• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Apache Gunship Footage

Given that at least half of the info that comes out of the US government is just lies and bullshit, I'd hope those were actually bad guys and not just some schmuck. The DOD does lying and bullshit just as well as anyone and better than most. Remember, the US government sold you WMD's and you bought them.
 
enki said:
There ya go.:thumbup
Click to expand...
So what race is that? Honestly, we use the word race in very strange ways.

It seems to me that we are fighting a political war around the world, not an ethnic nor religious war. I don't think we have ever shot at the Saudis, for example.

Genealogists don't use the word "race" anymore, because they don't find it applicable. Like me, they sort of see humans as one giant group of beings with some similar, some different physical characteristics. People make up their own races for various purposes. Hispanic is a prime example of a false race, since they seem to include everyone that speaks Spanish, regardless of European heritage, South American Indian heritage, or any combination there of.

Perhaps judging a group's actions rather than tainting opinions based on perception of their race, might give us all a different perspective on everything, including the killing in the middle east.

This has NOTHING to do with the specific video, btw.
 
clutchslip said:
Genealogists don't use the word "race" anymore, because they don't find it applicable. Like me, they sort of see humans as one giant group of beings with some similar, some different physical characteristics. .
Click to expand...

no but Genieologists do, and damned if they aren't a bunch of arabs...

which is only to say that this thread, unlike your post, sucks balls. the usual suspects haterr dogpile.

one unquantifiable piece of research (i.e., my opinion) says that the characteristic we all share in probably equal proportion no matter what our lineage, is that many are just straight up fuckheads.

i'd like to stay optimystical, but have some grave suspicions that the world is likely batting >.500 in the fuckheads favor.

nothing like a nice rant with sunday breakfast after a 2 day ride :twofinger
 
DaveT319 said:
Yeah, this is the story where there were two "reporters" (the ones who were named in the video) who were in amongst the group of terrorists or insurgents (whichever term you prefer to use). The military took a lot of flak for killing civilians in this attack. My position is that if you don't want to get killed in a war zone, then don't hang out with combatants.
Click to expand...

To piggyback, the difficulty with a war of this type is that a combatant becomes a civilian once they stash their weapon.

It's not uncommon to come across boys with guns and a deep hatred of Americans.
 
enki said:
Yeah. All combat correspondents are doucebags. Including the Americans killed covering our conflicts like Ernie Pyle in WWII. Why would anyone want to find out what was happening on the ground when we can simply take the word of our government?
Click to expand...

If they're hanging with the enemy, trying to get "their side", then yes, fuck 'em. And any correspondent that gets killed in a WAR ZONE took their life in their own hands. Ernie Pyle was not some kind of hero for getting killed. He was doing a dangerous and likely stupid job. But the guys in the video where hanging out with armed insurgents in an active WAR ZONE. I'm not going to cry for them because they got killed when the group they were with got attacked. That's the risk they took trying to get their "story".

And for the record, the gun sight cameras are not real clear, as you can see. With the aid of hindsight, it's easy to point out "look, that was just a camera over his shoulder and not a rifle". The camera is not high-def, the lenses aren't made for durability not clarity, they are usually zoomed in on a object that is at least 1/2 a mile away, and they are looking at a screen that is probably about 6 inches square that is 2 feet from their face on the control panel of a vibrating helicopter. You think you can identify children in the cab of a vehicle under those conditions? You think you can differentiate between a bag slung over a shoulder and a weapon amongst a group of insurgents? If so, sign up, because you're clearly superior to the servicemen we have flying those Apaches now.
 
I'm soo there..! :party
 
DaveT319 said:
The camera is not high-def, the lenses aren't made for durability not clarity, they are usually zoomed in on a object that is at least 1/2 a mile away, and they are looking at a screen that is probably about 6 inches square that is 2 feet from their face on the control panel of a vibrating helicopter. You think you can identify children in the cab of a vehicle under those conditions? You think you can differentiate between a bag slung over a shoulder and a weapon amongst a group of insurgents? If so, sign up, because you're clearly superior to the servicemen we have flying those Apaches now.
Click to expand...

So kinda like "Hey we have pixels on the screen and their moving, light em up" ask questions later.
 
No, but they saw what they thought were weapons (in fact, most of them DID have weapons, just it turns out 2 had cameras), AND they got authorization to fire. If you want to do a better job of making sure of the targets they're seeing, you need to have eyes on the ground and verification prior to firing. If we aren't going to do that - and sometimes it's impractical - then we have to accept that occasionally the wrong people are going to get killed. And I do accept that, because war sucks, and shit happens, and if you want to absolutely guarantee that 0 civilians ever get killed in combat, then you need to keep journalists out of war zones, or just not ever have war zones, which will NEVER happen.
 
DaveT319 said:
No, but they saw what they thought were weapons (in fact, most of them DID have weapons, just it turns out 2 had cameras), AND they got authorization to fire. If you want to do a better job of making sure of the targets they're seeing, you need to have eyes on the ground and verification prior to firing. If we aren't going to do that - and sometimes it's impractical - then we have to accept that occasionally the wrong people are going to get killed. And I do accept that, because war sucks, and shit happens, and if you want to absolutely guarantee that 0 civilians ever get killed in combat, then you need to keep journalists out of war zones, or just not ever have war zones, which will NEVER happen.
Click to expand...

War? When did we declare a state of war? I missed that. It's not one of the five wars declared by Congress. It's an undeclared war waged by a President. Hope you get the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top