Let’s say it’s blatantly obvious to a neutral then, and the only people defending it are those with an affinity to the military.
Its only blatantly obvious to you and a couple others that claim it to be so. The absence or presence of weapons is the sticking point in this debate. Due to the grainy quality of the video, it is NOT blatantly obvious.
It was blatantly obvious that they weren’t a threat because they weren’t walking around a certain way? So anything short of army crawls and they had to be left alone? Please, General, explain how you would have conducted a combat patrol in Iraq during the surge.
No, it doesn’t. Do you understand what a war is? Ambushes and surprise attacks are nothing new. Just ask the Trojans.
Odesio
No, it was blatantly obvious that they weren’t a threat because they were all stood around talking casually, in full view of anyone who might be approaching and without a weapon pointing at anything or anyone.
Except when they pointed what looked to be an RPG in the direction of a ground patrol.
Some quick thoughts on the marked/unmarked thing.
In the past, before there were optics like the guys in the helicopter had, I think a clearly marked ambulance was more important. E.g. in WWI when the vehicle was a mile a way and even with binoculars one couldn’t really make out what the vehicle was doing at the enemy line (taking away wounded? Or bringing in mustard gas canisters??)
But it seems when the American helicopter crew can clearly see that the vehicle is there to aid and transport the wounded, perhaps a little understanding can be mustered that these irregulars (really irregular in this case since it turns out that at least some of them were journalists) didn’t happen to have a nicely marked ambulance handy at that moment.
Were the erstwhile rescuers in the van supposed to hastily paint a Red Crescent on the van before they moved in to attempt to extract the wounded?
In no way am I trying to pick on you or start an argument, Shodan. These are merely some thoughts I had when I read your post.
Which someone familiar with RPG’s should have been able to recognise, had he been interested in verifying what he “thought” he was seeing and not just wanting to shoot up some bad guys to make up for all the shit they’d been taking.
Go on, tell me that they didn’t have time to be using no zoom controls(Also, remember that they will have been seeing clearer footage than we have.) in such a life and death situation.
Zoom controls? Why don’t you describe for us exactly what that flight crew was able to see, seeing as how you have such intimate knowledge of the equipment they were using.
This may be ‘blatantly obvious’ to you, but surely you realize by now that it’s far from ‘blatantly obvious’ to others, no? As I already explained to you (and just like the clothing thing), the fact that they were walking and talking casually really is no indication that they were or weren’t insurgents. For one thing, they obviously didn’t think they were in the fire fight zone, so there wouldn’t be any need (since they didn’t have your foreknowledge about the helicopter watching them) for them to slink about at that point.
For another, by slinking about instead of casually walking and talking, they would be painting a big sign saying ‘We are up to something!’ for anyone who spotted them but wasn’t observing them constantly. As for your last point, what do you think the guy peaking around the corner was doing, exactly? He was looking out to see if there was anything going on. Why would he be doing that if this was just a quiet neighborhood?
The thing about ‘blatantly obvious’ is that it’s in the eyes of the beholder. To you, earlier, it was ‘blatantly obvious’ that insurgents would be wearing head scarfs and clothing with lots of pockets for holding lots of ammo (leaving aside that unconventional forces don’t like to nor try to get into long firefights, so they don’t really need lots of ammo). But this wasn’t obvious to to me…in fact, the opposite. It was stupid and really showed that you know next to nothing about this subject, to make such an assertion. Not only do you not seem to know much about the military, but you don’t seem to even know much about the fighting that has been going on for years now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean, it’s been in all the papers, ehe?
-XT
There are clearly weapons in the video. The ground forces recovered weapons after the incident (including an RPG). Why are people still arguing there weren’t???
I thought elucidator told you to stop that! Now who isn’t listening?
Because some of the people in this thread really don’t see them (and, to be honest, it’s hard to see and completely ambiguous…eyes of the beholder and all that), and some people don’t believe the military’s after action reports or the investigation into this incident…and to some, they don’t want there to have been any weapons, because deep inside, they know that if these guys were armed, it’s the deciding factor in the event. It means that, instead of the gunner being a loose cannon, out for blood and willing to lie in order to get it, instead what we have is a tragic accident. And to some, that is pretty difficult to swallow, so…they don’t.
-XT
He did. Mostly, I’m tossing them in out of habit…but I also know how badly it annoys Hentor, so that’s always in the back of my mind as well…
(I’m in a 12 step program though, so bear with me)
-XT
No, why don’t you provide the evidence that they were incapable of doing such a thing?
Why don’t you provide evidence that the Reuters employees weren’t actually Crab People?
If you are coming back with a zinger, try and make it funny, or at least comprehensible.
If you’re going to post in Great Debates, brings some actual facts and reasoning to the debate, not conclusions you’ve jumped to based on your own biases.
Erm… Reuters spent two years trying to get at “the facts”, and only got the runaround. It took a whistleblower just to get this shoddy piece of footage. What extra “facts” do you expect posters to provide?
Yeah, and does the tape refute the narrative of “US soldiers make bad judgment call in Baghdad, civilians get killed?”
In other words, you have no basis for your apparent belief that those civilians got killed solely because that Apache was crewed by bloodthirsty soldiers who lied in order to get permission to engage. You can’t prove that none of those civilians were armed, so the only counter you have is to argue “prove that they were armed.”