chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Helicopter targets crowd of civilians Eyewitness account Ok, so hopefully the crew just had a rush of blood to the head (I like to think that the US doesn't have a policy of deliberately targetting crowds of civilians, including children) and, apparently, there is going to be some sort of inquiry but why all the bs? The first explanation was that the Bradley was destroyed to prevent looting and "harm to the Iraqi people" (so they were killing them to prevent them from being harmed?). The second explanation (a few hours later) was that the helicopter was fired on, which is contradicted by all the TV footage and press teams on the scene. Just say an inquiry is taking place and leave it at that.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Helicopter targets crowd of civilians Eyewitness account Ok, so hopefully the crew just had a rush of blood to the head (I like to think that the US doesn't have a policy of deliberately targetting crowds of civilians, including children) and, apparently, there is going to be some sort of inquiry but why all the bs? The first explanation was that the Bradley was destroyed to prevent looting and "harm to the Iraqi people" (so they were killing them to prevent them from being harmed?). The second explanation (a few hours later) was that the helicopter was fired on, which is contradicted by all the TV footage and press teams on the scene. Just say an inquiry is taking place and leave it at that. 30402[/snapback] Chicot, US policy is either to take weapons or destroy them if they can't. If people are on the track, then they are the enemy and are fair game, even if a child. Ask some of your Vietnam buddies on the board how much damage a child can do in combat.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Chicot, US policy is either to take weapons or destroy them if they can't. If people are on the track, then they are the enemy and are fair game, even if a child. Ask some of your Vietnam buddies on the board how much damage a child can do in combat. 30405[/snapback] So it is actually policy to destroy vehicles even when they are surrounded by a crowd of civilians? In that case, I am suprised this sort of incident has not happened before since this sort of scenario has surely been played out many times before.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 So it is actually policy to destroy vehicles even when they are surrounded by a crowd of civilians? In that case, I am suprised this sort of incident has not happened before since this sort of scenario has surely been played out many times before. 30409[/snapback] It has happened before. Somalia come to mind. If these are "innocent civilians" why are they on a track to begin with. This is pure stevestojan on your part to defend the idiots who climbed on the track. This has been US policy and most armed forces of the world policies for hundreds of years.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Helicopter targets crowd of civilians Eyewitness account Ok, so hopefully the crew just had a rush of blood to the head (I like to think that the US doesn't have a policy of deliberately targetting crowds of civilians, including children) and, apparently, there is going to be some sort of inquiry but why all the bs? The first explanation was that the Bradley was destroyed to prevent looting and "harm to the Iraqi people" (so they were killing them to prevent them from being harmed?). The second explanation (a few hours later) was that the helicopter was fired on, which is contradicted by all the TV footage and press teams on the scene. Just say an inquiry is taking place and leave it at that. 30402[/snapback] Umm America hater, just for yur information...there is NO DOUBT that the USA does not deliberately target civilian crowds. Of this I am sure, and as an AMERICAN I do not feel the need to question this the way that you do. My suggestion to the wacky iraqia who feel the need to dance a round a burning Bradley.......heads up, and take cover or you may just end up on the list of stupid people who danced around like a fool in the street in front of a burning Bradley that had just been attacked and ended up dead. In ther perhaps more clear words: STAY AWAY FROM THE BAD GUYS....THEY ARE IN OUR SIGHTS!
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 It has happened before. Somalia come to mind. If these are "innocent civilians" why are they on a track to begin with. This is pure stevestojan on your part to defend the idiots who climbed on the track. This has been US policy and most armed forces of the world policies for hundreds of years. 30415[/snapback] People came out to see what was going on - I've seen countless images and footage of crowds around burning vehicles in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time they have actually been bombed. Yes, there were some on the track (stupid, but I'm not sure if they deserve to die for that). Others were just milling around in the vicinity and the news crews were simply reporting on the event (I'm sure US news crews would never do such a thing). If it was simply US policy then why did they change their story a few hours later to say they were taking ground fire? The situation in Iraq is somewhat different from most wars - the US presence is supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people and they are supposed to be working in consultation with the Iraqi "government". Events like this (whether policy or not) are a gift in recruiting terms to the insurgents and pretty embarrassing for the Iraqi interim government.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Umm America hater, just for yur information...there is NO DOUBT that the USA does not deliberately target civilian crowds. Of this I am sure, and as an AMERICAN I do not feel the need to question this the way that you do. My suggestion to the wacky iraqia who feel the need to dance a round a burning Bradley.......heads up, and take cover or you may just end up on the list of stupid people who danced around like a fool in the street in front of a burning Bradley that had just been attacked and ended up dead. In ther perhaps more clear words: STAY AWAY FROM THE BAD GUYS....THEY ARE IN OUR SIGHTS! 30420[/snapback] No, I don't believe the US deliberately targets civilian crowds, but I don't believe it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the crew of the helicopter got pissed off with some of the crowd celebrating the destruction of the Bradley and decided to teach them a lesson.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 People came out to see what was going on - I've seen countless images and footage of crowds around burning vehicles in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time they have actually been bombed. Yes, there were some on the track (stupid, but I'm not sure if they deserve to die for that). Others were just milling around in the vicinity and the news crews were simply reporting on the event (I'm sure US news crews would never do such a thing). If it was simply US policy then why did they change their story a few hours later to say they were taking ground fire? The situation in Iraq is somewhat different from most wars - the US presence is supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people and they are supposed to be working in consultation with the Iraqi "government". Events like this (whether policy or not) are a gift in recruiting terms to the insurgents and pretty embarrassing for the Iraqi interim government. 30424[/snapback] So it's normal for people to hang around military vehicles 40 minutes after a battle. Was there waiters passing out cheese and wine to the people who just happened to "mill" around? Again, unless policy has changed, we were under orders to destroy any weapons that needed to be left behind. This includes rifles, tanks, planes, and any military bunkers, buildings, etc... This has been US policy forever. Even people choose to rush on climb on a track, or "mill" around 40 minutes after this battle then they are fair game.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Of course Chicot, you chose to omit how many Iraqi are killed by you insurgent friend. Oh like the 47 innocents killed today by a car bomber. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=540&ncid=716 Okay 3 people killed when the US was enforcing policies of arms poliferation, yet you conviently overlook the hundreds killed weekly by your Sunni pals.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Of course Chicot, you chose to omit how many Iraqi are killed by you insurgent friend. Oh like the 47 innocents killed today by a car bomber. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=540&ncid=716 Okay 3 people killed when the US was enforcing policies of arms poliferation, yet you conviently overlook the hundreds killed weekly by your Sunni pals. 30451[/snapback] No, I don't choose to omit it. I have condemned the killing of civilians, no matter who is carrying it out. The difference is the insurgents answer to no one, have signed no treaties governing their behaviour, etc.. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold "the leader of the free world" to a somewhat higher standard.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 People came out to see what was going on - I've seen countless images and footage of crowds around burning vehicles in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time they have actually been bombed. Yes, there were some on the track (stupid, but I'm not sure if they deserve to die for that). Others were just milling around in the vicinity and the news crews were simply reporting on the event (I'm sure US news crews would never do such a thing). If it was simply US policy then why did they change their story a few hours later to say they were taking ground fire? The situation in Iraq is somewhat different from most wars - the US presence is supposed to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people and they are supposed to be working in consultation with the Iraqi "government". Events like this (whether policy or not) are a gift in recruiting terms to the insurgents and pretty embarrassing for the Iraqi interim government. 30424[/snapback] I know, maybe if johnny kerry is elected president he will finally get that new weapon developed. You know the one I'm talking about.......the new "sensitive" bomb. Oh yes the new sensitive bomb, it has the ability to determine just prior to detonation who is a meany, and who is just a stupid wacked out luney tune who has nothing better to do then brush the dirt in front of his house or dance on a burning US military vehicle that was attacked. Yes the new sensitive bomb will change everything, now we can drop bombs with total disregard to who is in the crowd, because we can be sure thet the exloding fragments will only seek out those who mean us harm. Wow, that kerry sure knows how to fight a sensitive war, the world will truely love him and revere him as a true world leader. No doubt a peace prize will be on the horizon as well. yes, the new sensitive bomb...coming to a war zone near you soon.
Rich in Ohio Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 No, I don't believe the US deliberately targets civilian crowds, but I don't believe it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the crew of the helicopter got pissed off with some of the crowd celebrating the destruction of the Bradley and decided to teach them a lesson. 30429[/snapback] Stop being stupid and hateful. I flew helicpoters in the Army and I know the type of people that these men are.......they do not target civilians just because they are mad that a Bradley was attacked. These men are professionals....not frigging islamic sicko bastards who will happily trade life for the promise of virgins. Get real man, your accusation is disgusting and disgraceful. America Hater!!!!
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 People came out to see what was going on - I've seen countless images and footage of crowds around burning vehicles in Iraq. 30424[/snapback] Then I guess Darwin's Theory was at work.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 And you know chicot the more I think about this the more I get pissed. What about our 3000 dead innocent civilians, 3 years ago. Same mentality of folks then who cheered around the track and were trying to cannibolize it. I wonder if you didn't cheer when the plains hit the towers and the pentagon. People know the rules of engagement. The US has been bombing and attacking safe houses in Iraq, for a while now. There have been women and children there, and the US policy has been if you sleep with the enemy you're gonna get !@#$ed up. Well you want to walk around with the ones who had just attacked our troops, then too bad.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Stop being stupid and hateful. I flew helicpoters in the Army and I know the type of people that these men are.......they do not target civilians just because they are mad that a Bradley was attacked. These men are professionals....not frigging islamic sicko bastards who will happily trade life for the promise of virgins. Get real man, your accusation is disgusting and disgraceful.America Hater!!!! 30466[/snapback] And no doubt you would have said the same about accusations of torture at Abu Ghraib. While I'm sure most US servicemen are perfectly decent people, unless the US army makes sainthood a prior requirement, there are bound to be as many bad apples as in society as a whole. And that's without reckoning on what war does to people.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 And you know chicot the more I think about this the more I get pissed. What about our 3000 dead innocent civilians, 3 years ago. Same mentality of folks then who cheered around the track and were trying to cannibolize it. I wonder if you didn't cheer when the plains hit the towers and the pentagon. People know the rules of engagement. The US has been bombing and attacking safe houses in Iraq, for a while now. There have been women and children there, and the US policy has been if you sleep with the enemy you're gonna get !@#$ed up. Well you want to walk around with the ones who had just attacked our troops, then too bad. 30511[/snapback] Don't be ridiculous. Of course, I didn't cheer. As I recall, I wasn't registered at the time, but I do remember posting a thread under the title "one Arab's view". Probably doesn't exist after all the changes, but there certainly wasn't any sort of a celebratory tone in it. And for the hundredth time, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 Don't be ridiculous. Of course, I didn't cheer. As I recall, I wasn't registered at the time, but I do remember posting a thread under the title "one Arab's view". Probably doesn't exist after all the changes, but there certainly wasn't any sort of a celebratory tone in it. And for the hundredth time, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 30651[/snapback] Never said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. But where were these "innocent" Iraqi's and media when that occurred, complaining that these nutcases hit innocent civilian targets here. Oh thats right I saw them dancing and cheering on TV, praising Allah. I also saw Saddam vowing to send millions to the families of these bmbings for their courange and triumph over us.
PastaJoe Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 yes, the new sensitive bomb...coming to a war zone near you soon. I believe it was already used in Iraq by Bush, when he said that we have to be sensitive to the concerns of Muslims when we held back from attacking al-Sadr's forces in the mosque. If you turn off the audio, the casual observer couldn't tell the difference between Iraq and the West Bank or Gaza strip. Continued mayhem and unrest with violence creating more violence with no end in sight.
chicot Posted September 14, 2004 Author Posted September 14, 2004 Never said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. But where were these "innocent" Iraqi's and media when that occurred, complaining that these nutcases hit innocent civilian targets here. Oh thats right I saw them dancing and cheering on TV, praising Allah. I also saw Saddam vowing to send millions to the families of these bmbings for their courange and triumph over us. 30698[/snapback] You did? I didn't. The images I saw were of Palestinians celebrating (although they seem to have morphed into anyone of Arab descent). I do recall DC Tom saying there was some sort of orchestrated celebration in Iraq, but that means very little as the secret police could easily force people into that. How do you know how ordinary Iraqis reacted? You don't. As for what Saddam said, who cares? He's a maniac. Anyway, this is quite a strange sort of justification - I thought the reason for the US still being in Iraq was to actually help the Iraqis, you seem to be implying it's somehow ok to kill Iraqi civilians in revenge for 9/11. You see the contradiction?
VABills Posted September 14, 2004 Posted September 14, 2004 You did? I didn't. The images I saw were of Palestinians celebrating (although they seem to have morphed into anyone of Arab descent). I do recall DC Tom saying there was some sort of orchestrated celebration in Iraq, but that means very little as the secret police could easily force people into that. How do you know how ordinary Iraqis reacted? You don't. As for what Saddam said, who cares? He's a maniac. Anyway, this is quite a strange sort of justification - I thought the reason for the US still being in Iraq was to actually help the Iraqis, you seem to be implying it's somehow ok to kill Iraqi civilians in revenge for 9/11. You see the contradiction? 30791[/snapback] No I said it was okay to bomb the stevestojan out of !@#$s canabolizing a track that they and their buddies just rpg'ed. Again you hang around with scum, you're going to get bombed. You are not innocent if you get close to a burning track, minutes after your buddies just in a major firefight.
Recommended Posts