Real Modern Warfare

[Scott Campbell]

a reporter getting blown into pieces by a machine gun because somebody up there in a helicopter fucked up.

No one in the helicopter "fucked up." The rules of engagement were clearly followed and the gunner refrained from firing on the journalist as he crawled away.

If anything the journalists "fucked up." Not a great idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPGs and AK47s during a firefight.

The one thing I have a problem with is when they fired on the van that came to try and take the casualties away. There is a time to let off the trigger....we were all taught that.

The journalists were treading on dangerous ground and they knew it.....it comes with the job.

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

But war is ugly. Really ugly that day.

The shooting of the guys carrying off bodies........I'm no military expert, but I just don't comprehend how that is in the best interests of the United States of America.

If a military engagement can't stand up to the scrutiny of the American public, then who's fault is that?

[swede]

World War Two was a way better war.

Lot's of fair play and Queen's rules.

Incendiary bombing of entire cities was much more sporting.

i say, time for a quinine and gin, eh?

[Freak Out]

World War Two was a way better war.

Lot's of fair play and Queen's rules.

Incendiary bombing of entire cities was much more sporting.

i say, time for a quinine and gin, eh?

There was a certain allied leader that was even calling for chemical weapons (bombing) use in Europe on civilian populations.

[SkinBasket]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.

All the more reason for the military to release the unedited version, rather than letting some other source spin it and have them look like they were attempting a cover-up.

Think about how useful Bin Laden will find that tape for recruiting suicide bombers.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

A big part of winning a war is maintaining public support for the military. Look at the massive military efforts at raising money to fund WWII, and the use of "hero's" to sell war bonds. You can't win wars without public support. When military rules of engagement erode public support, those actions are not in the best interests of the USA.

I don't think we should be blasting defenseless guys retrieving bodies. Or if there is a valid military reason for doing so, then they better damned well explain themselves.

In my opinion the PR threat to this country far outweighed the threat of the guy with AK.

Having said all that, it's obviously a helluva lot easier being a Monday Morning QB. I don't envy their jobs one bit.

[Freak Out]

I'd be more inclined to agree that its not a good idea to hang out with a bunch of guys with RPG's and AK47's during a firefight if I had actually seen any of the aforementioned on that video.

That's one of the criticisms of the edited video. They don't slow it down and make remarks for the weapons like they do the cameras. I spotted the guy with the AK, didn't see the RPG, but I guess others have. For what it's worth the military investigation claimed there were also several other weapons recovered from the scene.

All the more reason for the military to release the unedited version, rather than letting some other source spin it and have them look like they were attempting a cover-up.

Think about how useful Bin Laden will find that tape for recruiting suicide bombers.

There is an unedited video out there and it was released by the same group I believe.....40 minutes in length. I still don't know how they broke the encryption on the video though......I heard at one point they were asking for help on twitter.

[Freak Out]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.

There weren't any of our soldiers near those guys. A car barreling through a security checkpoint poses a clear threat. If you're going to call a bunch of dudes with cameras loitering in a courtyard or retrieving dead bodies a threat, you might as well make genocide part of our rules of engagement. Just fuck it, and kill them all.

[Freak Out]

I agree firing on the van is a questionable judgment call on a more moral level, but apparently those were the military's rules of engagement for this conflict. From what I've heard, they were looking out for the best interests of the troops on the ground, and had to assume the van was opposition forces due to their actions.

I think the soldier's duty in the field has to be to his fellow soldier before the scrutiny of the public.

The crew was well within the rules of engagement at that time and was cleared in review. When I was first in the Military we would never have dreamed of gunning down a car full of women and children because we thought they might be terrorists trying to bomb us like we saw at the onset of the latest invasion of Iraq......but that all changed in 83 when Iran....er Islamic Jihad....er Hezbollah..blew up our and the French barracks in Beirut. We let that smiling wacko drive right by into the lobby. Times change and the rules of engagement along with them.

There weren't any of our soldiers near those guys. A car barreling through a security checkpoint poses a clear threat. If you're going to call a bunch of dudes with cameras loitering in a courtyard or retrieving dead bodies a threat, you might as well make genocide part of our rules of engagement. Just fuck it, and kill them all.

None of those people in the Video were a threat to the gunship.....but they were perceived to be to any coalition forces in the area. I'm not defending them I'm just stating facts. They were working under some pretty open rules of engagement.

[Scott Campbell]

The whole thing smells really fish to me. If they were really enemy combatants, would they really stand around shooting the breeze in an open courtyard with an enemy gunship capable of cutting them to shreds in an instant circling ominously over them? I've seen nuns more ominous looking than those guys.

[Little Whiskey]

i don't care if you're killing innocent children or hitler, you gotta be a pretty sick fuck to take pleasure in killing people like these guys were IMO

can you imagine what its like to have to kill someone? you job is to end the life of someone who is trying to end yours? you've got to be able to make it just another job, otherwise your dead.

what frustrates me about these video's being leaked is that it makes the soldiers look like the "bad guys" when infact they followed all the procedures. if you notice, they think a guy is about to launch and RPG and they still wait for the order to engage. these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.

[Scott Campbell]

these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.

That's why I think the military should take control of the story and tell their side. I think all of us want their to be a reasonable explanation here.

[Little Whiskey]

these videos don't tell all of the story, we don't know what happened right before this.

That's why I think the military should take control of the story and tell their side. I think all of us want their to be a reasonable explanation here.

I think they did, but no one wants to believe the gov't. there is always a conspiracy. then video's like this get released and edited and our soilders look like cold blooded killers just looking for their next victim.

[Scott Campbell]

I think they did,.......

The story I heard is that the undecrypted video was leaked by a government whistleblower.