- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that's only on UN operations where the UN forces are clearly marked as peacekeepers. The war in Iraq was a policing action, not a peacekeeping/humanitarian one.
that makes sense, thank you
I think that's only on UN operations where the UN forces are clearly marked as peacekeepers. The war in Iraq was a policing action, not a peacekeeping/humanitarian one.
The war in Iraq was a policing action.
Good Analogy Sean, but zoom and lens come to mind
I might be wrong though, but that was the rule during the UK peacekeeping in Kosovo.that makes sense, thank you
Hard to disagree with that assessment - it's not the first time either...
Maybe the initial contact is understandable - with hindsight the Canon lens is clearly identifiable, but if you're expecting to see an RPG, then that's what it looks like.
I did see one individual in the background behind the photographer with what looked to me like an unloaded RPG-launcher...
The subsequent attack on what was obviously a civilian ambulance (I've been there - they all look like that) was totally outrageous...no weapons visible, no immediate threat other than the removal of the 'combatants'...
they just want to kill people. .
Tbh, if I wasnt told they were civilians before hand, and there was no audio on the clip then I would have gotten twitchy in the situation (I imagine). then when they say 'Its an RPG!' when he is ducking down around the corner, and honestly with that grainy image it could well look like one.
I can see Fracster's point, if someone in a warzone, (all-be-it one in the middle of a town) has what you think may be a RPG then I think anyone would want to assess the situation further.
All that said though, the fact they were willing the fatally wounded man crawling around on the floor to magically pull a weapon so that they could continue shoot him again with a 30mm cannon is disgusting.
That and laughing at tanks driving over bodies, 'oh well their fault for bringing their kids to battle' and "keep shooting, keep shooting, keep shooting" at the stationary seemingly dead body on the floor makes my stomach turn. Could tell that all that guy wanted to do was shoot and just keep shooting (admittedly it's what they are paid for, but bloody hell..).
Disclaimer:
I'm not claiming to know the stresses etc of war, I have never served, doubtfully ever will which makes me respect those stronger than me (mentally/physically) to do/have done such a profession.
It's not only about actions, it's about attitude.... and no, they're no more in danger sitting in their armoured apache a mile away than I am sitting in my lounge... too much 'Ha, ha, look what we just did' for my liking.... extreme is what they did, not what I wrote...
I have no doubt that in the heat of battle mistakes can be made by decent soldiers. I can't imagine the pressure they operate under and wouldn't try to. On the whole our boys do us very proud and I support them 100%.
.
I don't get it, when this same video was posted a few months ago your opinions were the polar opposite of this post. May I ask what has changed?
To be quite frank, I think that is a given for wanting to join the army anyway. I am pretty sure people don't go in the army with the intention of being killed, and while a lot will probably say they're doing it for Queen and Country, I find it very hard to believe.
Two people I know; one is in the army, and one is heading that way. Both have violent personalities, and one actually told me that the reason he's headed into the army is because he wants to kill people.
ok, now I am confused.
This video was posted a couple of months ago and I see to remember you stuck up for them Rob?
EDIT:
Original thread:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=218212&highlight=apache
Again, are your opinions from experience or lack thereof?
Yes, but only on this threadDo you think I'm bloody stupid or something?
Perhps being there, even in a helicoptor a mile away, will probably have a different feel than sitting in your lounge.do you need to experience something to know the difference between right and wrong?
Today 23:35
Yes, but only on this thread
Perhps being there, even in a helicoptor a mile away, will probably have a different feel than sitting in your lounge.
Yes I agree IMHO they made mistakes, some were downright wrong, and I agree they seemed a bit Gun-Ho. But I don't know how I would have reacted as, and I believe like you, not been in that type of situation. To get a true feel of this I would like to hear from those who have experienced war and hear their views rather than judging as someone safeley tucked up at home without any threat of dying in action.
All I'm saying it's easy to judge from home, but it may well be different being there.
I don't know, and you don't either cos we've never been put in a situation like that.
Look at it another way, ,,,perhaps your son was in that helicopter and all he saw was some sought of scope pointed at his helicoptor...in a war zone!:shrug:
That helicopter was a long way away :shrug: and I saw nothing pointing at the helicopter? .... They thought they were armed with AK47's
Again, are your opinions from experience or lack thereof?
it would be great to hear from those with experience in these situations rather than those, like me, not had the expereience and sitting in front of a computer monitor.
So I presume by this comment Fracster that you have had experience of flying in helicopters in the war and have had to engage on occasion?
I agree!(esp second time)
I don't get it, when this same video was posted a few months ago your opinions were the polar opposite of this post. May I ask what has changed?.
Always a touchy subject war.
You can hear an Apache 1km away when its at that angle above your head without obstruction so if it were insurgents or Taliban with RPG's and AK's wouldn't it be plausible that they'd either fire or at least take cover?
Bringing down a single soldier with an IED or single sniper bullet carries a lot of kudos to these guys so to not fire upon a couple of slow moving eagles to an Insurgent or Taliban when given the opportunity would be akin to throwing down two aces in poker before the flop. It isn't natural.
Something else that was never picked up is the weight of RPG's. Often swung over one shoulder for a Taliban photo shoot to look the part but carrying one more than the length of a football pitch you'd naturally want to sling the strap across your chest to spread the weight, and nothing like what lenses these guys have mounted day to day.
You don't need to be an ex hedge hopper to give an army perspective. The video's of these young guns are openly telling us what inexperience counts for.
RIP.
I'm disgusted by some of the comments on here. The pilots were in no danger being well out of range of AK fire. They could have taken their time and confirmed whether or not he was holding a camera or an AK.
In my view, they just couldn't wait to shoot someone. To shoot at the people arriving to help the injured... word fail me.
That's sick, pure and simple. I appreciate it's a war zone and difficult decisions have to be made, but don't they have to actually see some weapons.
10 minutes onwards, the guys are picking up a wounded individual - surely that must be against the Geneva convention....
1. they think they have.
2. it doesn't apply to insurgents (who are classed as criminals by the law in Iraq), only to standing armies and irregular soldiers employed by recognised nation-states.
1. questionable, from 10 minutes onwards.
2. I'm not going to read the whole convention, but if it says you can shoot people who are rescuing the wounded, then it's a questionable convention (or part thereof)
As Fracster goes looking for his helicopter and Arkady tries not to fall over his retreating statements, it is very obvious that this clip of gung-ho Yanks should turn everyone's stomachs.
Bush and Bliar have a hell of a lot to answer for!