Leaked video showing US helicopter shooting journalists and civilians

[Ed Anger]

AC-130 videos.

Best part of CoD4 was the mission where you are in an AC130 blowing up Russians with your choice of 25mm, 40mm, or 105mm guns.  The whole thing looks like gun camera footage.  It was that detail that convinced a buddy of mine to get an Xbox 360.

Now, stuff like that can get me back into video games.

[Grey Fox]

There is tons of possiblity to kill Russians in COD4 & MW2.

[grumbler]

I believe I had it right the first time.

Disagree.

No need to be a belligerent asshole, I'm describing how I, as a layman, felt watching that video, and why I think other people like me would see the same thing. 

Nice, mature statement.  Very convincing, I am sure.  Especially the "asshole" bit.  And if there is no reason to be belligerent, why are you being belligerent?  Your assumption that other people see things the way you do is probably unwarranted.

Once in a while it's OK to STFU if you have nothing worthwhile to say, we won't forget you exist if one time you pass up on an opportunity to be needlessly abrasive.

I am willing to bet that you don't see the irony in this statement at all.  As a bonus, you probably don't even realize how pathetically juvenile it sounds. 

[grumbler]

The van had the brother, wife, and kids of one of the insurgents in it.  They had just seen their insurgent relative get gunned down during an op.  They would logically, of course, have considered that maybe exposing the kids to the same danger that had just taken out dad might not be a good idea, but they were also probably desperate to help get dad to a hospital (not knowing he was already dead).

Honest question: where do you get that info from (the fact that they weren't civilians and that his family was in the van)?

Interview with the guy's wife/mother of the kids, heard on the radio (which was a re-broadcast of something from some time ago, I think).  Not sure what you mean about "they weren't civilians" - is anyone saying that the wife and kids were not, in fact, civilians?

[DGuller]

And if there is no reason to be belligerent, why are you being belligerent?

Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".  I don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument.  It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating.  There is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".

I am willing to bet that you don't see the irony in this statement at all.  As a bonus, you probably don't even realize how pathetically juvenile it sounds.

By this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.

[Fate]

grumbler is correct. Blow the mother frakers up! Given that this is brown on brown violence, I can't see why anyone would care who wins or dies.

[Alcibiades]

True, some people make poor career decisions.

Lol they make a hell of a lot more money than you do, and I will be in a few years too. 

[dps]

The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians.  End of story.

[DGuller]

The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians.  End of story.

Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?

[Berkut]

The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians.  End of story.

Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?

The audio makes it clear that when they engaged the van they were not deliberately targeting journalists or civilians as well.

What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?

[dps]

The audio makes it very clear that the Apache crews were not deliberately targetting journalists or civilians.  End of story.

Why is everyone concentrating on the first engagement, which is not that controversial, when it's really the engagement of the van later on that raises questions?

What questions?  They fired on the van to keep the people in it from taking away the bodies and weapons.

[Berkut]

I think the van was trying to get the missing WMDs to Syria.

[DGuller]

What is the complaint anyway - is it what they did, or how they did it, and the fact that they were not properly solemn and sad about what they were doing?

The complaint is that they did it.  The language, laughter, and all that stuff are just aggravating circumstances, that make a bad-looking situation look even worse. 

Face it, rules of engagement or not, red cross or not, when the average rational person sees a couple of unarmed men trying to carry another unarmed wounded man out, and they get blown apart in return, it doesn't look right.  Maybe there is an acceptable explanation to this action, but that explanation better over-ride the basic feeling that "this is just wrong".

[DGuller]

What questions?  They fired on the van to keep the people in it from taking away the bodies and weapons.

They weren't taking away the bodies and the weapons, it looked like they were taking away the one unarmed guy who survived the initial attack.

[grumbler]

Might have something to do with being called "dishonest".   

So you are now saying that there is a reason to be belligerent, when earlier you said there was none?    Which is the "honest" statement?

I don't particularly take it well when someone questions my honesty to score a point in an argument.  It's an extremely pathetic and destructive style of debating. 

Dishonest paraphrases inside quotation marks created just to score points in a debate are pathetic, you are right.  And they are definitely worth pointing out, even if their authors subsequently feel embarrassed and lash out.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about paraphrasing "let me shoot" while aiming a 30 mm canon at the van into "let me blow up the van".

But there is plenty of dishonesty in trying now to re-write your actual words

"please, please, let me blow up that van"

into this new formulation. 

I don't see how you can be upset about being called out for dishonest quotes when you do it even while trying to show that you don't do it dishonestly.

By this point I think the majority of posters here know what you're all about, so I don't think I'm losing prestige by cutting to the chase in expressing my disdain for your debating methods.

Oh, I think everyone knows what we are both about, and in this case they are left in no doubt as to my disgust for your lies.

But I bet you don't even get the irony of your being caught lying while wailing about being caught lying!