I take it you don’t think they’d do something like that anyway, after finding out one of their helicopter crew’s have just blasted the shit out of a load of civilians with an AK47 between them, and then shot up a van carrying a good samaritan and his children?
Man, you seriously need to go and convince the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to follow this idea! If they did this, then it would cut down hugely on the probability of a future mistake like this. You’d be saving a lot of innocent lives!
-XT
I doubt if they’d need any advice from me.
Are you trying to tell me that hardcore insurgents would really behave in the manner these men did, knowing they were in a military hotspot?
Stood in large groups, no weapons at the ready and making no attempt to hide, despite the fact they must know helicopters are flying overhead all the time?
These were either the most inexperienced insurgents EVAH!, or they were men trying to earn a few quid by guiding a couple of journalists round a dangerous area. YMMV.
missed the edit window.
If their behaviour was suspicious or threatening, the US soldiers may as well start shooting everyone they see.
In order to do that, US troops would have to regularly carry around RPG’s and AK-47’s for that express purpose, since we don’t use those weapons…and then use them as planted evidence in order for them to justify slaughtering innocent civilians. That’s a limb I’m not willing to climb out onto.
How long do you think it would take them to find such items? 30 minutes? A hour?
I doubt they would be foolish enough to take your advice on this, since it would almost certainly get a lot of them killed.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The one advantage that unconventional forces have against the overwhelming power of a military like the US is the ability to blend into the background, to merge with the local population, and to make the military they are fighting hesitate or second guess themselves about whether the group they are watching are friendly, neutral or hostile, until it’s too late the attack is already underway. After that, the unconventional forces can blend back into the population at large, move somewhere else, and do it again.
What you are proposing to wear would be like a huge sign saying ‘I’m an enemy combatant…kill me!’, and would be much appreciated by the regular military forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Since that’s not what happened, I’m unsure how to answer this, except to say (again) that they didn’t stand around in a large group (they were moving in a loose group), and it appears they DID in fact have weapons…at least some of them. As to making no attempt to hide, again, if you want to raise a big sign saying ‘look at me! I’m skulking about here and probably up to no good’ then you would try to do this. If you were trying to blend into the population to any casual on the ground observer, or maybe to a recon drone that isn’t specifically looks at you, then the best thing to do is…act natural. Walk, don’t run. Move slowly, don’t skulk about. Of course, if someone IS paying close attention to you, they are going to figure out that you probably aren’t just a group of local citizens standing about…but most of the time you will probably be ok, since the US can’t watch everywhere, or pay attention to everything. There are limits, and mainly what gets noticed is the unusual.
Unless you are unlucky enough to run into a helicopter gunship specifically tasked to look for hostiles in exactly the area you are moving through, of course.
-XT
No idea. Its not like they can stand around waiting to locate such things or have them brought from a captured weapons armory. Its a war zone.
First off, you’re insisting that we accept what you assume, that they did, indeed, have weapons, and this has not been established to my satisfaction. I can’t say the obverse either, it isn’t established that they didn’t. But any argument that depends on that assumption is inherently flawed. At any rate, the initial reported assessment of 6 to 8 AK-47 appears to be widely off the mark, for reasons we can only guess at.
On top of that assumption, you pile on another: that they were not simply people walking about, but conciously adopting the pose of people simply walking about. But that interpretation more or less depends on your first assumption, doesn’t it? To grossly oversimplify, “I know they are insurgents because they are pretending they are not.”
Bit of a stretch, no?
And that brings up the further problem of our own credibility. If this were the only, unique occasion wherein a cover-up might be involved, we would be on much more solid ground. But this is not the case. I would very much like to be in a position where I could say “Well, our guys say its not so, so its settled.” Sadly, no.
Well 'luci, I’ve thus far seen no evidence to the contrary, despite the fact that I’ve asked repeatedly for anyone here to back up their claims that these folks were unarmed with any kind of evidence at all. Granted, such evidence may not exist. However, the bulk of the ‘evidence’ so far presented that the group was fully unarmed boils down to ‘well, I don’t see any weapons…just camera equipment!’. The counter to that that there are several reports from the military that have already been shown in this thread and in the GQ one saying that there were weapons there.
You can, of course, believe what you like. Myself, unless someone presents some evidence to the contrary, I’m going to take it as a given that at least some of the group had weapons of some kind or another, and that the only real question is how many and what type(s).
Where they were walking to is really irrelevant to the point I was making…which is that you and others making the claim that the group was (to paraphrase) ‘just standing around’ is wrong. They were moving, not standing around on a street corner. Whether they were moving towards the fighting that was happening in their area, or they were just wanting to go out for a stroll really doesn’t matter, except to illustrate that they were moving SOMEWHERE.
Now…if you want to dispute that these guys were moving, then that’s another matter. DO you want to dispute that?
As for the rest, I think you are conflating several things I was saying to several different people asking several different questions in this thread. A statement was made that ‘real’ insurgents wouldn’t move like this group was, wouldn’t dress like this group, and wouldn’t act like this group. I was pointing out that this is incorrect, and giving the reasons. No where did I claim THESE guys were insurgents…in fact, I’ve said that, afaict, we don’t KNOW what they were exactly. They MIGHT have been insurgents…or they might have simply been a few locals guiding the reporters to somewhere they wanted to go. Or, they could have been some kind of body guards, or even local militia units for the neighborhood. Thus far there has been no real information telling us what or who these folks were, so my assumption, as you put it, is simply that we don’t know.
Oh, no doubt…
-XT
I think some people in this thread are so blinded by rage that they cannot see the weapons that are clearly in the video.
The question you should be arguing over is if it’s ok to shoot a group of people if only 3 of them are armed.
I say yes.
Is it ok to shoot a van picking up the wounded?
Initially I said no, but after reading about how the insurgents have been operating, I think it’s more of a grey area.
The attackers had far better resolution than we did. They shot unarmed civilians that were no threat and laughed about it. Then shot up a van that was trying to save a persons life and shot 2 kids at the same time. Then they came into the scene with armored equipment and drove over a body or 2.
I guess some of you still can not see why the Iraqis would be pissed off at that. We created a few more American haters that day.
What can I say Gonzo? As always, you bring so much to any thread you deign to reply to. You have my profound thanks for once again bringing so much to the discussion, and leading it into new and unexpected pathways…
-XT
He’s stating what is blatantly obvious to all but the most wilfully blind, or biased observer. What are you stating? Oh, that’s it - that we all need “evidence”, or else you aren’t going to alter your opinion. What evidence do you think the average Doper has, that you don’t think Reuters would have already tried getting?
So, they weren’t stood in a group when the gunship opened up on them?
Pardon me; my eyes must be getting worse than I thought.
Wait, you are demanding evidence that they were not carrying weapons? Well, gee whiz, XT, how might one go about proving an absence?
You got me there, I’ve already admitted they were moving. Rock solid evidence of motion has been offered. No question about it, they were walking. That they were walking SOMEWHERE we can pretty much take as a given. Nope, you are on rock-solid ground there. Curses!
I’m not blind and I’ll admit to some bias towards our military, having a rich tradition of service within my family, but my bias is more sympathetic than militant. And we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it was, in fact, “blatantly obvious”. Its not, ergo, debate ensues.
Well, if you assert that there are no weapons, and that this is the crux of your argument, then you figure you don’t have to prove that?? How does that work exactly?
Hm…well, it seems I have been in error. So many people in this thread have made the claim (to paraphrase) that the group was just ‘standing around’, that I thought you had as well. My apologies…having searched the thread I don’t, in fact, see where you made this claim.
-XT
That thing you are seeing, where their arms and legs are moving? That thing is called ‘walking’. The group was walking until they came to a cross street, then they slow up while someone (with something that the gunner calls an RPG) peaks around the corner to look down the street.
Seriously…what video have you been watching?
If that’s the case you may want to consider a cane…
-XT