Not a trial necessarily, but certainly POW status. At what point were they a threat and not merely a potential threat? Show me the point in the film whre there was anything other than guys rolling on the ground being shot at. Im not saying it wasnt necessary, and not knowing the rules of engagement for this particular war I cant say whether or not it was justified, but when a combatant cowers when fired upon I see it as more of an execution.
If they were indeed sabatoging a pipeline or setting up a large weapon, couldnt information be gathered from at least one of them? The guy flailing on the ground wouldnt pose a great threat, although Ill give one is there.
Furthermore, does anyone know where this film even came from, and why it’s in the media? Is it some ort of acid test to gauge public opinion? Is it some sort of liberal plot to sabotage the war effort? Is it a conservative plan to show what a good bunch of guys our troops are?
hehe… well it wasn’t the next best place for terrorists until Bush came barging in…now it is becoming terrorist tourism area (not much funding in Iraq though only american targets). Yet everyone choses what they want to beleive in.
Libya caved in more due to economic blockade of many years + a son who had US education possibly. Since not as many future arabic leaders are studying in the US anymore similar things might not happen in the future.Let’s say those guys were going to sabotage a pipeline and were armed to the teeth. In that case the shooting was justified. If they just liquified a couple farmers, I want to be sick.
If they want martyrdom, better to give it to them at long range.
-You misunderstand. I wasn’t saying it was too steady from a “shakes and jitters” standpoint, I meant steady in that the chopper was not moving. IE, it’s not flying forward or even sideways, staying moving in order to make for a more difficult target for any bad guys about.
The camera tracks left, right, and up & down a little, but the overall viewpoint doesn’t change, the whole scene doesn’t shift to the side as if the chopper were orbiting the target.
There’s a couple of very similar gun-cam videos online showing “strafing runs” by AC-130 “Super Spectre” type gunships. If you watch them, the point-of-view is always changing, since, unlike the chopper, obviously the AC-130, being a fixed-wing airplane, cannot “hover”. The pilots “orbit”, or fly a very tight circle around the target zone.
I simply assumed that chopper pilots in Iraq, where, again, we’ve lost more than a couple of helicopters to enemy fire, would at least be moving a little, to keep from presenting a dead-still target. They don’t shift sideways to look for the third guy (the one under the truck), or start flying towards the target after the last shots.
When I first saw this “Apache” video, I suspected it was actually from a Bradley, a tracked APC type vehicle, since it was so steady. Seeing the ‘longer’ clip later, it’s clear the chopper does shift a slight bit, rocking a little as if there’s a bit of wind.
-In the “long” clip, you see several views either unmagnified or at a reduced magnification, and the chopper appears a pretty long ways off, I’d make a rough guess at 800 meters- half a mile or more. The people in the pic were running- at least one was- when the first burst went off, so perhaps they already were getting the idea the “jig was up”.
As an aside, the term Terrorist is certainly is bandied about pretty freely. While I am certain that terrorists are converging on Iraq, not every armed person in Iraq is one. As much as the Wolverines of Red Dawn were terrorists, at least. My opinion is that if the guys in the link were popping off rounds at a military base, they aren’t terrorists. Resistance fighter is more apt. Granted, they are fighting for a fucked up and dead regime, but they are engaging a military target in a situation where no truce has been called. It seems that politicians and some of the press are quick to announce any activity in Iraq as the work of terrorists. The road side bombers and the soft target attackers, they are the terrorists. They have no qualms about hurting innocents, and I suspect a large number of them are not locals.
So our policy is to blow apart everybody we SUSPECT MAY POSSIBLY have a weapon without investgating further? We shoot first and ask questions…never? We finish off wounded men because they may come back and hurt us some day? How is this not like bayonetting the wounded or shooting up a parachuting pilot? When did this stop being what the Bad Guys do and start being what Americans do?
This America of 2004 has become an ugly, ugly place. I am ashamed to be an American if this behavior is both acceptable and lauded.
Investigate further?? As in take a closer look? Or perhaps ask?
It’s called war…
<snip crap>
Move to France
I can’t believe how naive some of the responses in this thread are. This is a shooting war, and the film shows action in a combat zone. There are rules of engagemnent, standing orders and direct orders to be followed. There is no reason to assume that the helicopter crew is not following established procedure.
Killing the enemy and destroying his materials and means of transportation are an objective, not actions to be deplored.
As has already been pointed out in this thread, war is hell. This is nothing new. General Wm. Sherman is credited with coining the phrase during the Civil War.
Joh Carter fine. I can understand how in war we have to complete objectives. Soldiers must complete their orders. How sometimes people that LOOK like the enemy must be treated as such until it is proven they are not (sad but true). How people ‘sneaking’ around at night get shot up for being ‘possible’ enemy combatants (and hopefully they don’t turn out to be farmers driving sheep, as HAS ALREADY HAPPENED).
It’s war and war is hell as you pointed out.
My mian problem is that war, being the hell it is, should not unleashed except when absolutely necessary, and only as a last resort.
NOT for the political agenda of one SOB sitting in office.
I agree… one more reason not to lightly go into them… or did they think it was a nice and quick police action ?
To the last two posters: My comments are directed to the specific military action described in the OP. Justification, (or lack of same) for this whole war is another topic entirely.
Would I be wrong in assuming that there’s a curfew in the area that film was taken, and has been since we captured the area?
There’s gotta be more context to the situation than the video gives, obviously.
Do you guys seriously think the Apache pilots spotted a few people on IR and decided to shoot them for no good reason?
Also, regarding the helicopter hovering, that’s standard. It’s not unlikely they were in a relatively safe place, like over a field or up the side of a cliff - apache attack doctrine doesn’t focus on circling around a target. Besides - when you move around that much, you expose youself to new threats from a wider area.
Oh, how original…
And ironic considering the circumstances under which our nation was founded.
Few supposed it was a wanton killing... I just didn't like the "mercy" killing of the wounded guy. Even if it might be militarily acceptable. We do hope they had good intelligence... but "good" inteligence might be some sunnis giving fake info to americans so they might kill some shi'ites. Remember that wedding that was bombed in Afghanistan ? Americans have been used before... and will be again. (Don't think its the case in this video... )
The thing is that the Apache is armored against small munitions. 20mm or less I think. So even a .50 Machine Gun won't likely hurt him. SAMs (surface to air missiles) aren't that common but RPGs (rocket propelled grenades) are. RPGs are straight line flyers though. A hovering helicopter is an easy target... a even slowly moving chopper isn't.-You’re thinking “small arms fire”, which means rifle-caliber stuff, or smaller shrapnel.
There’s nothing on an Apache, even over the engines, that can stop a .50 round at anything inside of the caliber’s absolute maximum range envelope. 20mm is about five or six times more powerful than that, and would sail right through even Bradleys, Strykers and armored Hummers. It’d do serious damage to most self-propelled guns and MLRS vehicles, and even Abrams crews sure ain’t gonna sit still for a peppering.
Helicopters are mainly armored with lightweight materials like Kevlar, or Titanium plate, but are still only good to most small-arms (rifle-caliber stuff.) Armor is heavy, and if you beefed up an Apache to the point that most of it could take a hit from a .50 cal, it’d probably barely lift off the ground, have an operational ceiling of about a meter, and if the pilot had extra change in his pocket, probably couldn’t hover.
“Manportable” SAMs are thankfully very rare, mainly being an American or Soviet product, and more carefully controlled than usual. RPGs however, are dirt-common, with some estimates saying there’s a million or three over there, with anywhere up to ten million rockets. (Iraq has, by some estimates, over a hundred million tons of ordnance in something like 1,500 seperate depots and stores.)
The ‘Cockpit Tub’ is armored up to 23mm, as are the rotor blades, while the rest of the body is armored up to 12.7mm. Now that doesn’t mean that it can sit there and absorb 12.7mm all day long, but when it comes to protection from ground fire, the Apache is about as good as they get.
Still, from my understanding, it is the tail rotor that is considered the weakpoint in these situations. I wonder why the Army is sticking with them, rather than going with some NOTAR-ish solution.
This will be a short hijack. I have to share my sickness with y’all. In the first link provided, if you click the link that says to go directly to the film footage, look on the right side of the screen, under tasteless stories, and click on, “anal surprise” I guarantee horror.
I…sputter <hork> gaaaaahhhh…
!WARNING! GRAPHIC depictions of things nobody should ever have to face.
:eek:
I’m a former U.S. Marine Sniper.
Soldier.
Executioner.
Killer.
Murderer.
*
I don’t care what term you select, I did my job-
Just like the pilots and gunners of the Helo’s in this film.
They are in a war zone.
The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy and his ability to wage war.
They should have destroyed the tractor as well.
Farmers? Isn’t it the middle of the night? Or at best, really early morning? I know farmers like to get up early, but not many that I’ve heard of till the fields in the middle of the night. (Or does that gun targeting system look like that in the day as well?)
No wait, lets all second guess trained pilots and gunners, who probably watched the “farmers” for quite a while before actually firing, and asked quite a few questions about it being OK to open fire. After all, people figured it all out after seeing 1min of footage. “Farmers” react pretty well for being under fire, I know the first thing I’d do after being shot at would be to lean down and start unwrapping my shovel while my mate who drives the tractor is in bits 20m away.