was not only uncalled for, but it sure as hell was a waste of money too, you know how much 50 30mm DU rounds cost?[/quote:30eac]

If you get shot in the leg, you are still capable of firing an Ak-47 into people.

A good video to bring yopu closer to whats going on over there, is the al-jazzaera video of the that convoy (or something, the one with lynch) that was ambused. And the Captured amercian soldiers with the bullet wounds in their head.... I don't recall any of you guys saying that was awesome...

Because those soldiers were executed in the head at close range. I would not say it was awesome if the same thing happened to Iraqis

I smell liberal feces in this thread.

What about the soldiers killed by the truck? And, as they probably were excuted but, is there any proof of that?

[quote=Quze]If you get shot in the leg, you are still capable of firing an Ak-47 into people.

[/quote:ddb54]

In MOHAA yeah, in real life you're in shock and will probably die soon unless someone patches your sorry ass up. Most people can't fight on a leg shattered by a 30mm round, unlike what 1980s Hollywood would have us think.

imwithstupid:

[quote=Vance]It's after the ''war'' ended, and the insurgency is gaining momentum.[/quote:ee55d]

well in that case they probably were die-hard Fedayeen troopers (aka Saddam's SS) or foreign Jihadists, either way, not the poor conscript soldiers I would feel sorry for.

Just get this in your head. In war...the object is to kill the enemy. This is why we aren't sad when we kill iraqis, because these iraqis could very well be trying to kill americans if they arent killed. We are sad when iraqi soldiers and al queda fighters who are doing their duty kill americans because WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE DONT LIKE SEEING OUR GUYS GET KILLED!!! In ww2 no one cried when we wasted nazis and in korea no one cried when we wasted gooks...ever since vietnamn people some how have gotten the impression that we're suposed to win wars by not killing the enemy and his population, its just not going to happen.

[quote="Cpl. Eames":d24e6]Just get this in your head. In war...the object is to kill the enemy. This is why we aren't sad when we kill iraqis, because these iraqis could very well be trying to kill americans if they arent killed. We are sad when iraqi soldiers and al queda fighters who are doing their duty kill americans because WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE DONT LIKE SEEING OUR GUYS GET KILLED!!! In ww2 no one cried when we wasted nazis and in korea no one cried when we wasted gooks...ever since vietnamn people some how have gotten the impression that we're suposed to win wars by not killing the enemy and his population, its just not going to happen.[/quote:d24e6]

thats what happens when you release these videos to the public, they form opinions on things they don't understand

The objective of war is not to kill the enemy.

ummm... come again?

Was exactly is the objective of war, then ? Since you know everything.

To have teaparties and fundraisers.

according to Bernard Montgomery yes, why do you think their tanks stopped for tea like 4 miles from Arnhem

That's the British for ya mwah:

[quote="Cpt. Zapotoski":2f540]ummm... come again?

Was exactly is the objective of war, then ? Since you know everything.[/quote:2f540]

Why is it every time you feel the need to speak to me, you do it in a condescending way? I don't appreciate it. I have not once said I know everything. If you don't enjoy my opinions or posts, you can tell me. I promise I won't cry, but dropping hints at the fact is getting old.


Anyway, the objective of wars differ with each conflict.

In the first gulf war, the main objective was to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

In World War II, it would have been the liberation of Europe, Asia and other continents of the Axis powers and to make freedom reign supreme.

I don't know of any conflicts where the objective was to kill others. Even a thousand years ago, war was waged over lands, treasures and power. The objective was to gain these things.

The current Iraq conflict was waged for regime change. Although this isn't as clear cut as previous conflicts. The same goes for Afghanistan.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":48377]you know how much 50 30mm DU rounds cost?[/quote:48377]
How much do they cost?

Well say we have a certain obtainable goal in a war. There is only 2 ways to move their troops the hell out our way and 1 of them is not play happy songs and dance around them in the middle of the night. They are Kill them, capture them. So why are we all acting like 2 young men doing there job and killing 3 others is so immorally wrong. Thats what they signed up to do they signed up to fight for their country and thats what the iraqis did.

And you suppose all of this can be accomplished by NOT killing the enemy?

in war - you either kill the enemy before he kills you. thats the way it is and the way it has to be!

your not going to get a load of negotiators to fight the battles...