I have served 3 years in Iraq with the 4th Platoon, B Company, First Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment. Now I cannot speak for every soldier out there, as we are all individuals, and differ a lot, but I can tell from reading people's replies to this thread, that most have never served in the army, let alone left their computers to go to another country in order to fight a war. I can already tell that I'm going to have some ignorant person come up and disagree with everything I'm going to say but:
On the front lines of a war, especially working within the urban areas of Iraq, every corner has a potential danger and there is no time to consider moral implications or what's really the "best" thing to do in the situation, as everything is mostly spontaneous, and unfortunately this can lead to negative outcomes for either faction.
I have killed men, I'm sure as hell not proud of it and it's definitely something that will stay with me for my whole life, but in the heat of battle, when it's clear that the only thing that matters is your survival, then it doesn't matter how you protect yourself and gain an upper hand, as its essentially "Your life or His", and unless you are stupid, then 99.9% of the time, you're going to try and do everything you can to save your own arse. Finally, when you're out of missions 5 out of 7 days of week in a dangerous hostile environment, then unfortunately, like anything in life, your become accustomed to it, and things like remorse for your actions become less of an issue (as explained before), it's part of your role and duty, and essentially your personal well being.
Almost all serving troops understand this, but for those of you out there that have never experienced a war, then it is very easy to point the finger at us and talk as if you know it all, based on your emotional responses to a situation, whilst in reality, you know very little about the topic.
So, now you know a little more about me and how I see things, what do I think of this situation? Obviously, I have no idea who these people were, but from my analysis then I can say:
-These men in the apache were most likely, doing scouting and other missions on a daily basis, so this was just part of routine for them, and thus why it insults some of you to see their laid back and "trigger happy" approach. But as I've explained before, I don't really think they can be blamed for that, as it's just their adjustment to the war experience. And war is pretty shit and depressing, don't get me wrong, and thus why they could be cracking jokes and trying to keep the mood up. But I can understand why from an outside interpretation of them, that this could be offensive as they are killing people whilst they seem to be happy.
-Secondly, most of you are overlooking the fact, that there was indeed insurgents, and from my point of view, the piolots were inclined to open fire on them. Unfortunately, the incident with the van is just one of those things that happens, and not to say that it was the right thing to do, but the pilots were again inclined to open fire on the van, as it was entering "hot zone" and seemed to be trying to evacuate the insurgents (you must remember, that the pilots monitoring the situation from at least a mile away had no idea that these were merely innocent people helping a reporter, as they had already identified the majority of the group as insurgents {which was true})and in a war situation, there is no time for "What If" questions.
I think that perhaps the pilots were perhaps a tad reckless in their approach, but they did indeed get rid of a group of insurgents (as proven by the post-reports), and were in my opinion proceeding in an acceptable manner to the situation, however unfortunately innocents were involved (as it the case most of the time, in a close combat urban area). I think that's all that can be said about this thread, but if you want to continue your arm chair wars, then be my guest.
Sorry for the long read, but I feel I had to let you all know, from the perspective of someone who has had experience in these sorts of matters.
I have served 3 years in Iraq with the 4th Platoon, B Company, First Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment. Now I cannot speak for every soldier out there, as we are all individuals, and differ a lot, but I can tell from reading people's replies to this thread, that most have never served in the army, let alone left their computers to go to another country in order to fight a war. I can already tell that I'm going to have some ignorant person come up and disagree with everything I'm going to say but:
On the front lines of a war, especially working within the urban areas of Iraq, every corner has a potential danger and there is no time to consider moral implications or what's really the "best" thing to do in the situation, as everything is mostly spontaneous, and unfortunately this can lead to negative outcomes for either faction.
I have killed men, I'm sure as hell not proud of it and it's definitely something that will stay with me for my whole life, but in the heat of battle, when it's clear that the only thing that matters is your survival, then it doesn't matter how you protect yourself and gain an upper hand, as its essentially "Your life or His", and unless you are stupid, then 99.9% of the time, you're going to try and do everything you can to save your own arse. Finally, when you're out of missions 5 out of 7 days of week in a dangerous hostile environment, then unfortunately, like anything in life, your become accustomed to it, and things like remorse for your actions become less of an issue (as explained before), it's part of your role and duty, and essentially your personal well being.
Almost all serving troops understand this, but for those of you out there that have never experienced a war, then it is very easy to point the finger at us and talk as if you know it all, based on your emotional responses to a situation, whilst in reality, you know very little about the topic.
So, now you know a little more about me and how I see things, what do I think of this situation? Obviously, I have no idea who these people were, but from my analysis then I can say:
-These men in the apache were most likely, doing scouting and other missions on a daily basis, so this was just part of routine for them, and thus why it insults some of you to see their laid back and "trigger happy" approach. But as I've explained before, I don't really think they can be blamed for that, as it's just their adjustment to the war experience. And war is pretty shit and depressing, don't get me wrong, and thus why they could be cracking jokes and trying to keep the mood up. But I can understand why from an outside interpretation of them, that this could be offensive as they are killing people whilst they seem to be happy.
-Secondly, most of you are overlooking the fact, that there was indeed insurgents, and from my point of view, the piolots were inclined to open fire on them. Unfortunately, the incident with the van is just one of those things that happens, and not to say that it was the right thing to do, but the pilots were again inclined to open fire on the van, as it was entering "hot zone" and seemed to be trying to evacuate the insurgents (you must remember, that the pilots monitoring the situation from at least a mile away had no idea that these were merely innocent people helping a reporter, as they had already identified the majority of the group as insurgents {which was true})and in a war situation, there is no time for "What If" questions.
I think that perhaps the pilots were perhaps a tad reckless in their approach, but they did indeed get rid of a group of insurgents (as proven by the post-reports), and were in my opinion proceeding in an acceptable manner to the situation, however unfortunately innocents were involved (as it the case most of the time, in a close combat urban area). I think that's all that can be said about this thread, but if you want to continue your arm chair wars, then be my guest.
Sorry for the long read, but I feel I had to let you all know, from the perspective of someone who has had experience in these sorts of matters.
I have served 3 years in Iraq with the 4th Platoon, B Company, First Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment. Now I cannot speak for every soldier out there, as we are all individuals, and differ a lot, but I can tell from reading people's replies to this thread, that most have never served in the army, let alone left their computers to go to another country in order to fight a war. I can already tell that I'm going to have some ignorant person come up and disagree with everything I'm going to say but:
On the front lines of a war, especially working within the urban areas of Iraq, every corner has a potential danger and there is no time to consider moral implications or what's really the "best" thing to do in the situation, as everything is mostly spontaneous, and unfortunately this can lead to negative outcomes for either faction.
I have killed men, I'm sure as hell not proud of it and it's definitely something that will stay with me for my whole life, but in the heat of battle, when it's clear that the only thing that matters is your survival, then it doesn't matter how you protect yourself and gain an upper hand, as its essentially "Your life or His", and unless you are stupid, then 99.9% of the time, you're going to try and do everything you can to save your own arse. Finally, when you're out of missions 5 out of 7 days of week in a dangerous hostile environment, then unfortunately, like anything in life, your become accustomed to it, and things like remorse for your actions become less of an issue (as explained before), it's part of your role and duty, and essentially your personal well being.
Almost all serving troops understand this, but for those of you out there that have never experienced a war, then it is very easy to point the finger at us and talk as if you know it all, based on your emotional responses to a situation, whilst in reality, you know very little about the topic.
So, now you know a little more about me and how I see things, what do I think of this situation? Obviously, I have no idea who these people were, but from my analysis then I can say:
-These men in the apache were most likely, doing scouting and other missions on a daily basis, so this was just part of routine for them, and thus why it insults some of you to see their laid back and "trigger happy" approach. But as I've explained before, I don't really think they can be blamed for that, as it's just their adjustment to the war experience. And war is pretty shit and depressing, don't get me wrong, and thus why they could be cracking jokes and trying to keep the mood up. But I can understand why from an outside interpretation of them, that this could be offensive as they are killing people whilst they seem to be happy.
-Secondly, most of you are overlooking the fact, that there was indeed insurgents, and from my point of view, the piolots were inclined to open fire on them. Unfortunately, the incident with the van is just one of those things that happens, and not to say that it was the right thing to do, but the pilots were again inclined to open fire on the van, as it was entering "hot zone" and seemed to be trying to evacuate the insurgents (you must remember, that the pilots monitoring the situation from at least a mile away had no idea that these were merely innocent people helping a reporter, as they had already identified the majority of the group as insurgents {which was true})and in a war situation, there is no time for "What If" questions.
I think that perhaps the pilots were perhaps a tad reckless in their approach, but they did indeed get rid of a group of insurgents (as proven by the post-reports), and were in my opinion proceeding in an acceptable manner to the situation, however unfortunately innocents were involved (as it the case most of the time, in a close combat urban area). I think that's all that can be said about this thread, but if you want to continue your arm chair wars, then be my guest.
Sorry for the long read, but I feel I had to let you all know, from the perspective of someone who has had experience in these sorts of matters.
I don't recall hearing anything about warning shots during my training... unless shooting the enemy scout(s) moving ahead of the main force qualifies as warning shots. *shrug*
Why do you have to call people names for no reason and ruin an argument entirely? Grow up please. Not everyone is going to agree with you but that's no reason to lash like like a child. If your only argument is name calling then I'd like to think you lost.
If all you saw in my post was name calling then you're a prick...where is the care for innocent human lives?
It has already been summed up, with proof from EvGa. If you're still too ignorant to understand then yes, all I see now is the name calling because everything else you say is the same recycled shit from page 1.
The whole situation as touch a nerve with me but at least I'm not relying on "EvGa" or paperwork/reports put forth by only one side (the military) to do my thinking for me. Guess you don't have a brain to draw your own analysis. Or it could mean you just don't care...and that's the main reason why parts of this thread gets so heated. We got people who are arguing from the basis of their experiences and views. We got people with military ties (directly or indirectly) or patriotic in nature trying to rationalize the situation and on the other side of the coin we got people like me mostly (not entirely) humanitarian in nature which only sees what happen...trigger happy soldiers having fun literally and justifying it in the name of duty on paperwork. Part of what they did can possibly be justified but not everything they did.
Nobody especially you haven't answer me as to why after knowing they shoot up a minivan with children in it did they still carry on to hellfire that building without caring not to repeat that mistake? Most of you make it seems as though these soldiers wouldn't shoot the minivan if they knew children was in it. I'd like to believe so too but now I am not sure. Worst than this has happened off camera that has been brought to light. The whole thing that piss me off even more is that all of you here that are rationalizing this would not be doing so if those people in the Van were friends of yours who were trying to help out. Selfishness and carelessness is this world's greatest enemy.
_________________
_________________________________________________ BOWFull STR Fire level 102 -- ON A LONG BREAK..POSSIBLY FOREVER
Nobody especially you haven't answer me as to why after knowing they shoot up a minivan with children in it did they still carry on to hellfire that building without caring not to repeat that mistake?
No one can say for sure, since none of us know anything really about it, since we weren't there but if you want an awnser, then it could be said that priorities in war is more about killing insurgents for the greater good and for the overall goal of why troops are there, even if there are possible innocent casulties.
I have served 3 years in Iraq with the 4th Platoon, B Company, First Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment. Now I cannot speak for every soldier out there, as we are all individuals, and differ a lot, but I can tell from reading people's replies to this thread, that most have never served in the army, let alone left their computers to go to another country in order to fight a war. I can already tell that I'm going to have some ignorant person come up and disagree with everything I'm going to say but:
On the front lines of a war, especially working within the urban areas of Iraq, every corner has a potential danger and there is no time to consider moral implications or what's really the "best" thing to do in the situation, as everything is mostly spontaneous, and unfortunately this can lead to negative outcomes for either faction.
I have killed men, I'm sure as hell not proud of it and it's definitely something that will stay with me for my whole life, but in the heat of battle, when it's clear that the only thing that matters is your survival, then it doesn't matter how you protect yourself and gain an upper hand, as its essentially "Your life or His", and unless you are stupid, then 99.9% of the time, you're going to try and do everything you can to save your own arse. Finally, when you're out of missions 5 out of 7 days of week in a dangerous hostile environment, then unfortunately, like anything in life, your become accustomed to it, and things like remorse for your actions become less of an issue (as explained before), it's part of your role and duty, and essentially your personal well being.
Almost all serving troops understand this, but for those of you out there that have never experienced a war, then it is very easy to point the finger at us and talk as if you know it all, based on your emotional responses to a situation, whilst in reality, you know very little about the topic.
So, now you know a little more about me and how I see things, what do I think of this situation? Obviously, I have no idea who these people were, but from my analysis then I can say:
-These men in the apache were most likely, doing scouting and other missions on a daily basis, so this was just part of routine for them, and thus why it insults some of you to see their laid back and "trigger happy" approach. But as I've explained before, I don't really think they can be blamed for that, as it's just their adjustment to the war experience. And war is pretty shit and depressing, don't get me wrong, and thus why they could be cracking jokes and trying to keep the mood up. But I can understand why from an outside interpretation of them, that this could be offensive as they are killing people whilst they seem to be happy.
-Secondly, most of you are overlooking the fact, that there was indeed insurgents, and from my point of view, the piolots were inclined to open fire on them. Unfortunately, the incident with the van is just one of those things that happens, and not to say that it was the right thing to do, but the pilots were again inclined to open fire on the van, as it was entering "hot zone" and seemed to be trying to evacuate the insurgents (you must remember, that the pilots monitoring the situation from at least a mile away had no idea that these were merely innocent people helping a reporter, as they had already identified the majority of the group as insurgents {which was true})and in a war situation, there is no time for "What If" questions.
I think that perhaps the pilots were perhaps a tad reckless in their approach, but they did indeed get rid of a group of insurgents (as proven by the post-reports), and were in my opinion proceeding in an acceptable manner to the situation, however unfortunately innocents were involved (as it the case most of the time, in a close combat urban area). I think that's all that can be said about this thread, but if you want to continue your arm chair wars, then be my guest.
Sorry for the long read, but I feel I had to let you all know, from the perspective of someone who has had experience in these sorts of matters.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for the post and your service.
BuDo, you really need to read the replies in this thread and actually think about them, especially Sovereign's reply.
The whole situation as touch a nerve with me but at least I'm not relying on "EvGa" or paperwork/reports put forth by only one side (the military) to do my thinking for me. Guess you don't have a brain to draw your own analysis. Or it could mean you just don't care...and that's the main reason why parts of this thread gets so heated. We got people who are arguing from the basis of their experiences and views. We got people with military ties (directly or indirectly) or patriotic in nature trying to rationalize the situation and on the other side of the coin we got people like me mostly (not entirely) humanitarian in nature which only sees what happen...trigger happy soldiers having fun literally and justifying it in the name of duty on paperwork. Part of what they did can possibly be justified but not everything they did.
Nobody especially you haven't answer me as to why after knowing they shoot up a minivan with children in it did they still carry on to hellfire that building without caring not to repeat that mistake? Most of you make it seems as though these soldiers wouldn't shoot the minivan if they knew children was in it. I'd like to believe so too but now I am not sure. Worst than this has happened off camera that has been brought to light. The whole thing that piss me off even more is that all of you here that are rationalizing this would not be doing so if those people in the Van were friends of yours who were trying to help out. Selfishness and carelessness is this world's greatest enemy.
So if I have the same opinion with someone I have to write it out instead of just agreeing with them? Otherwise I don't have a brain and don't my own analysis. Shit.
You're an idiot. Read the posts then reply. You obviously haven't. Can't argue with someone who can't read.
I have served 3 years in Iraq with the 4th Platoon, B Company, First Battalion, The Staffordshire Regiment. Now I cannot speak for every soldier out there, as we are all individuals, and differ a lot, but I can tell from reading people's replies to this thread, that most have never served in the army, let alone left their computers to go to another country in order to fight a war. I can already tell that I'm going to have some ignorant person come up and disagree with everything I'm going to say but:
On the front lines of a war, especially working within the urban areas of Iraq, every corner has a potential danger and there is no time to consider moral implications or what's really the "best" thing to do in the situation, as everything is mostly spontaneous, and unfortunately this can lead to negative outcomes for either faction.
I have killed men, I'm sure as hell not proud of it and it's definitely something that will stay with me for my whole life, but in the heat of battle, when it's clear that the only thing that matters is your survival, then it doesn't matter how you protect yourself and gain an upper hand, as its essentially "Your life or His", and unless you are stupid, then 99.9% of the time, you're going to try and do everything you can to save your own arse. Finally, when you're out of missions 5 out of 7 days of week in a dangerous hostile environment, then unfortunately, like anything in life, your become accustomed to it, and things like remorse for your actions become less of an issue (as explained before), it's part of your role and duty, and essentially your personal well being.
Almost all serving troops understand this, but for those of you out there that have never experienced a war, then it is very easy to point the finger at us and talk as if you know it all, based on your emotional responses to a situation, whilst in reality, you know very little about the topic.
So, now you know a little more about me and how I see things, what do I think of this situation? Obviously, I have no idea who these people were, but from my analysis then I can say:
-These men in the apache were most likely, doing scouting and other missions on a daily basis, so this was just part of routine for them, and thus why it insults some of you to see their laid back and "trigger happy" approach. But as I've explained before, I don't really think they can be blamed for that, as it's just their adjustment to the war experience. And war is pretty shit and depressing, don't get me wrong, and thus why they could be cracking jokes and trying to keep the mood up. But I can understand why from an outside interpretation of them, that this could be offensive as they are killing people whilst they seem to be happy.
-Secondly, most of you are overlooking the fact, that there was indeed insurgents, and from my point of view, the piolots were inclined to open fire on them. Unfortunately, the incident with the van is just one of those things that happens, and not to say that it was the right thing to do, but the pilots were again inclined to open fire on the van, as it was entering "hot zone" and seemed to be trying to evacuate the insurgents (you must remember, that the pilots monitoring the situation from at least a mile away had no idea that these were merely innocent people helping a reporter, as they had already identified the majority of the group as insurgents {which was true})and in a war situation, there is no time for "What If" questions.
I think that perhaps the pilots were perhaps a tad reckless in their approach, but they did indeed get rid of a group of insurgents (as proven by the post-reports), and were in my opinion proceeding in an acceptable manner to the situation, however unfortunately innocents were involved (as it the case most of the time, in a close combat urban area). I think that's all that can be said about this thread, but if you want to continue your arm chair wars, then be my guest.
Sorry for the long read, but I feel I had to let you all know, from the perspective of someone who has had experience in these sorts of matters.
Exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for the post and your service.
BuDo, you really need to read the replies in this thread and actually think about them, especially Sovereign's reply.
I have been reading and my views however "arm chair" they might be still does not change. Soldiers are people too and just like people they can make moral decisions. War does changes a person and can cause them to act unethically but that is still no excuse because these same Soldiers are capable of sympathizing with human life...they do it all the time for their comrades. I bet you any money that they wouldav hold their fire if they noticed 1 or 2 caucasion with cameras mixed in with those others on the ground. I still feel the situation couldav been handled differently. And that is my stance.
_________________
_________________________________________________ BOWFull STR Fire level 102 -- ON A LONG BREAK..POSSIBLY FOREVER
Pretty sure they attacked the building because another person that they could identify as an insurgent ran in there.
They said at one point in the video that it was mostly abandoned. Yeah there were a handful of people there walking around. But really, if you can blame the pilots for attacking a place near innocent people, you can just as easily blame the insurgents for walking among them and endangering their lives.
I have been reading and my views however "arm chair" they might be still does not change. Soldiers are people too and just like people they can make moral decisions. War does changes a person and can cause them to act unethically but that is still no excuse because these same Soldiers are capable of sympathizing with human life...they do it all the time for their comrades. I bet you any money that they wouldav hold their fire if they noticed 1 or 2 caucasion with cameras mixed in with those others on the ground. I still feel the situation couldav been handled differently. And that is my stance.
Every situation in life can be handled differently. We all know that innocent people were killed and all of us agree that it wasn't right. We never disagreed with you on that. But the simple fact is that there were people there with small arms and rockets and just because 2 people there weren't insurgents and were innocent people doesn't make it right not to shoot. The soldiers don't have time to look that closely. As you could see from the video their view was very fuzzy and they could barely make out much of anything. They did what they had to do and did it well. If they did what you think is reasonable and left them alone who knows what they could have done. Every single bullet they had was a potential death so why not take them out.
I think what we can gather is, a mistake was made. No amount of complaining on a forum is going to change that or future mistakes like this one happening. Worse things have happened. How many US Soldiers die a year just to be forgotten. How many Innocent people decide to pick up a weapon and fire it at soldiers spontaneously. War is un-predictable. Soldiers are even forced on occasion to commit moral sins that will haunt them forever. Anyone here that hasn't seen the face of war cannot expect to bring about a plausible reason as to why this has happened. There is a difference between what you know, and what you think you know because you read it somewhere, or heard it on Tv.
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 9841 Location: US - Illidan
Reise wrote:
Pretty sure they attacked the building because another person that they could identify as an insurgent ran in there.
They said at one point in the video that it was mostly abandoned. Yeah there were a handful of people there walking around. But really, if you can blame the pilots for attacking a place near innocent people, you can just as easily blame the insurgents for walking among them and endangering their lives.
When killing monsters you must be careful not to become a monster yourself...
We're over there for them and we're also killing them whenever they get in the way of us trying to save them? See how little sense that makes. Look i get its war and people have to be bad guys but something like this can't be justified, is it necessary, well in the long term yes and these types of actions save lives but that guy was somebodies uncle/brother/father/son/ bread winner and he died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and we're the ones who killed him.
Admit it and respect it if you really want to stand by your troops and the things they are doing. Otherwise you're just shirking responsibility and spreading blame around which people only do when they're guilty of something, and we shouldn't feel guilty because people only feel guilty when they know they're doing something they shouldn't be...
_________________ signatures by Hostage Co. <3 ~PoP is DEAD! My sTyLe is Supa-Flat!!~
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 1802 Location: Fuck if i know
Mindy wrote:
Have the soldiers never heard of warning shots?
While i have only served about 14 months in the US NAVY I just recently learned in a tactical team movement course that warning shots are illegal under the UCMJ(Uniform Code Of Military Justice). If there is enough cause for the need for warning shots, there is enough danger present to need to protect your life and the lives of others.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
| 
| Tarnished Coast
Crumpets for Pres
