# Wikileak'd video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children



## eots

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNipuAXjP-o[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen

Damn liberal media....


----------



## eots

uscitizen said:


> Damn liberal media....



ya the nerve reporting on the murder unarmed of reporters and children


----------



## mayya555

That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.


----------



## eots

they are coming home with some serious mental problems after this..or working for Obamas civil defence corp or both


----------



## eots

they murder children then say oh well its their fault for being in a war zone and laugh


----------



## Luissa

This was on CBS last night.


----------



## eots

it makes throwing puppies off cliffs seem mild


----------



## Luissa

War isn't pretty.
It is terrible the reporters were killed, but that is what happens.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> they murder children then say oh well its their fault for being in a war zone and laugh



Yep. You have to cope with it somehow.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children



Sorry, but that looked to me like a successful engagement of insurgents. It sucks that the reporter was killed and it sucks even worse that they were trying to remove bodies and weapons in a hot zone with kids in the car. But when you bring your kids to war, what do you expect?

I feel for the guys that had to pull the trigger. They laughed in the video, but keep in mind where their adrenaline level was at that moment. They were pumped up. They have to be to pull the trigger. The problems start when they come down. I feel for these guys for they had to do. It is despicable, yes, but necessary. 

BTW, I bet that douchenozzle armchair warrior in your video has the high score on Call of Duty 4.


----------



## eots

there were no weapons and they were Reuters reporters and children... this is no video game these are real children and real people wtf are you talking about...the call of duty reference speaks volumes


----------



## CrimsonWhite

5:21-5:35 in the vid, I count 3 assault rifles. AK-47's to be precise.

The COD comment meant that you and this fucker in the video have no idea what you are looking at.


----------



## eots

CrimsonWhite said:


> 5:21-5:35 in the vid, I count 3 assault rifles. AK-47's to be precise.
> 
> The COD comment meant that you and this fucker in the video have no idea what you are looking at.



they are tri pods for cameras as reported by reuters


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5:21-5:35 in the vid, I count 3 assault rifles. AK-47's to be precise.
> 
> The COD comment meant that you and this fucker in the video have no idea what you are looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are tri pods for cameras as reported by reuters
Click to expand...


Negative. Second from the left is carrying a Kalashnikov. And you call me a sheep. Since when do you believe what the media tells you. Those are rifles fuckstick.


----------



## Jos

Many buildings have Armed security guards, Americans in this video have the attitude of   ¨Kill them all, and let god sort out his own¨
I hope they are back in the USA


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Jos said:


> Many buildings have Armed security guards, Americans in this video have the attitude of   ¨Kill them all, and let god sort out his own¨
> I hope they are back in the USA



Yet, you have no idea other what you see in the video. How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?


----------



## Jos

How about following the Rules of engagement?
or even the Geneva convention?


----------



## Terry

War is a bitch at times.


----------



## Terry

Jos said:


> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?


Look there are spotters on the ground that probably saw some activity like GUNS, EXPLOSIVES in this group, they send radio that intel in and then they are taken out.  IT IS FUCKING WAR not a local bar brawl.


----------



## Jos

Terry said:


> War is a bitch at times.


War is Hell, Payback is the  Bitch


----------



## Dr Grump

CrimsonWhite said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many buildings have Armed security guards, Americans in this video have the attitude of   ¨Kill them all, and let god sort out his own¨
> I hope they are back in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you have no idea other what you see in the video. How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?
Click to expand...


Totally disagree with you. They were walking around minding their own business. And they are allowed to carry arms, just like you can in the US. Those guys in the copter decided to engage when those other guys were just walking around minding their own business. At no stage did the people on the ground even LOOK at the helicopter, let alone try and engage in it.

Hope those guys who did the shooting have nightmares for the rest of their lives....


----------



## Dr Grump

Terry said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?
> 
> 
> 
> Look there are spotters on the ground that probably saw some activity like GUNS, EXPLOSIVES in this group, they send radio that intel in and then they are taken out.  IT IS FUCKING WAR not a local bar brawl.
Click to expand...


Total...fucking....bullshit.....


----------



## Terry

I love this one!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MH45v0NMOw[/ame]


----------



## Dr Grump

Terry said:


> I love this one!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MH45v0NMOw



Can't even make out who the people they are shooting are....can you?


----------



## Terry

Dr Grump said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?
> 
> 
> 
> Look there are spotters on the ground that probably saw some activity like GUNS, EXPLOSIVES in this group, they send radio that intel in and then they are taken out.  IT IS FUCKING WAR not a local bar brawl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total...fucking....bullshit.....
Click to expand...

combat controllers, navy seals! How do you think the pilot in the video I posted knew where to drop that fucking load on those terrorist? Who is the fucking Idiot now.


----------



## eots

how sad ..for you..


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Dr Grump said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many buildings have Armed security guards, Americans in this video have the attitude of   ¨Kill them all, and let god sort out his own¨
> I hope they are back in the USA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you have no idea other what you see in the video. How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally disagree with you. They were walking around minding their own business. And they are allowed to carry arms, just like you can in the US. Those guys in the copter decided to engage when those other guys were just walking around minding their own business. At no stage did the people on the ground even LOOK at the helicopter, let alone try and engage in it.
> 
> Hope those guys who did the shooting have nightmares for the rest of their lives....
Click to expand...


Yep, because the video s all we know that happened. It is a warzone and they were armed. Per the ROE, game on. War is hell and yes, they will have nightmares whether you want them to or not.


----------



## Jos

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1rf8XCQAGE&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Terrorist Hunting in Iraq[/ame]
It's a War crime


----------



## Terry

eots said:


> how sad ..for you..


No there always has to be someone to clean up the shit because well some people just won't fucking do it because it is beneath them.  That is what our Military does, clean shit up.  There is no way to fight a war without having occasional unintended kills.  NO WAY, so face reality...until you and others are ready to go in there and clean the shit up, I like my Military that is HIGHLY TRAINED clean it up for YOU. Got it?


----------



## Neser Boha

That is fucking nasty.  I have no respect for those soldiers that engaged in this shooting.  They are damaged goods.  No show of remorse over killing those kids.  'It's their fault taking their kids to the battle.'  Wow.  Psychopaths.  They should never be let out into general population.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Buncha fucking Armchair warriors.


----------



## Terry

Neser Boha said:


> That is fucking nasty.  I have no respect for those soldiers that engaged in this shooting.  They are damaged goods.  No show of remorse over killing those kids.  'It's their fault taking their kids to the battle.'  Wow.  Psychopaths.  They should be jailed immediately.


I couldn't tell they were kids, hell for all you fucking know it could have been two people slumped down. 

Fucking pansy


----------



## Dr Grump

CrimsonWhite said:


> Buncha fucking Armchair warriors.



Buncha warmongers...


----------



## Neser Boha

CrimsonWhite said:


> Buncha fucking Armchair warriors.



And what the fuck are you?


----------



## Neser Boha

Terry said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is fucking nasty.  I have no respect for those soldiers that engaged in this shooting.  They are damaged goods.  No show of remorse over killing those kids.  'It's their fault taking their kids to the battle.'  Wow.  Psychopaths.  They should be jailed immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't tell they were kids, hell for all you fucking know it could have been two people slumped down.
> 
> Fucking pansy
Click to expand...


Turn the sound on that fucking video, you daft ****.  The soldiers even say it they were kids.


----------



## Jos

Terry said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> how sad ..for you..
> 
> 
> 
> No there always has to be someone to clean up the shit because well some people just won't fucking do it because it is beneath them.  That is what our Military does, clean shit up.  There is no way to fight a war without having occasional unintended kills.  NO WAY, so face reality...until you and others are ready to go in there and clean the shit up, I like my Military that is HIGHLY TRAINED clean it up for YOU. Got it?
Click to expand...

They make mistakes, and there are no conseqences, therefor mistakes continue to be made Highly trained, My Arse
Shooting wounded, War crime.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_XSx4oNNPY&NR=1]YouTube - US Soldiers Execute a wounded iraqi writhing in agony[/ame]


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Neser Boha said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buncha fucking Armchair warriors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what the fuck are you?
Click to expand...


Someone that has actual been there, done that. These men are not psychopaths. They are soldiers. It is a fucking war and people get killed. Their adrenaline is pumped up so high that these comments are mild by comparison. Plus, how do we know the video isn't altered in some way? You don't. You have no fucking clue, beyond what the douchenozzle in the video decided to show you. Drink your koolaid and shut the fuck up.


----------



## Dr Grump

Neser Boha said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is fucking nasty.  I have no respect for those soldiers that engaged in this shooting.  They are damaged goods.  No show of remorse over killing those kids.  'It's their fault taking their kids to the battle.'  Wow.  Psychopaths.  They should be jailed immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't tell they were kids, hell for all you fucking know it could have been two people slumped down.
> 
> Fucking pansy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Turn the sound on that fucking video, you daft ****.  The soldiers even say it they were kids.
Click to expand...


I can smell the gunpowder coming off her keyboard...

Dunno what's more sick, those pricks in the copters or the likes of Terry....


----------



## Terry

Dr Grump said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't tell they were kids, hell for all you fucking know it could have been two people slumped down.
> 
> Fucking pansy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn the sound on that fucking video, you daft ****.  The soldiers even say it they were kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can smell the gunpowder coming off her keyboard...
> 
> Dunno what's more sick, those pricks in the copters or the likes of Terry....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the badge of honor thumper.


----------



## Neser Boha

Oh man, now you got me.  I'll just crawl into a foetal position and suck my thumb 'till I fall asleep.  Let me venture a guess, you're also against abortion, aren't you?


----------



## Neser Boha

Terry said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Turn the sound on that fucking video, you daft ****.  The soldiers even say it they were kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can smell the gunpowder coming off her keyboard...
> 
> Dunno what's more sick, those pricks in the copters or the likes of Terry....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the badge of honor thumper.
Click to expand...


Crimson White's "armchair warrior" defines her perfectly.  She'll talk a big game, but that's about it.


----------



## Terry

Neser Boha said:


> Oh man, now you got me.  I'll just crawl into a foetal position and suck my thumb 'till I fall asleep.  Let me venture a guess, you're also against abortion, aren't you?


  Actuallyno and too bad your mommy didn't abort your sorry ass.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Neser Boha said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can smell the gunpowder coming off her keyboard...
> 
> Dunno what's more sick, those pricks in the copters or the likes of Terry....
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the badge of honor thumper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Crimson White's "armchair warrior" defines her perfectly.  She'll talk a big game, but that's about it.
Click to expand...


I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.


----------



## Neser Boha

CrimsonWhite said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the badge of honor thumper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crimson White's "armchair warrior" defines her perfectly.  She'll talk a big game, but that's about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
Click to expand...


Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.


----------



## eots

CrimsonWhite said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buncha fucking Armchair warriors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what the fuck are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone that has actual been there, done that. These men are not psychopaths. They are soldiers. It is a fucking war and people get killed. Their adrenaline is pumped up so high that these comments are mild by comparison. Plus, how do we know the video isn't altered in some way? You don't. You have no fucking clue, beyond what the douchenozzle in the video decided to show you. Drink your koolaid and shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


its not a war..its an occupation the only so called war is suppose to be this war on terror.. it seens to me having your children murdered needlessly and callously and unjustly is as terror as it gets...so you have been where done what specifically ?


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Neser Boha said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crimson White's "armchair warrior" defines her perfectly.  She'll talk a big game, but that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...


Nobody wants to go into a warzone and shoot up a bunch of kids. But sometimes that's what happens. And trust me, when it happens, it haunts you, just like these guys will be haunted when the adrenaline rush ends.


----------



## Neser Boha

Terry said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I have a ****, and its a sweet one, unlike your bitter yeast infected one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh man, now you got me.  I'll just crawl into a foetal position and suck my thumb 'till I fall asleep.  Let me venture a guess, you're also against abortion, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actuallyno and too bad your mommy didn't abort your sorry ass.
Click to expand...


Likewise.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what the fuck are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone that has actual been there, done that. These men are not psychopaths. They are soldiers. It is a fucking war and people get killed. Their adrenaline is pumped up so high that these comments are mild by comparison. Plus, how do we know the video isn't altered in some way? You don't. You have no fucking clue, beyond what the douchenozzle in the video decided to show you. Drink your koolaid and shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its not a war..its an occupation the only so called war is suppose to be this war on terror.. it seens to me having your children murdered needlessly and callously and unjustly is as terror as it gets...*so you have been where done what specifically ?*
Click to expand...


Yeah, I don't answer to you. Fuck off.


----------



## Tom Clancy

War is Horrible, seeing Children dying is even worse, but who in their outright mind brings Children in the middle of a fucking warzone?   

In that Video I was sure I saw at least 1 AK-47.  (Saw the shape of the Mag) 

Hell, if i was Pilot and I were killing Insurgents you better believe i'd be pumped and full of Adrenaline, it's inevitable. 

Disclaimer: No Children or Woman were harmed... _only Taliban pricks._
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9oqcU0J8M4]YouTube - the nation in afghanistan killing insurgents[/ame]


----------



## Neser Boha

CrimsonWhite said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants to go into a warzone and shoot up a bunch of kids. But sometimes that's what happens. And trust me, when it happens, it haunts you, just like these guys will be haunted when the adrenaline rush ends.
Click to expand...


I HOPE it will HAUNT them till their dying day.  That's what JUSTICE is, y'know?  One can't kill an innocent and then go on their merry way.


----------



## Neser Boha

Tom Clancy said:


> War is Horrible, seeing Children dying is even worse, but who in their outright mind brings Children in the middle of a fucking warzone?
> 
> In that Video I was sure I saw at least 1 AK-47.  (Saw the shape of the Mag)
> 
> Hell, if i was Pilot and I were killing Insurgents you better believe i'd be pumped and full of Adrenaline, it's inevitable.
> 
> Disclaimer: No Children or Woman were harmed... _only Taliban pricks._
> YouTube - the nation in afghanistan killing insurgents



It seems like it wasn't a planned operation on the side of those that ended up being shot or those that later on went to pick up the wounded.  It actually didn't look like an 'operation' at all.


----------



## eots

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone that has actual been there, done that. These men are not psychopaths. They are soldiers. It is a fucking war and people get killed. Their adrenaline is pumped up so high that these comments are mild by comparison. Plus, how do we know the video isn't altered in some way? You don't. You have no fucking clue, beyond what the douchenozzle in the video decided to show you. Drink your koolaid and shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not a war..its an occupation the only so called war is suppose to be this war on terror.. it seens to me having your children murdered needlessly and callously and unjustly is as terror as it gets...*so you have been where done what specifically ?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't answer to you. Fuck off.
Click to expand...


its just I have known people that have really _been there and done that _and they didn't speak this way..I was just wondering what your definition of _been there done that_ was.. thats all


----------



## Neser Boha

eots said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> its not a war..its an occupation the only so called war is suppose to be this war on terror.. it seens to me having your children murdered needlessly and callously and unjustly is as terror as it gets...*so you have been where done what specifically ?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't answer to you. Fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> its just I have known people that have really _been there and done that _and they didn't speak this way..I was just wondering what your definition of _been there done that_ was.. thats all
Click to expand...


He's probably just talking out of his ass.  I have also known people that really have 'been there' and 'done that' and they don't have a problem sharing where it is they've been and what it is they've done ... without too much detail though.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

Neser Boha said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't answer to you. Fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its just I have known people that have really _been there and done that _and they didn't speak this way..I was just wondering what your definition of _been there done that_ was.. thats all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's probably just talking out of his ass.  I have also known people that really have 'been there' and 'done that' and they don't have a problem sharing where it is they've been and what it is they've done ... without too much detail though.
Click to expand...


US Army
MP
Two tours in Afghanistan
'02 and '04

There are pictures in the photography forum. 

eots can fuck off, but I don't mind answering for you and that is about all the detail you get.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

uscitizen said:


> Damn liberal media....


You're referring to InfoWars?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Why the suggestion 'maybe he has a weapon...'- offering an excuse to shoot- and not the question 'does he have a weapon?' ?

And why can't they put some better cameras on those things?


----------



## QUENTIN

Here are the facts, obtained and released by Wikileaks, Reuters, and Washington Post journalist David Finkel who covered the surge and reported on this attack from the scene later that day:

The 17-minute video shows the most relevant footage, Wikileaks also posted the whole 38-minute video that includes all imaginable context, from the moment the helicopter is anywhere near the area until several minutes after the bodies are picked up. The men who they shot never engaged anyone at any time. Collateral Murder

Full, unedited video of the entire incident from beginning to end: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik[/ame]

From the moment the helicopter first spots them to the moment they're killed, what the men killed are doing can best be described as "milling about." A few blocks away a few hours before this, there was some fighting and Americans engaged and killed a group of insurgents. The Reuters photojournalist went to take pictures of the aftermath of that scene once the fighting had died down and the area was calm for a few hours. The last series of photos by the Reuters photojournalist suggest the men around him came out to see what he was taking pictures of and perhaps see what had happened once the fighting had died down, they appear to have arrived piecemeal and not in a group.

In the aftermath of the shooting, one AK-47 and no other weapons were found. Being armed in Iraq is a pretty common safety precaution for obvious reasons (also, what do Iraqis who fight Al Qaeda and the insurgency or protect their families from them carry?). Having a gun in a nation where gun ownership is legal and quite widespread is not justification for opening fire on you and everyone in your vicinity. There were no RPGs. What was called an RPG turned out to be a telephoto lens.

The van that stopped was found to be a Good Samaritan on his way to taking his kids to a tutor. He stopped when he drove by and saw a wounded man still writhing on the ground. He attempted to put him in his van, presumably to get him medical attention. The two men have no affiliation, the driver of the van was a family man with no affiliation with insurgents, the man he was helping was a driver for Reuters. The dead man's children were both shot but survived, the children and the murdered man's widow were recently found and can be seen here: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BflAj2txMVQ]YouTube - New background material from Iraq[/ame]

This is opinion:

This is important and revealing not because it's aberrational or an unusual tragedy, but because it is exactly the common and routine behavior usually shielded from view and media coverage. Nothing about this video is exceptional or out of the ordinary except that two of the innocent people murdered happened to work for Reuters instead of being random, unknown Iraqi civilians, so the video came to light.

As the video demonstrates, the soldiers in the Apache did not take a single step -- including killing those unarmed men who tried to rescue the wounded -- without first receiving formal permission from their superiors.  Beyond that, the Pentagon yesterday -- once the video was released -- suddenly embraced the wisdom of transparency by posting online the reports of the so-called "investigations" it undertook into this incident (as a result of pressure from Reuters).   Those formal investigations not only found that every action taken by those soldiers was completely justified -- including the firing on the unarmed civilian rescuers -- but also found that there's no need for any remedial steps to be taken to prevent future re-occurence.  What we see on that video is what the U.S. does on a constant and regular basis in these countries, and it's what we've been doing for years.  It's obviously consistent with our policies and practices for how we fight in these countries, which is exactly what those investigative reports concluded.

The WikiLeaks video is not an indictment of the individual soldiers involved -- at least not primarily. What they did was consistent with their training and orders and the way soldiers behave in Iraq and Afghanistan. The video is instead an indictment of the U.S. government and the war policies it pursues which lead to the casual slaughter of unarmed civilians without cause.

Precisely the same dynamic applies to the Pentagon's admission yesterday that its original claims about the brutal February killing of five civilians in Eastern Afghanistan were totally false.   http://www.usmessageboard.com/afgha...most-important-stories-about-afghanistan.html

What happened there -- the slaughter of unthreatening civilians, official lies told about the incident, the dissemination of those lies by an uncritical U.S. media -- is what happens constantly (the same 
deceitful cover-up behavior took place with the Iraq video). 

Nieman Watchdog > Commentary > U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan are committing atrocities, lying, and getting away with it

The lies about the Afghan killings were exposed in this instance not because they're rare, but because one very intrepid, relentless reporter happened to be able to travel to the remote province and speak to witnesses and investigate the event, forcing the Pentagon to acknowledge the truth.

The value of the Wikileaks/Iraq video and the Afghanistan revelation is not that they exposed unusually horrific events.  The value is in realizing that these event are anything but unusual.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

8 minutes in.

Since when do you fire on unarmed persons who are picking up wounded, clearly acting as medics or emergency personnel and not as combatants, with no visible weapons despite your attempts to find something shaped like a gun?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CrimsonWhite said:


> How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?


With honour.

Of course, that went out around the same time they let all the gangbangers back in and American street gangs started popping up in Baghdad.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Terry said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?
> 
> 
> 
> Look there are spotters on the ground that probably saw some activity like GUNS, EXPLOSIVES in this group, they send radio that intel in and then they are taken out.  IT IS FUCKING WAR not a local bar brawl.
Click to expand...

When the sole surviving child comes to America and detonates a bomb in Times Square on New Years Eve, just remember your own words.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Jos said:


> YouTube - US Soldiers Execute a wounded iraqi writhing in agony


Funny how these same idiots sing a different tune when it comes back around and Americans are killed.


----------



## QUENTIN

An active duty U.S. soldier currently deployed in Southeastern Baghdad, where this incident occurred, writes a very thoughtful and nuanced analysis of this matter to Andrew Sullivan, and says:



> *90% of what occurs in that video has been commonplace in Iraq for the last 7 years, and the 10% that differs is entirely based on the fact that two of the gentlemen killed were journalists.*
> 
> War is a disgusting, horrible thing. As cliche as that excuse has become, for people to look at the natural heartbreaking nature of it and say that they're somehow anomalous just shows how far people who have not experienced war have to go to understanding it.



Precisely.  This incident is commonplace, not unusual, because it's what war is and it's what has been happening in our wars throughout the decade.  We just don't usually see it, and this time we did.  That -- and the fact that Reuters journalists were killed and it thus generated more pressure than normal -- are the only things that make it unusual.

Despite being disgustingly depraved in their justification of killing completely innocent people, including those attempting to get medical help for unarmed and wounded civilians, and their proposal that we put ourselves in the shoes of the soldiers who were never at any time in danger during the incident, killed the group from afar while congratulating each other and joking about it, and went home safely to their beds that night but unwillingness to put themselves in the shoes of the murdered civilians who were simply walking around their neighborhood in their country which the soldiers invaded and were killed without any instigation, those defending this as just what war is are actually much more honest than those who will attempt to paint it - like Abu Ghraib - as the work of a "few bad apples." Murdering civilians as a matter of daily routine is just what we do in wars, and though it's not usually intentional, the threshold established to provide the justification for doing so is spectacularly low as this video demonstrates and as one need to do little more than look at the death toll of Iraqi civilians to realize.

Iraq Body Count


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

QUENTIN said:


> the soldiers in the Apache did not take a single step -- including killing those unarmed men who tried to rescue the wounded -- without first receiving formal permission from their superiors.....
> 
> What they did was consistent with their training and orders and the way soldiers behave in Iraq and Afghanistan.



I believe that's called the Nuremberg Defense.


----------



## QUENTIN

And for a hilarious, quite telling example of why perceptions of the continued occupations and knowledge about the realities of those occupations are so different in the rest of the world than they are among the sheltered American public, it's hard to do better than this:


----------



## QUENTIN

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2183356 said:
			
		

> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> the soldiers in the Apache did not take a single step -- including killing those unarmed men who tried to rescue the wounded -- without first receiving formal permission from their superiors.....
> 
> What they did was consistent with their training and orders and the way soldiers behave in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that's called the Nuremberg Defense.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

And just like the atrocities committed by German soldiers, while their individual actions are monstrous and reflect poorly on them, ultimately those truly responsible for the needless and wanton murder of so many innocent people are not the individual troops carrying out the orders but those directing the policy that allows for, and in fact guarantees, those deaths happen.

To go after a concentration camp grunt while ignoring Hitler and Goebbels would be missing the point. So to lay the blame primarily at the feet of these soldiers rather than the architects of war policy, as we did with the Abu Ghraib scandal where only the low-level guards caught acting out the torture that was a widespread and the result of official policy, would be a sham and have no real benefit.

This is not the work of a few bad apples. This is simply how America conducts its wars. It's important to recognize and reflect on that, not dismiss the war crime as some kind of aberrational tragedy.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN5Lu94l_E0&feature=related]YouTube - Soldiers talk about what they saw and did in Iraq[/ame]


----------



## Nonelitist

Story is unraveling for you idiot liberals...


"*Julian Assange*, a *WikiLeaks editor*, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's *likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons*."

"... images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs."

"the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules."

"Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tions-credibility-leaked-iraq-shooting-video/


----------



## Kalam

_"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​
Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.


----------



## MuslimAgorist

Collateral Murder - WikiLeaks exposes classified military malfeasance said:
			
		

> For the people of Iraq the crimes of the American Military are a daily occurrence. Just Imagine. What attitude will these wounded children have toward America growing up? When they are teenagers, desperately trying to make sense of the chaos of their lives, how will the ability to witness the cold blooded murder of their own father affect them? When they are adults, and trying to chose between the fake Republic the American Empire gives them and the militant resistance their neighbors continue to fight what do you think they will chose? What would you chose?




Read More


----------



## Tom Clancy

Kalam said:


> _"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​
> Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.



Shouldn't we blame both?

First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot. 

Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.


----------



## Nonelitist

Tom Clancy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​
> Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we blame both?
> 
> First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot.
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
Click to expand...




Blame the pilots for not assuming children are in a vehicle on a battlefield?

Not sure how you can assign that blame.


----------



## Nonelitist

It is interesting that Libs were all over this thread when they wanted to spread the lies about these people being innocent civilians.

When that story gets exploded into a million bits they disappear.


----------



## eots

oh its a _battlefield_ now


----------



## Tom Clancy

Nonelitist said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​
> Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we blame both?
> 
> First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot.
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blame the pilots for not assuming children are in a vehicle on a battlefield?
> 
> Not sure how you can assign that blame.
Click to expand...



Correction: How did they know?    Your right.


----------



## eots

Nonelitist said:


> It is interesting that Libs were all over this thread when they wanted to spread the lies about these people being innocent civilians.
> 
> When that story gets exploded into a million bits they disappear.



so now your claiming they were insurgence ?


----------



## Nonelitist

eots said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that Libs were all over this thread when they wanted to spread the lies about these people being innocent civilians.
> 
> When that story gets exploded into a million bits they disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so now your claiming they were insurgence ?
Click to expand...



Absolutely.  They saw weapons from the air and then found them when they got to the scene.

Someone claimed an "RPG" was actually a lens.  There isn't a lens used in the field that is anywhere near the length of an "RPG"... I know.. I am a photographer.

The Reuters employees weren't insurgents, but what are they doing hanging out with those that are?


----------



## QUENTIN

That's the awesome thing about American military presence.

You may think you're standing around in your own neighborhood in your own country or driving down your main street to take your kids to their tutor.

But when the military of the invading, occupying nation decides they're gonna show up there that day, now it's a battlefield and you're an idiot who deserves to die for having the gall to live there.

Nonelitist, you're a liar and you don't know what you're talking about. What was mistaken for an RPG did turn out to be a telephoto lens, which you're right, is substantially shorter than an RPG. The guy in the chopper was way off. At the scene after the murders, US troops (with a Washington Post journalist embedded) arrived at the scene and found some guns, some camera equipment, and no RPG. There is absolutely no reason to believe anyone killed was part of an "insurgency." They never engaged nor attempted to engage anyone. 

Having a gun in Iraq does not make you an insurgent anymore than having a gun in America does. Gun ownership is even more widespread among the Iraqi civilian population than the American civilian population, for obvious reasons. Do you suggest Iraqis are not allowed to protect themselves (against say, Al Qaeda who target civilians) and their families without becoming fair game for assholes in gunships?


----------



## Nonelitist

QUENTIN said:


> That's the awesome thing about American military presence.
> 
> You may think you're standing around in your own neighborhood in your own country or driving down your main street to take your kids to their tutor.
> 
> But when the military of the invading, occupying nation decides they're gonna show up there that day, now it's a battlefield and you're an idiot who deserves to die for having the gall to live there.
> 
> Nonelitist, you're a liar. And having a gun in Iraq does not make you an insurgent anymore than having a gun in America does. Gun ownership is even more widespread among the Iraqi civilian population than the American civilian population, for obvious reasons. Do you suggest Iraqis are not allowed to protect themselves and their families without becoming fair game for assholes in gunships?



Weapons were seen from the air and when they got to the scene.  

Even the editor of the website where the video was posted admits "it is likely" they had weapons.

And no... the possession of an RPG in the streets of Iraq is going to eventually get you killed.


----------



## QUENTIN

Nonelitist said:


> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the awesome thing about American military presence.
> 
> You may think you're standing around in your own neighborhood in your own country or driving down your main street to take your kids to their tutor.
> 
> But when the military of the invading, occupying nation decides they're gonna show up there that day, now it's a battlefield and you're an idiot who deserves to die for having the gall to live there.
> 
> Nonelitist, you're a liar. And having a gun in Iraq does not make you an insurgent anymore than having a gun in America does. Gun ownership is even more widespread among the Iraqi civilian population than the American civilian population, for obvious reasons. Do you suggest Iraqis are not allowed to protect themselves and their families without becoming fair game for assholes in gunships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons were seen from the air and when they got to the scene.
> 
> Even the editor of the website where the video was posted admits "it is likely" they had weapons.
> 
> And no... the possession of an RPG in the streets of Iraq is going to eventually get you killed.
Click to expand...


Yes, some of the men had AK47s, as is extremely common among Iraqi civilians.

Gun ownership is legal and widespread in Iraq, as in America. Mere possession of a gun does not permit or warrant a death sentence. 

No one had any RPGs, they went to the scene afterward and discovered no RPGs. The guy in the chopper thought he saw one, he was wrong. You can't just keep repeating the lie that there really were RPGs hoping it'll eventually become true. You're welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.


----------



## Nonelitist

QUENTIN said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUENTIN said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the awesome thing about American military presence.
> 
> You may think you're standing around in your own neighborhood in your own country or driving down your main street to take your kids to their tutor.
> 
> But when the military of the invading, occupying nation decides they're gonna show up there that day, now it's a battlefield and you're an idiot who deserves to die for having the gall to live there.
> 
> Nonelitist, you're a liar. And having a gun in Iraq does not make you an insurgent anymore than having a gun in America does. Gun ownership is even more widespread among the Iraqi civilian population than the American civilian population, for obvious reasons. Do you suggest Iraqis are not allowed to protect themselves and their families without becoming fair game for assholes in gunships?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weapons were seen from the air and when they got to the scene.
> 
> Even the editor of the website where the video was posted admits "it is likely" they had weapons.
> 
> And no... the possession of an RPG in the streets of Iraq is going to eventually get you killed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the men had AK47s, as is extremely common among Iraqi civilians.
> 
> Gun ownership is legal and widespread in Iraq, as in America. Mere possession of a gun does not permit or warrant a death sentence.
> 
> No one had any RPGs, they went to the scene afterward and discovered no RPGs. The guy in the chopper thought he saw one, he was wrong. You can't just keep repeating the lie that there really were RPGs hoping it'll eventually become true. You're welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Click to expand...


First of all retard... you admit the pilot thought there was an RPG.  With American troops in the vicinity was he supposed to not do anything?

Secondly, they most certainly did find RPGS.

FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video

"Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show *multiple weapons *around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including *at least three RPGs*. "


Get your facts straight.  Until then you maggot infested hater of the United States, sit down and shut your pathetic uninformed bastard mouth.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2183339 said:
			
		

> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?
> 
> 
> 
> With honour.
> 
> Of course, that went out around the same time they let all the gangbangers back in and American street gangs started popping up in Baghdad.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we would all like to think like that. But war ain't a movie.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmPcvH2Y3oY]YouTube - American Streets Gangs In The US Military[/ame]


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Tom Clancy said:


> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.


Did you watch the videos? They specifically ID's them as children before firing.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

QUENTIN said:


> Yes, some of the men had AK47s, as is extremely common among Iraqi civilians.



Not so uncommon where I live either.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CrimsonWhite said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2183339 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you expect a soldier to act in the commission of his duties?
> 
> 
> 
> With honour.
> 
> Of course, that went out around the same time they let all the gangbangers back in and American street gangs started popping up in Baghdad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, we would all like to think like that. But war ain't a movie.
Click to expand...

Nor is America a liberator, but people love their fiction.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

eots said:


> YouTube - American Streets Gangs In The US Military


CBS is a liberal rag. If it were true, Glenn Beck would do a special on it.


----------



## AllieBaba

Neser Boha said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Crimson White's "armchair warrior" defines her perfectly.  She'll talk a big game, but that's about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
Click to expand...



And thanks to the guys  you like to shit on, you don't have to go into a war zone, and you don't have to worry about it ever coming to you.

Piece of shit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Terry said:


> War is a bitch at times.



Yes, war is a bitch, actual combat is a mother fucker.

 Lesson to our enemies, leave your kids at home.

Lesson to reporters, don't walk down the street with our enemies.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

So let's summarize:
Eots: WTF? They said they were kids- why'd they fire
Righties: It's their own fucking fault, you sack of shit
Everyone else: For being born in the wrong country and being the wrong colour?
Alli: Damned, straight, you sacks of shit


----------



## QUENTIN

SFC Ollie said:


> Lesson to our enemies, leave your kids at home.



He wasn't an enemy. He was an innocent family man taking his kids to their tutor who saw a wounded man dying in the street and went to pick him up and take him to the hospital.

He was unarmed, not with anyone dangerous, and had no way of knowing the helicopter hundreds of meters away was targeting him or would have any reason to.

Just because we killed someone doesn't automatically make them "our enemies." Did you watch none of the video and read none of the subsequent posts? 

What a disrespectful thing to say about an innocent civilian killed in the process of being a Good Samaritan.


----------



## QUENTIN

Nonelitist said:


> First of all retard... you admit the pilot thought there was an RPG.  With American troops in the vicinity was he supposed to not do anything?
> 
> Secondly, they most certainly did find RPGS.
> 
> FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
> 
> "Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show *multiple weapons *around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including *at least three RPGs*. "
> 
> Get your facts straight.  Until then you maggot infested hater of the United States, sit down and shut your pathetic uninformed bastard mouth.



Yeah, he thought he saw an RPG and he was mistaken. As a result of his mistake, 11 people needlessly died, 2 children were left fatherless and bullet-ridden. The gunner should have confirmed that the guys who were not engaging anyone did in fact have some malicious intent before he lit up the men and everyone in their vicinity, including the journalists.

You can hear it in the audio, they basically talk each other into believing the people on the ground pose a threat despite them doing absolutely nothing from the moment the helicopter arrived until they were murdered that looks threatening.

You should watch who you call uninformed, because you continue to have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh my God, you mean now that the military has been caught red-handed having murdered journalists and a Good Samaritan they're trying to cover their asses and claim it was justified using Fox News as their uncritical outlet? No way! That is just so incredible. I guess I better believe it then, because it's not like it hasn't been proven twice this week that they've lied and covered up incidents just like this even when faced with evidence that wholly discredits their claims.

A Washington Post journalist was there on the scene later that day with the soldiers who surveyed the area, he reported on it in his book which came out long before this video. There were no RPGs. The military's own investigation, also concluded long before this video came out, found the same. No RPGs, it was a telephoto lens. 

Collateral Murder - WikiLeaks exposes classified military malfeasance



> They claim to have encountered armed insurgents including six people with AK-47s and one with a rocket-propelled grenade. *In reality only one man appears to be carrying a rifle at his side, which is common in Iraq. A military investigation later claimed that it was a long-range photo lens that was confused for the RPG*, and a camera that looked like an AK-47.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that looked to me like a successful engagement of insurgents. It sucks that the reporter was killed and it sucks even worse that they were trying to remove bodies and weapons in a hot zone with kids in the car. But when you bring your kids to war, what do you expect?
> 
> I feel for the guys that had to pull the trigger. They laughed in the video, but keep in mind where their adrenaline level was at that moment. They were pumped up. They have to be to pull the trigger. The problems start when they come down. I feel for these guys for they had to do. It is despicable, yes, but necessary.
> 
> BTW, I bet that douchenozzle armchair warrior in your video has the high score on Call of Duty 4.
Click to expand...



Necessary?  Do you really believe that or is that what you say to try and justify this fuxxing bullshit?  This is why sick fuks like you are a part of the problem and not the solution.  You're smart enough to admit it's a nasty situation but too arrogant or apathetic (maybe both?) to also admit that is exactly why war should not be treated like it is a video game.  There is nothing "necessary" about how we are abusing our troops nor causing the completely avoidable calamities of our occupations.

Wake the fuk up.


----------



## AllieBaba

Yes...we should allow the measured, sane people like curveblight to make the really important decisions about safety and security.

What a fucking loon.


----------



## CurveLight

AllieBaba said:


> Yes...we should allow the measured, sane people like curveblight to make the really important decisions about safety and security.
> 
> What a fucking loon.



Since you don't know how to read a simple post........


----------



## SFC Ollie

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2186232 said:
			
		

> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch the videos? They specifically ID's them as children before firing.
Click to expand...


Actually it was someone on the ground that ID'd the kids.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2186232 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch the videos? They specifically ID's them as children before firing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it was someone on the ground that ID'd the kids.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter.  The perception is any and all unknowns are a potential threat.  There are layers of sadness surrounding this but one of the most frustrating aspects is people will look at this and fail to realize it is why we cannot earn the trust of a nation under a foreign military occupation.  Those of us who have been in similar situations also know these horrible situations and killing of innocents happens more than is reported or admitted.

This is why war should never be reduced to political experiments or a superbowl event.


----------



## Dr Grump

Nonelitist said:


> Story is unraveling for you idiot liberals...
> 
> 
> "*Julian Assange*, a *WikiLeaks editor*, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's *likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons*."
> 
> "... images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs."
> 
> "the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules."
> 
> "Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media."
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video



Nothing is unravelling except a lot of piss-weak excuses...


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> And thanks to the guys  you like to shit on, you don't have to go into a war zone, and you don't have to worry about it ever coming to you.
> 
> Piece of shit.



But if they murder innocents that's cool...

Talking of pieces of shit, how's tricks Fats?


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is a bitch at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, war is a bitch, actual combat is a mother fucker.
> 
> Lesson to our enemies, leave your kids at home.
> 
> Lesson to reporters, don't walk down the street with our enemies.
Click to expand...



You should become a defense attorney.

"Your Honor, my client did nothing but shoot his enemies."

"What evidence are you prepared to offer to prove this?"

"My client shot them."


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Story is unraveling for you idiot liberals...
> 
> 
> "*Julian Assange*, a *WikiLeaks editor*, acknowledged to Fox News in an interview Tuesday evening that "it's *likely some of the individuals seen in the video were carrying weapons*."
> 
> "... images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs."
> 
> "the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules."
> 
> "Hanzlik called the death of the Reuters photographers "incredibly unfortunate." That sad part is, he said, they weren't wearing any markings or jerseys that would have signaled to U.S. forces they were members of the media."
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Military Raises Questions About Credibility of Leaked Iraq Shooting Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is unravelling except a lot of piss-weak excuses...
Click to expand...



But ya gotta love how wikileaks is not credible in one post but rock solid in another......


----------



## Dr Grump

SFC Ollie said:


> Terry said:
> 
> 
> 
> War is a bitch at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, war is a bitch, actual combat is a mother fucker.
> 
> Lesson to our enemies, leave your kids at home.
> 
> Lesson to reporters, don't walk down the street with our enemies.
Click to expand...



Lesson One: ID your targets properly
Lesson Two: Now people are not allowed to drive around their own neighbourhood with their kids in case an invading army accidentally shoots them?
Lesson Three: Who said they were your enemies? You STILL don't know who they were. See Lesson One....


----------



## Dr Grump

CurveLight said:


> But ya gotta love how wikileaks is not credible in one post but rock solid in another......



Even the US govt has said the tapes are authentic....

There are some people who are so rabid about this kind of thing that they leave their humanity at the door.

And I'm not one of those people who don't realise that people accidentally get killed in cross fire, and that mistakes happen on occasion. This looked like deliberate targetting (note how the chopper was circling for some time)...at no stage was the chopper or any other person targetted by those on the ground. Straight out mindless slaughter.

You guys defending this are defending the indefensible IMO....but then again, you've proven over again that you do no wrong. Everybody else is wrong and you're right...


----------



## eots

AllieBaba said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to the guys  you like to shit on, you don't have to go into a war zone, and you don't have to worry about it ever coming to you.
> 
> Piece of shit.
Click to expand...

actually the more they kill their children the more cconcerned I am it will be coming to me...peice of shit



They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot your children, and was rapin' your moms

Bin Laden Lyrics, Immortal Technique


----------



## Kalam

Tom Clancy said:


> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​
> Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we blame both?
> 
> First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot.
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
Click to expand...


No, we shouldn't. The entire country is a war zone and it's the American government's fault that this war zone exists in the first place. The father can't be blamed for attempting to help someone who was injured, nor can insurgents be blamed for attempting to free themselves and their neighbors from the tyranny of an unjust occupation.


----------



## Neser Boha

Nonelitist said:


> It is interesting that Libs were all over this thread when they wanted to spread the lies about these people being innocent civilians.
> 
> When that story gets exploded into a million bits they disappear.



So it's the old liberals versus conservatives again, heh?

Wow, your life must be one lonely cold dark experience if you see everything only from that point of view.

I have never said all of these people were 'innocent civilians' all I know is that the soldiers were AWFULLY cavalier about killing a bunch of people who *didn't even provoke them.  *Some of them might have had guns, but *they didn't shoot at the American soldiers*. They were just milling around the area - so what if they had guns, after all, they're in a fucking war zone!  Also, the van that later on came to pick up the wounded was very obviously *not there to engage the US pilots, but to simply pick up the wounded.*  And* there were kids inside*, who were shot at and the soldiers d*idn't offer a motherfucking ounce of remorse or alarm over that*!  They shot a bunch of people without being provoked or targeted themselves - as if they were just a bunch of fucking rabbits - and then laughed about it all the way and then showed no remorse or alarm over the fact that even children were present there!

They're bunch of motherfucking psychos and I give no motherfucking shit about the 'adrenaline rush' excuse.  Adrenaline rush my ass.


----------



## editec

There's no excuse for what we saw on that video.

What we saw was the assassination of innocent people by US troops.

This wasn't done accidently, or in a heated exchange of fire. Neither was it done in the fog of war.

This seemed to be done knowingly by troops who seemed to be having fun shooting civilians like they were nothing more than fish in barrel.

Wait,  it gets worse..

These murdering asshole are likely to get away with this war crime, and then guess what?

They'll come back to this country and expect us to treat them like patriotic Americans.

In another thread you people are debating the insult to our nation of burning our flag.

These murderers are _the real insult to this nation_, folks.

They just wiped their asses on our flag and on everything for which it stands and yet, _about half of you nitwits think what they did was a good thing._

No wonder this nation is hosed.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Kalam said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"We were coming back and we saw an injured man. My father said, 'let's take him to hospital.' Then I heard only the bullets ... Why did they shoot us? Didn't they see we were children?"_​Get the fuck out of Iraq. America has no business meddling in the affairs of the Islamic world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we blame both?
> 
> First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot.
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we shouldn't. The entire country is a war zone and it's the American government's fault that this war zone exists in the first place. The father can't be blamed for attempting to help someone who was injured, nor can insurgents be blamed for attempting to free themselves and their neighbors from the tyranny of an unjust occupation.
Click to expand...



I always thought the Right preached Jesus and Jesus preached to aid those in need...

evidently, I was wrong on that...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Next time Al Queda is successful and you idiots start bitching about Americans being murdered, I want you all to remember this video.

You wanna know why the whole world wants to kill Americans? The answer was posted by Eots here on 4-06-2010, at 10:01 AM.


----------



## Dr Grump

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187346 said:
			
		

> Next time Al Queda is successful and you idiots start bitching about Americans being murdered, I want you all to remember this video.
> 
> You wanna know why the whole world wants to kill Americans? The answer was posted by Eots here on 4-06-2010, at 10:01 AM.



At the risk of stealing EOTS thunder it was posted at 5-06-2010 at 9.06PM by Grump...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/112374-collateral-murder.html


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Dr Grump said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187346 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time Al Queda is successful and you idiots start bitching about Americans being murdered, I want you all to remember this video.
> 
> You wanna know why the whole world wants to kill Americans? The answer was posted by Eots here on 4-06-2010, at 10:01 AM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of stealing EOTS thunder it was posted at 5-06-2010 at 9.06PM by Grump...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/112374-collateral-murder.html
Click to expand...

Grump is an inferior media outlet with only two correspondents in the thread 

On that note, can we get a thread merger when the mods wake up?


----------



## Dr Grump

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187393 said:
			
		

> [quo
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/112374-collateral-murder.html


Grump is an inferior media outlet with only two correspondents in the thread 

On that note, can we get a thread merger when the mods wake up?[/QUOTE]

Possibly, but mine is well buried

as to your premise as to why these people murder, you are on the money of course. however, the right wing nutjobs will say they don't give a shit. Eye for an eye and all that....


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187346 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time Al Queda is successful and you idiots start bitching about Americans being murdered, I want you all to remember this video.
> 
> You wanna know why the whole world wants to kill Americans? The answer was posted by Eots here on 4-06-2010, at 10:01 AM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of stealing EOTS thunder it was posted at 5-06-2010 at 9.06PM by Grump...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/112374-collateral-murder.html
Click to expand...


May 6th 2010 hasn't arrived yet.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5:21-5:35 in the vid, I count 3 assault rifles. AK-47's to be precise.
> 
> The COD comment meant that you and this fucker in the video have no idea what you are looking at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they are tri pods for cameras as reported by reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negative. Second from the left is carrying a Kalashnikov. And you call me a sheep. Since when do you believe what the media tells you. Those are rifles fuckstick.
Click to expand...



You are sheep.  Pure fuxxing sheep.  You don't have what it takes to be honest as you prove over and over.


----------



## CurveLight

Every soldier involved needs to be prosecuted as well as a CID investigation into the COC.  We have testimonies of Vets stating these types of slaughters are not rare:
Http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41605


I fought in Iraq in Desert Storm with the 3rd ACR (one of the first units to engage on the ground) so having been there and in similar situations I can say from experience this was not legal in any way.  The civilians were taking no tactical positions.  They made not one fuxxing single hostile move.  It looked like a group of guys on a Sunday morning stroll.  When I was there we could not engage until we had definitive confirmation of an imminent threat.  We had situations where we would be approached by civilians on the ground and we still could not fire without threat confirmation.  Most of the time the people were just hungry and thirsty so we gave them MREs and water.  

This was a case of bloodthirsty soldiers.  Do they represent all Soldiers?  Of course not.  It's fucking sickening the military knew of this and did nothing.  Personally, I believe the politics behind condoning this shit is to maintain violence to justify putting in permanent military bases.

I know it pisses people off they can't ignore my opinion based on the "you have not been there" defense and I'm guessing some are so desperately pathetic they will accuse me of lying.  It only shows the depths of your denial.  If we do not hold our own military accountable we have absolutely no room to bitch about terrorists.  That video is terrorism defined.


----------



## SFC Ollie

From what I seemed to get from the long video.

Troops had been fired on not far from this area only a few minutes earlier. Or at least within the hour.

The Helicopters were patrolling the area because of that fire.

I saw at least 2 people with AK's and could not make out what the one guy had which the pilot said was an RPG.

The pilots/gunners did not ID the children prior to firing. It was ground troops that found the children. And took them to a hospital.

One person on the ground confirmed at least one RPG.

RPG's are not a defensive weapon.

I do not understand all the reasons the van was fired upon, but the video does not allow me to pass judgment either.


----------



## Liability

Jos said:


> YouTube - Terrorist Hunting in Iraq
> It's a War crime



Wrong.  That ^ was no war crime.

Your *edited* version is deliberately misleading, you propagandist.  

The fuller version makes it PLAIN that the pieces of shit shown getting blown to bits had JUST been planting IEDs.   Fuck them and all their scummy body parts.  They got killed in war and deserve no pity, especially since they were absolutely on the side of evil.  I hope it still hurts them in hell.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> From what I seemed to get from the long video.
> 
> Troops had been fired on not far from this area only a few minutes earlier. Or at least within the hour.
> 
> The Helicopters were patrolling the area because of that fire.
> 
> I saw at least 2 people with AK's and could not make out what the one guy had which the pilot said was an RPG.
> 
> The pilots/gunners did not ID the children prior to firing. It was ground troops that found the children. And took them to a hospital.
> 
> One person on the ground confirmed at least one RPG.
> 
> RPG's are not a defensive weapon.
> 
> I do not understand all the reasons the van was fired upon, but the video does not allow me to pass judgment either.




Bull. Shit.  This is why we are headed for a fall because even when we have video and audio evidence of a slaughter people like you squirm and squeezle every possible ridiculous angle to try and excuse the inexcusable.  

Look at the actions of the people.  They were casually walking around.  That is not what happens in a hostile engagement.  Then you claim a RPG is not a "defensive" weapon?  In can be used either way so you're trying to use a bullshit label to basically say:  

"So what there were no hostile actions.  Someone said they saw an RPG."

There are not enough hallucinogenics in the world to spin this as a legal or morally justifiable engagement.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

It amazes me what you guys get from a highly edited video with some douchenozzle that obviously has an agenda narrating. Bunch of fucking sheep.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Terrorist Hunting in Iraq
> It's a War crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That ^ was no war crime.
> 
> Your *edited* version is deliberately misleading, you propagandist.
> 
> The fuller version makes it PLAIN that the pieces of shit shown getting blown to bits had JUST been planting IEDs.   Fuck them and all their scummy body parts.  They got killed in war and deserve no pity, especially since they were absolutely on the side of evil.  I hope it still hurts them in hell.
Click to expand...



Does the Snitch Bitch have that solid evidence showing they were planting IEDs?  Maybe the Reuters camera has that footage?


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> It amazes me what you guys get from a highly edited video with some douchenozzle that obviously has an agenda narrating. Bunch of fucking sheep.




I made my opinions based on the video and audio of the soldiers.  Maybe you are just too simple and weak minded to be able to block out what that asswipe was saying?  Don't extrapolate your inabilities into others' capabilities.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me what you guys get from a highly edited video with some douchenozzle that obviously has an agenda narrating. Bunch of fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made my opinions based on the video and audio of the soldiers.  Maybe you are just too simple and weak minded to be able to block out what that asswipe was saying?  Don't extrapolate your inabilities into others' capabilities.
Click to expand...


You mean the video that was cropped and didn't show much of anything except for the shooting? Oh okay.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me what you guys get from a highly edited video with some douchenozzle that obviously has an agenda narrating. Bunch of fucking sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made my opinions based on the video and audio of the soldiers.  Maybe you are just too simple and weak minded to be able to block out what that asswipe was saying?  Don't extrapolate your inabilities into others' capabilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the video that was cropped and didn't show much of anything except for the shooting? Oh okay.
Click to expand...



It was leaked from inside the Pentagon.  What else you got dishonest babyham?  The fact the crews were begging for permission to engage shows they were not being fired upon.  Even after they slaughtered the people they did not come under fire but you want us to believe your imagination over the facts we see and hear.  You're a fuxxing joke.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my opinions based on the video and audio of the soldiers.  Maybe you are just too simple and weak minded to be able to block out what that asswipe was saying?  Don't extrapolate your inabilities into others' capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the video that was cropped and didn't show much of anything except for the shooting? Oh okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was leaked from inside the Pentagon.  What else you got dishonest babyham?  The fact the crews were begging for permission to engage shows they were not being fired upon.  Even after they slaughtered the people they did not come under fire but you want us to believe your imagination over the facts we see and hear.  You're a fuxxing joke.
Click to expand...


Then it was edited. What is dishonest about that?


----------



## MuslimAgorist

Let's try this.

I want everyone to take a step back. Put all the flags, and all the badges, and all the cultural scar tissue out their mind and take another look at this video... only this time, imagine that you are an Iraqi. You don't worship the US military. You don't worship the liberal media. You don't care what the rules of engagement are. You are an everyday working class Iraqi of a high enough economic status to have internet access. And late one night, in your own home in Baghdad, you watch this video. The next morning, you step outside your door and you look up, and in the distance you see an Apache Helicopter, which has been a normal daily occurrence for years. You're 5 year old daughter has known no different. You can't tell what he's doing, or who he's watching. You can't hear his on board communication. But you know now, that in an instant, based on a mistake in perception, he could kill you and everyone you love, and everyone you know.

How do you feel?


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the video that was cropped and didn't show much of anything except for the shooting? Oh okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was leaked from inside the Pentagon.  What else you got dishonest babyham?  The fact the crews were begging for permission to engage shows they were not being fired upon.  Even after they slaughtered the people they did not come under fire but you want us to believe your imagination over the facts we see and hear.  You're a fuxxing joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it was edited. What is dishonest about that?
Click to expand...


Then show us all the unedited version you are basing your opinion on.  Unlike you (and many others) I care about facts more than anything else when making judgment calls so if you can show an unedited version showing the engagement was justified I will apologize and fully retract what I have said.

I look forward to seeing the unedited version you speak of.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was leaked from inside the Pentagon.  What else you got dishonest babyham?  The fact the crews were begging for permission to engage shows they were not being fired upon.  Even after they slaughtered the people they did not come under fire but you want us to believe your imagination over the facts we see and hear.  You're a fuxxing joke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then it was edited. What is dishonest about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then show us all the unedited version you are basing your opinion on.  Unlike you (and many others) I care about facts more than anything else when making judgment calls so if you can show an unedited version showing the engagement was justified I will apologize and fully retract what I have said.
> 
> I look forward to seeing the unedited version you speak of.
Click to expand...


I haven't seen it either. I based my opinion on actually being in those types of situations. I just find it fucking hysterical that a bunch of armchair warrior conspiracy junkies are more than willing to form a damning opinion of these soldiers based on incomplete info.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then it was edited. What is dishonest about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then show us all the unedited version you are basing your opinion on.  Unlike you (and many others) I care about facts more than anything else when making judgment calls so if you can show an unedited version showing the engagement was justified I will apologize and fully retract what I have said.
> 
> I look forward to seeing the unedited version you speak of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it either. I based my opinion on actually being in those types of situations. I just find it fucking hysterical that a bunch of armchair warrior conspiracy junkies are more than willing to form a damning opinion of these soldiers based on incomplete info.
Click to expand...



That's why you're a fuxxing joke.  You're bitching about me forming my opinion based on both personal experience and the available facts while you fantasize about some other video version you've never even seen.  Hell, you can't even provide proof of the unedited version.  And don't even think about trying to hide behind the "I wasn't talking about you personally" bullshit unless you have a morbid desire to further embarrass yourself.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Terrorist Hunting in Iraq
> It's a War crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That ^ was no war crime.
> 
> Your *edited* version is deliberately misleading, you propagandist.
> 
> The fuller version makes it PLAIN that the pieces of shit shown getting blown to bits had JUST been planting IEDs.   Fuck them and all their scummy body parts.  They got killed in war and deserve no pity, especially since they were absolutely on the side of evil.  I hope it still hurts them in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Snitch Bitch have that solid evidence showing they were planting IEDs?  Maybe the Reuters camera has that footage?
Click to expand...



LOL!  Thementrual flow- dripping  pussy cowardly shittard has a question?

If you want an answer, ask it properly you anal pore.  

If you have not seen the PREVIOUSLY-released version, ya retarded ass-licker, then you are relying on the shortened and edited version.  How unsurprising.

I saw the prior version -- about two years ago -- and the stuff at the beginning (that was snipped out of the version shown here) CLEARLY depicted what the fucking scum was doing (off-camera in this version, to the top and to the right of any area shown in the current edited version) off at the side of the road.  They were planting IEDs.  And the good guys took out the trash.  

Most excellent.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  That ^ was no war crime.
> 
> Your *edited* version is deliberately misleading, you propagandist.
> 
> The fuller version makes it PLAIN that the pieces of shit shown getting blown to bits had JUST been planting IEDs.   Fuck them and all their scummy body parts.  They got killed in war and deserve no pity, especially since they were absolutely on the side of evil.  I hope it still hurts them in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Snitch Bitch have that solid evidence showing they were planting IEDs?  Maybe the Reuters camera has that footage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Thementrual flow- dripping  pussy cowardly shittard has a question?
> 
> If you want an answer, ask it properly you anal pore.
> 
> If you have not seen the PREVIOUSLY-released version, ya retarded ass-licker, then you are relying on the shortened and edited version.  How unsurprising.
> 
> I saw the prior version -- about two years ago -- and the stuff at the beginning (that was snipped out of the version shown here) CLEARLY depicted what the fucking scum was doing (off-camera in this version, to the top and to the right of any area shown in the current edited version) off at the side of the road.  They were planting IEDs.  And the good guys took out the trash.
> 
> Most excellent.
Click to expand...


So you watched a classified military video of this same shooting two years ago? (rotfl)

You're pure Snitch Bitch and you completely avoided posting any evidence of the unedited version.  Are you waiting for some dum fuk at Freeper to finish splicing ariel footage or something?  Why is it you jackasses keep bitching about an unedited version you cannot prove exists?

And looky here....the US is probably going to re-open the investigation based on the leaked video.

U.S. military weighs renewing probe over Iraq video - Iraq News

Now why would they do that?  Why not simply show the mysterious "unedited" version so everyone can see the engagement was justified?


----------



## Kalam

Liability said:


> I saw the prior version -- about two years ago





Wow! Who would have guessed that Disability had high-level security clearance and access to classified videos?

Am I supposed to take your word on this one, big guy?


----------



## Kalam

Liability said:


> They got killed in war and deserve no pity, especially since they were absolutely on the side of evil.



Clearly, attempting to expel unwanted occupiers places one squarely on the side of "evil" - as long as those occupiers are from 'Murrica.


----------



## Kalam

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187344 said:
			
		

> Kalam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't we blame both?
> 
> First: The Father who brought his children in the middle of a fucking war zone is a outright idiot.
> 
> Second: The Pilots for not knowing Children were in there before shooting the Van.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we shouldn't. The entire country is a war zone and it's the American government's fault that this war zone exists in the first place. The father can't be blamed for attempting to help someone who was injured, nor can insurgents be blamed for attempting to free themselves and their neighbors from the tyranny of an unjust occupation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I always thought the Right preached Jesus and Jesus preached to aid those in need...
> 
> evidently, I was wrong on that...
Click to expand...

No, you were right; you were just thinking of the wrong Jesus.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2187346 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next time Al Queda is successful and you idiots start bitching about Americans being murdered, I want you all to remember this video.
> 
> You wanna know why the whole world wants to kill Americans? The answer was posted by Eots here on 4-06-2010, at 10:01 AM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of stealing EOTS thunder it was posted at 5-06-2010 at 9.06PM by Grump...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/112374-collateral-murder.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May 6th 2010 hasn't arrived yet.
Click to expand...

He's using the Grumpian Calendar, which is about one month ahead of the Gregorian.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the video that was cropped and didn't show much of anything except for the shooting? Oh okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was leaked from inside the Pentagon.  What else you got dishonest babyham?  The fact the crews were begging for permission to engage shows they were not being fired upon.  Even after they slaughtered the people they did not come under fire but you want us to believe your imagination over the facts we see and hear.  You're a fuxxing joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then it was edited. What is dishonest about that?
Click to expand...


If it's edited, then release the whole video.


----------



## eots

Liarbility is a.... propagandist ,piece of shit ,scummy ,  evil. ,Thementrual flow, dripping  pussy , shittard ,anal pore ,retarded ass-licker,


----------



## geauxtohell

Jos said:


> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?



They did follow the ROE.  That is evident when they didn't "re-engage" the person on the ground, who we know now was a reporter, when he was crawling on the ground.  The reason the pilot is saying "C'mon, pick up a weapon.." Is so he can re-engage the man.

That was a terrible event all around, but the pilots were doing their job.  They were flying route clearance for the Bushmaster (infantry) element and it was their job to identify and eliminate any threats before they could ambush the ground unit.  That's what they did.  In that light, you would expect them to be appropriately aggressive.  They were under the impression they had identified weapons (AKs and an RPG) requested clearance to shoot and that's what they did.

Now, through the virtue of hindsite and video enhancement, we know they made a mistake and people want to start casting their bony fingers as if the pilots had such benefits during the time.

Before anyone gets on their high horse, every single fucking American is a shareholder in these deaths and all the other innocents that are killed when we send our military into combat.  It's not just the soldiers.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> The reason the pilot is saying "C'mon, pick up a weapon.." Is so he can re-engage the man.



Even as he was dying, they wanted any excuse to fire again.





> Before anyone gets on their high horse, every single fucking American is a shareholder in these deaths and all the other innocents that are killed when we send our military into combat.  It's not just the soldiers.




And one day we will reap what has been sown...


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Jos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about following the Rules of engagement?
> or even the Geneva convention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did follow the ROE.  That is evident when they didn't "re-engage" the person on the ground, who we know now was a reporter, when he was crawling on the ground.  The reason the pilot is saying "C'mon, pick up a weapon.." Is so he can re-engage the man.
> 
> That was a terrible event all around, but the pilots were doing their job.  They were flying route clearance for the Bushmaster (infantry) element and it was their job to identify and eliminate any threats before they could ambush the ground unit.  That's what they did.  In that light, you would expect them to be appropriately aggressive.  They were under the impression they had identified weapons (AKs and an RPG) requested clearance to shoot and that's what they did.
> 
> Now, through the virtue of hindsite and video enhancement, we know they made a mistake and people want to start casting their bony fingers as if the pilots had such benefits during the time.
> 
> Before anyone gets on their high horse, every single fucking American is a shareholder in these deaths and all the other innocents that are killed when we send our military into combat.  It's not just the soldiers.
Click to expand...



They did not follow ROE.  At. All.  Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.

Http://www.collateralmurder.org/

Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version.  Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians.  (state the exact time from the video.)

Thanks.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Snitch Bitch have that solid evidence showing they were planting IEDs?  Maybe the Reuters camera has that footage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Thementrual flow- dripping  pussy cowardly shittard has a question?
> 
> If you want an answer, ask it properly you anal pore.
> 
> If you have not seen the PREVIOUSLY-released version, ya retarded ass-licker, then you are relying on the shortened and edited version.  How unsurprising.
> 
> I saw the prior version -- about two years ago -- and the stuff at the beginning (that was snipped out of the version shown here) CLEARLY depicted what the fucking scum was doing (off-camera in this version, to the top and to the right of any area shown in the current edited version) off at the side of the road.  They were planting IEDs.  And the good guys took out the trash.
> 
> Most excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you watched a classified military video of this same shooting two years ago? (rotfl)
> 
> You're pure Snitch Bitch and you completely avoided posting any evidence of the unedited version.  Are you waiting for some dum fuk at Freeper to finish splicing ariel footage or something?  Why is it you jackasses keep bitching about an unedited version you cannot prove exists?
> 
> And looky here....the US is probably going to re-open the investigation based on the leaked video.
> 
> U.S. military weighs renewing probe over Iraq video - Iraq News
> 
> Now why would they do that?  Why not simply show the mysterious "unedited" version so everyone can see the engagement was justified?
Click to expand...



Twat drippings:

If you were not so mentally retarded, asshole, even a complete fuck-up like YOU would have noted the date on the post in the video linked earlier.  That was, stupid, in December of 2007.  I  am not the one who said it was classified.  It got RELEASED, you blithering buffoon.

Good grief, how can somebody be as fucking totally retarded as you are and yet still manage to breathe?

You remain utterly pathetic.

*Here, by the way, is a slightly longer version of the shortened edited version seen in the earlier post*, you pussy liar scumbag:  Apache kill | Free Educational Videos - Watch Educational Videos Online | Veoh

My prior post did get a detail wrong.  The guy was seen dropping a weapon in the field to the LEFT of the screen.  [The evidence of their behavior snipped from the video shown earlier was NOT to the _right_ side of the limited field of vision depicted.]  Other than that, however, it DID (as I correctly noted) reveal that the fuckers WERE the bad guys.

I notice that despite all your whining and dishonesty, you aren't able to post actual facts.

No surprise.  You are one useless cowardly lying menstrual dripping twat.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Thementrual flow- dripping  pussy cowardly shittard has a question?
> 
> If you want an answer, ask it properly you anal pore.
> 
> If you have not seen the PREVIOUSLY-released version, ya retarded ass-licker, then you are relying on the shortened and edited version.  How unsurprising.
> 
> I saw the prior version -- about two years ago -- and the stuff at the beginning (that was snipped out of the version shown here) CLEARLY depicted what the fucking scum was doing (off-camera in this version, to the top and to the right of any area shown in the current edited version) off at the side of the road.  They were planting IEDs.  And the good guys took out the trash.
> 
> Most excellent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you watched a classified military video of this same shooting two years ago? (rotfl)
> 
> You're pure Snitch Bitch and you completely avoided posting any evidence of the unedited version.  Are you waiting for some dum fuk at Freeper to finish splicing ariel footage or something?  Why is it you jackasses keep bitching about an unedited version you cannot prove exists?
> 
> And looky here....the US is probably going to re-open the investigation based on the leaked video.
> 
> U.S. military weighs renewing probe over Iraq video - Iraq News
> 
> Now why would they do that?  Why not simply show the mysterious "unedited" version so everyone can see the engagement was justified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Twat drippings:
> 
> If you were not so mentally retarded, asshole, even a complete fuck-up like YOU would have noted the date on the post in the video linked earlier.  That was, stupid, in December of 2007.  I  am not the one who said it was classified.  It got RELEASED, you blithering buffoon.
> 
> Good grief, how can somebody be as fucking totally retarded as you are and yet still manage to breathe?
> 
> You remain utterly pathetic.
> 
> *Here, by the way, is a slightly longer version of the shortened edited version seen in the earlier post*, you pussy liar scumbag:  Apache kill | Free Educational Videos - Watch Educational Videos Online | Veoh
> 
> My prior post did get a detail wrong.  The guy was seen dropping a weapon in the field to the LEFT of the screen.  [The evidence of their behavior snipped from the video shown earlier was NOT to the _right_ side of the limited field of vision depicted.]  Other than that, however, it DID (as I correctly noted) reveal that the fuckers WERE the bad guys.
> 
> I notice that despite all your whining and dishonesty, you aren't able to post actual facts.
> 
> No surprise.  You are one useless cowardly lying menstrual dripping twat.
Click to expand...



I just posted the full 38 minute video Snitch Bitch.  Tell us the exact time where there is proof the guys just got done planting bombs as you claimed.  

Also, how did you watch this video when Reuters has been trying to get it since 2007?

From the link I already posted:
"Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack."

Snitch Bitch, you have done nothing but embarrass the hell out of yourself.  Again.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you watched a classified military video of this same shooting two years ago? (rotfl)
> 
> You're pure Snitch Bitch and you completely avoided posting any evidence of the unedited version.  Are you waiting for some dum fuk at Freeper to finish splicing ariel footage or something?  Why is it you jackasses keep bitching about an unedited version you cannot prove exists?
> 
> And looky here....the US is probably going to re-open the investigation based on the leaked video.
> 
> U.S. military weighs renewing probe over Iraq video - Iraq News
> 
> Now why would they do that?  Why not simply show the mysterious "unedited" version so everyone can see the engagement was justified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twat drippings:
> 
> If you were not so mentally retarded, asshole, even a complete fuck-up like YOU would have noted the date on the post in the video linked earlier.  That was, stupid, in December of 2007.  I  am not the one who said it was classified.  It got RELEASED, you blithering buffoon.
> 
> Good grief, how can somebody be as fucking totally retarded as you are and yet still manage to breathe?
> 
> You remain utterly pathetic.
> 
> *Here, by the way, is a slightly longer version of the shortened edited version seen in the earlier post*, you pussy liar scumbag:  Apache kill | Free Educational Videos - Watch Educational Videos Online | Veoh
> 
> My prior post did get a detail wrong.  The guy was seen dropping a weapon in the field to the LEFT of the screen.  [The evidence of their behavior snipped from the video shown earlier was NOT to the _right_ side of the limited field of vision depicted.]  Other than that, however, it DID (as I correctly noted) reveal that the fuckers WERE the bad guys.
> 
> I notice that despite all your whining and dishonesty, you aren't able to post actual facts.
> 
> No surprise.  You are one useless cowardly lying menstrual dripping twat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted the full 38 minute video Snitch Bitch.  Tell us the exact time where there is proof the guys just got done planting bombs as you claimed.
> 
> Also, how did you watch this video when Reuters has been trying to get it since 2007?
> 
> From the link I already posted:
> "Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack."
> 
> Snitch Bitch, you have done nothing but embarrass the hell out of yourself.  Again.
Click to expand...


Period Puddle:

In your usual blathering blithering imbecile style, you have managed to ignore the video I was discussing (you retard) and are attempting to discuss an entirely different video.

Jeez.  You truly are a fucktarded moron.

Or a liar.

Either way, shit for brains, the crap you post is irrelevant.

I enjoy watching you confirm and perpetually re-confirm the fact that you are unable to do anything BUT make an asshole of yourself.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twat drippings:
> 
> If you were not so mentally retarded, asshole, even a complete fuck-up like YOU would have noted the date on the post in the video linked earlier.  That was, stupid, in December of 2007.  I  am not the one who said it was classified.  It got RELEASED, you blithering buffoon.
> 
> Good grief, how can somebody be as fucking totally retarded as you are and yet still manage to breathe?
> 
> You remain utterly pathetic.
> 
> *Here, by the way, is a slightly longer version of the shortened edited version seen in the earlier post*, you pussy liar scumbag:  Apache kill | Free Educational Videos - Watch Educational Videos Online | Veoh
> 
> My prior post did get a detail wrong.  The guy was seen dropping a weapon in the field to the LEFT of the screen.  [The evidence of their behavior snipped from the video shown earlier was NOT to the _right_ side of the limited field of vision depicted.]  Other than that, however, it DID (as I correctly noted) reveal that the fuckers WERE the bad guys.
> 
> I notice that despite all your whining and dishonesty, you aren't able to post actual facts.
> 
> No surprise.  You are one useless cowardly lying menstrual dripping twat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted the full 38 minute video Snitch Bitch.  Tell us the exact time where there is proof the guys just got done planting bombs as you claimed.
> 
> Also, how did you watch this video when Reuters has been trying to get it since 2007?
> 
> From the link I already posted:
> "Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack."
> 
> Snitch Bitch, you have done nothing but embarrass the hell out of yourself.  Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Period Puddle:
> 
> In your usual blathering blithering imbecile style, you have managed to ignore the video I was discussing (you retard) and are attempting to discuss an entirely different video.
> 
> Jeez.  You truly are a fucktarded moron.
> 
> Or a liar.
> 
> Either way, shit for brains, the crap you post is irrelevant.
> 
> I enjoy watching you confirm and perpetually re-confirm the fact that you are unable to do anything BUT make an asshole of yourself.
Click to expand...



So you posted a video covering an engagement that is a different one than everyone else is discussing in this thread?


----------



## CurveLight

ROTFLLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Snitch Bitch posted a video aired by ABC on January 9, 2004!  The leaked video we are discussing shows a shooting that happened in July 2007!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Snitch Bitch has been pwned beyond all repair.  You are a fuxxing joke!


----------



## Liability

eots said:


> Liarbility is a.... propagandist ,piece of shit ,scummy ,  evil. ,Thementrual flow, dripping  pussy , shittard ,anal pore ,retarded ass-licker,



It's so cute when id-eots tries to turn my prose against me.  

Simply pwecious.

But, id-eots has already been exposed.  He is a deb*z*unker.

  Randomly made-up words are id-eots' specialty.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just posted the full 38 minute video Snitch Bitch.  Tell us the exact time where there is proof the guys just got done planting bombs as you claimed.
> 
> Also, how did you watch this video when Reuters has been trying to get it since 2007?
> 
> From the link I already posted:
> "Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack."
> 
> Snitch Bitch, you have done nothing but embarrass the hell out of yourself.  Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Period Puddle:
> 
> In your usual blathering blithering imbecile style, you have managed to ignore the video I was discussing (you retard) and are attempting to discuss an entirely different video.
> 
> Jeez.  You truly are a fucktarded moron.
> 
> Or a liar.
> 
> Either way, shit for brains, the crap you post is irrelevant.
> 
> I enjoy watching you confirm and perpetually re-confirm the fact that you are unable to do anything BUT make an asshole of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you posted a video covering an engagement that is a different one than everyone else is discussing in this thread?
Click to expand...



It was responsive, you imbecile, to another post in this thread.

Do try to keep up, twat puddle.   Otherwise everybody will see what a complete fucking  dripping period puddle lying twat you are.

Oh wait. 

Everybody already knows that!


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Period Puddle:
> 
> In your usual blathering blithering imbecile style, you have managed to ignore the video I was discussing (you retard) and are attempting to discuss an entirely different video.
> 
> Jeez.  You truly are a fucktarded moron.
> 
> Or a liar.
> 
> Either way, shit for brains, the crap you post is irrelevant.
> 
> I enjoy watching you confirm and perpetually re-confirm the fact that you are unable to do anything BUT make an asshole of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you posted a video covering an engagement that is a different one than everyone else is discussing in this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was responsive, you imbecile, to another post in this thread.
> 
> Do try to keep up, twat puddle.   Otherwise everybody will see what a complete fucking  dripping period puddle lying twat you are.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> Everybody already knows that!
Click to expand...


"responsive" my ass.  You thought you found a version of the op video so you rushed to post it without realizing it was a completely different video and now you are just trying to backpedal you Snitch Bitch.

So.......

Show us how you watched the op video two years ago and show us the evidence the guys shot in the op video were planting ieds you lying Snitch Bitch.


----------



## Jos

If someone threw down a weapon, does that make them a legit target? 
If an American threw down his weapon should he be shot?


----------



## GHook93

Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war! 

Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm. 



eots said:


> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children


----------



## CurveLight

GHook93 said:


> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
Click to expand...



You're a sik fuk.  You're more pissed off the video was leaked versus the innocent people that were killed.

Also, there was no courts martial for this video you dum fuk.  Not yet anyways.


----------



## Neser Boha

Jos said:


> If someone threw down a weapon, does that make them a legit target?
> If an American threw down his weapon should he be shot?



According to Liability, he'd be a fair game, obviously ...  Cuz he's tough like that.  Fat, hairy and ugly ... and tough.


----------



## Neser Boha

GHook93 said:


> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every *little incident* and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
Click to expand...


So, G-Hooker, the ultimate stupid fuck calls this a 'little incident.'  Heh, let's wrap it up guys, the fat jewish whore has sung, there's nothing more to see 'round here.

Hey, fat fuck! This video has been on the news the world over.  This is not some 'little incident,' ya retard. Not to mention that innocent life has been cut short by a buncha trigger-happy psychos.

I already knew you were a moral whore, now you just confirmed it for me.


----------



## Liability

Jos said:


> If someone threw down a weapon, does that make them a legit target?
> If an American threw down his weapon should he be shot?



Threw down his weapon?  

Are you fucking imbeciles for real?  

Look again at where he went, you idiot. 

Then look what he was standing next to when he got blown to shit.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you posted a video covering an engagement that is a different one than everyone else is discussing in this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was responsive, you imbecile, to another post in this thread.
> 
> Do try to keep up, twat puddle.   Otherwise everybody will see what a complete fucking  dripping period puddle lying twat you are.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> Everybody already knows that!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "responsive" my ass.
Click to expand...


No.  Just responsive to the very video I was RESPONDING to.

It's right there in the link, you imbecile.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/2188017-post118.html (responding to Jos' post of the "hunting" video I was addressing)  

Or maybe it's just that you are a lying menstrual stain and are too embarrassed to admit the obvious truth which proves how idiotic you are.

The one Jos posted, fucktard, was originally posted (as I already noted) back in late 2007.  That math is also beyond your very very limited skill set is not at all surprising.  The unedited (fuller) version I had seen earlier was therefore obviously at least two years ago, too.

You stanky pussy drippings are all the same -- as dishonest as they come.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was responsive, you imbecile, to another post in this thread.
> 
> Do try to keep up, twat puddle.   Otherwise everybody will see what a complete fucking  dripping period puddle lying twat you are.
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> Everybody already knows that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "responsive" my ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  Just responsive to the very video I was RESPONDING to.
> 
> It's right there in the link, you imbecile.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/2188017-post118.html (responding to Jos' post of the "hunting" video I was addressing)
> 
> Or maybe it's just that you are a lying menstrual stain and are too embarrassed to admit the obvious truth which proves how idiotic you are.
> 
> The one Jos posted, fucktard, was originally posted (as I already noted) back in late 2007.  That math is also beyond your very very limited skill set is not at all surprising.  The unedited (fuller) version I had seen earlier was therefore obviously at least two years ago, too.
> 
> You stanky pussy drippings are all the same -- as dishonest as they come.
Click to expand...



Oh damn!  I fucked up!  The Snitch Bitch is correct.  He was talking about a different video and I apologize to the Snitch Bitch.

For clarification, which video were you talking about when you said they were planting ieds?


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "responsive" my ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Just responsive to the very video I was RESPONDING to.
> 
> It's right there in the link, you imbecile.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/2188017-post118.html (responding to Jos' post of the "hunting" video I was addressing)
> 
> Or maybe it's just that you are a lying menstrual stain and are too embarrassed to admit the obvious truth which proves how idiotic you are.
> 
> The one Jos posted, fucktard, was originally posted (as I already noted) back in late 2007.  That math is also beyond your very very limited skill set is not at all surprising.  The unedited (fuller) version I had seen earlier was therefore obviously at least two years ago, too.
> 
> You stanky pussy drippings are all the same -- as dishonest as they come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn!  I fucked up!  The Snitch Bitch is correct.  He was talking about a different video and I apologize to the Snitch Bitch.
> 
> For clarification, which video were you talking about when you said they were planting ieds?
Click to expand...


Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!  

I'm shocked.  

I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.  

Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.   

Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  Just responsive to the very video I was RESPONDING to.
> 
> It's right there in the link, you imbecile.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/2188017-post118.html (responding to Jos' post of the "hunting" video I was addressing)
> 
> Or maybe it's just that you are a lying menstrual stain and are too embarrassed to admit the obvious truth which proves how idiotic you are.
> 
> The one Jos posted, fucktard, was originally posted (as I already noted) back in late 2007.  That math is also beyond your very very limited skill set is not at all surprising.  The unedited (fuller) version I had seen earlier was therefore obviously at least two years ago, too.
> 
> You stanky pussy drippings are all the same -- as dishonest as they come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn!  I fucked up!  The Snitch Bitch is correct.  He was talking about a different video and I apologize to the Snitch Bitch.
> 
> For clarification, which video were you talking about when you said they were planting ieds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
Click to expand...



Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)

That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:

Http://www.collateralmurder.com

It even has the full transcript.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn!  I fucked up!  The Snitch Bitch is correct.  He was talking about a different video and I apologize to the Snitch Bitch.
> 
> For clarification, which video were you talking about when you said they were planting ieds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
Click to expand...


I hadn't seen it yet, because you know, I have a real job.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen it yet, because you know, I have a real job.
Click to expand...



Lol....but strangely enough you had time to make several posts whining about people stating their opinions.

Your arrogant skank ass already passed judgment before reviewing the facts so stick to your glass gavel.  As for your comment about having a "real job," when you're done embarrassing yourself in this thread you should look up websites that give helpful hints on excuses.  One off the top of my head is you could say:

"Sorry for not addressing the facts earlier but it usually takes me two hours to watch "60 Minutes."


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh damn!  I fucked up!  The Snitch Bitch is correct.  He was talking about a different video and I apologize to the Snitch Bitch.
> 
> For clarification, which video were you talking about when you said they were planting ieds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
Click to expand...


For some absurd reason, the leaky panty liner, _bent tight_, now asks me "will you be responding to this op?" RIGHT after I had JUST finished saying, "the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it."

_bent tight_, you aren't very bright.

The video in the OP is PRISON PLANET's video.  You know, the one where that smegma faced jackal pontificates that all of us are responsible for the allegedly illegal murderous actions supposedly depicted in the video.  Of course, it still hasn't been established to my satisfaction that the idiots who got taken out -- as shown in that video -- weren't highly deserving of what they got.

I don't know if the "children" were actually in the vehicle or not, but I saw and heard no evidence suggesting that they were known to be children.  And it is pretty fucking stupid and callous to drive children into a dangerous war zone that's just been lit-up.  

I have not viewed any 38 minute video.  Frankly, I'm not planning on it.


----------



## Neser Boha

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some absurd reason, the leaky panty liner, _bent tight_, now asks me "will you be responding to this op?" RIGHT after I had JUST finished saying, "the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it."
> 
> _bent tight_, you aren't very bright.
> 
> The video in the OP is PRISON PLANET's video.  You know, the one where that smegma faced jackal pontificates that all of us are responsible for the allegedly illegal murderous actions supposedly depicted in the video.  Of course, it still hasn't been established to my satisfaction that the idiots who got taken out -- as shown in that video -- weren't highly deserving of what they got.
> 
> I don't know if the "children" were actually in the vehicle or not, but I saw and heard no evidence suggesting that they were known to be children.  And it is pretty fucking stupid and callous to drive children into a dangerous war zone that's just been lit-up.
> 
> I have not viewed any 38 minute video.  Frankly, I'm not planning on it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because you couldn't give two shits if US soldiers shoot indiscriminately whatever moves - including children.  You just spent several hours fighting on this thread over - essentially - nothing, but you won't view the horrifying video in question.  Because you are not actually interested in the topics, you just want to yell insults at people and act like a little bitch.


----------



## Neser Boha

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen it yet, because you know, I have a real job.
Click to expand...


Wow, I'd love to have your 'real job.'  When I'm at work I have hardly time for a lunch break, but this joker chats on message boards during his working time and calls it a 'real job.'  I wonder how long before you get fired or 'laid off' for mysterious reasons.


----------



## QUENTIN

Neser Boha said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some absurd reason, the leaky panty liner, _bent tight_, now asks me "will you be responding to this op?" RIGHT after I had JUST finished saying, "the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it."
> 
> _bent tight_, you aren't very bright.
> 
> The video in the OP is PRISON PLANET's video.  You know, the one where that smegma faced jackal pontificates that all of us are responsible for the allegedly illegal murderous actions supposedly depicted in the video.  Of course, it still hasn't been established to my satisfaction that the idiots who got taken out -- as shown in that video -- weren't highly deserving of what they got.
> 
> I don't know if the "children" were actually in the vehicle or not, but I saw and heard no evidence suggesting that they were known to be children.  And it is pretty fucking stupid and callous to drive children into a dangerous war zone that's just been lit-up.
> 
> I have not viewed any 38 minute video.  Frankly, I'm not planning on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because you couldn't give two shits if US soldiers shoot indiscriminately whatever moves - including children.  You just spent several hours fighting on this thread over - essentially - nothing, but you won't view the horrifying video in question.  Because you are not actually interested in the topics, you just want to yell insults at people and act like a little bitch.
Click to expand...


http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen kane clapping.gif

The mix of "You all are anti-america fags for having an uninformed opinion based on an edited video" and "Well I don't care if the whole video is out there and released and you've seen it, I'm not gonna watch it" is pretty telling.

They don't want to see what it shows, they don't care about the truth if it gets in the way of their preconceived notions. They're gonna defend U.S. troops in a "war zone" of their creation, even if those troops mow down a group of civilians and journalists and children, because to them the U.S. is always right and occupied foreign people are always wrong, period. Fuck the darkies, rah rah rah!


----------



## editec

A very disturbing video, this is.

Way to win hearts and minds there, troops.

It's crap like this that are making the USA a pariah nation.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy SHIT!  I can't believe it!  _bent tight_,  the menstrual drippings-panty-stain lying pussy actually more or less manned up and admitted that he was wrong!
> 
> I'm shocked.
> 
> I pains me to have to say this, but kudos to _bent tight_ for at least having found the nadz to admit it at least this one time.
> 
> Now, in response to that last "question," I was referring to the very same video, but the weapon that got tossed was NOT an IED.   So (like that misfired memory of mine that had the action taking place on the other side of the screen), I got the IED part wrong, too, it appears.  It *was* a weapon, but it was evidently not an IED.
> 
> Oh, and the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it.  I did have prior knowledge of the video Jos posted, so *that* video I felt free to comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some absurd reason, the leaky panty liner, _bent tight_, now asks me "will you be responding to this op?" RIGHT after I had JUST finished saying, "the reason I haven't said much about the original post -- and the prison-planet video linked in that OP -- is precisely because I don't know very much about it."
> 
> _bent tight_, you aren't very bright.
> 
> The video in the OP is PRISON PLANET's video.  You know, the one where that smegma faced jackal pontificates that all of us are responsible for the allegedly illegal murderous actions supposedly depicted in the video.  Of course, it still hasn't been established to my satisfaction that the idiots who got taken out -- as shown in that video -- weren't highly deserving of what they got.
> 
> I don't know if the "children" were actually in the vehicle or not, but I saw and heard no evidence suggesting that they were known to be children.  And it is pretty fucking stupid and callous to drive children into a dangerous war zone that's just been lit-up.
> 
> I have not viewed any 38 minute video.  Frankly, I'm not planning on it.
Click to expand...


The original source of the video is not PP which is why I linked the source to specifically remove your easily predictable attempt at avoiding addressing the facts.

I asked if you "will be" responding because I wanted to show you run like a little Snitch Bitch every time you get a whiff of facts you don't like.  The most revealing aspect of your response is defending the slaughter while admitting you've not reviewed the facts and you plan on not doing it.  Sadly, there are a lot of punks like you who form your positions based purely on emotion.  If physical properties reflected mental maturity you'd still be in a womb.


----------



## CurveLight

Neser Boha said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.....I don't give a rat's about any other video so now that the confusion is cleared up will you be responding to this op?  (btw, this is not the first time I've admitted to an error on my part Snitch Bitch but thanks)
> 
> That whiny bitch crimson keeps prancing about an unedited version of the op video but I posted the link for the full 38 minute video and.......nothing.  The video is not from PP.  It is from:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.com
> 
> It even has the full transcript.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen it yet, because you know, I have a real job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I'd love to have your 'real job.'  When I'm at work I have hardly time for a lunch break, but this joker chats on message boards during his working time and calls it a 'real job.'  I wonder how long before you get fired or 'laid off' for mysterious reasons.
Click to expand...


CW is Gunny
 with half the brains and none of the courage.  I doubt we will ever see the phantom "unedited" version and even though the pentagon has confirmed the video is authentic that doesn't stop rabid Nationalists from closing their eyes and screaming in vain hoping their mousy shrills will retard everyone else's ability to be honest.


----------



## Nonelitist

You dems want to let the bad guys walk around in a war zone with rpgs and weapons and you don't know why you are considered to be weak on defense?

You want them to shoot at our soldiers first and you wonder why you are considered weak?

HA


You claim that you care about the soldiers hurt or killed in Iraq and it is you and those like you that make it harder for them to be successful.

These men were carrying weapons.. that has been confirmed.  They did what they were supposed to do.

Pull your heads out of your asses and stop hating the US so much... you really are sickening.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> They did not follow ROE.  At. All.  Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.org/
> 
> Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version.  Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians.  (state the exact time from the video.)
> 
> Thanks.



I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).  

When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire?  I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent.  It's "perceived danger".  That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.  

The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time.  They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs.  .  In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal.  However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage.  You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the fucker at you.  

Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire.  So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't.  Reporters embed with insurgents too).  It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat.  It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq.  We k now this was the nasty reality of it.    

Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.  

As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.

As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.  

This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.  

My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.

But I doubt it.


----------



## geauxtohell

GHook93 said:


> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
Click to expand...


Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I doubt we will ever see the phantom "unedited" version and even though the pentagon has confirmed the video is authentic that doesn't stop rabid Nationalists from closing their eyes and screaming in vain hoping their mousy shrills will retard everyone else's ability to be honest.



The "unedited version" doesn't include a transcript telling you what was really going on at the time, arrows and bubbles to highlight reporters, and close up enhancement to show children in the passengers seat of a van.

This stuff happens in real time and is, and always has been, the nature of war.  What do you think a video of Tokyo would have shown when we firebombed it?   

There is no refining it.

It's convenient for people to sit here and second guess people now.  However, it is not realistic.  The intent of these pilots was not to kill civilians.


----------



## Nonelitist

geauxtohell said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?
Click to expand...


Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.


Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.


----------



## geauxtohell

Nonelitist said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
Click to expand...


I don't think the reporters being with the insurgents makes them "enemies".  Reporters cover both sides of the battle.  If there were weapons on site after these guys were engaged and they were insurgents, it's just shitty luck that the reporter was with them.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Nonelitist said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
Click to expand...


Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?

Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.


----------



## Nonelitist

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
			
		

> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
Click to expand...


Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.

That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.


----------



## Neser Boha

Nonelitist said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow some isolated incidents that no doubt were dealt with by court-marshalls. War is war and there are always some moronic soldiers in every war!
> 
> Funny a douche bag antiamerican communist such as yourself and the dumbass in your propaganda piece will nitpik and pull out every little incident and state this is the common place. These incidents are far from the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they be court martialed or reprimanded for doing their duty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
Click to expand...


You are missing a link to support your claims.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
			
		

> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.



Once you play the "conspiracy card", there really isn't much point in proceeding any further.

I don't find it as germane anyways.  If the pilots perceived a threat to the ground element, it was their mission to engage.  

If they made a mistake, then "shit happens".  In combat that equates to death and destruction of innocents.

I am not being callous about the matter, I am just being realistic.

I don't really see the rub here by the people that opposed the war.  We all knew/know scores of innocents would be/were killed in Iraq.

Now we are seeing the business end of the matter.

There are probably years worth of similar tapes.  It's tragic.  It shouldn't be surprising.

As I said, this is a far cry form My Lai where soldiers intended to kill innocents.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Nonelitist said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.
> 
> That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.
Click to expand...



The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.


----------



## Neser Boha

geauxtohell said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once you play the "conspiracy card", there really isn't much point in proceeding any further.
> 
> I don't find it as germane anyways.  If the pilots perceived a threat to the ground element, it was their mission to engage.
> 
> If they made a mistake, then "shit happens".  In combat that equates to death and destruction of innocents.
> 
> I am not being callous about the matter, I am just being realistic.
> 
> I don't really see the rub here by the people that opposed the war.  We all knew/know scores of innocents would be/were killed in Iraq.
> 
> Now we are seeing the business end of the matter.
> 
> There are probably years worth of similar tapes.  It's tragic.  It shouldn't be surprising.
> 
> As I said, this is a far cry form My Lai where soldiers intended to kill innocents.
Click to expand...


Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle." 

Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.

I'm just being realistic here.


----------



## Neser Boha

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191775 said:
			
		

> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.
> 
> That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.
Click to expand...


Link.  Reference.  Substantiation.  Thanks.


----------



## boedicca

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191775 said:
			
		

> The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.




Where?

Your claim is not consistent with the investigatory reports:

6--2nd Brigade Combat Team 15-6 Investigation

Agreement


----------



## geauxtohell

Neser Boha said:


> [
> Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."
> 
> Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.
> 
> I'm just being realistic here.



I agree.  It is repulsive.  As it has been since the inception of time.  

Why would you ever think other wise?  Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it?  No, it does not.

If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.

I don't blame the pilots for this.  They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.

That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.


----------



## geauxtohell

Nonelitist said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Military investigated... found numerous weapons, including at least 3 RPG's.  Even the editor of the site the video was posted on had to admit that they had weapons.
> 
> 
> Thats really all that needs to be known.  These weren't innocents.  The photographers weren't innocents either... they were hanging out with Terrorists in clothing that didn't identify them as photographers or press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.
> 
> That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.
Click to expand...


STFU.  I am a liberal.  

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with perspective.  

The conservatives who would ignore every wrong on the battlefield, to include the egregious ones, are just the other side of the same coin as the people they are condemning as "haters of their country".


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Neser Boha said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.
> 
> That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link.  Reference.  Substantiation.  Thanks.
Click to expand...

Turn on the news


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

Non proved himself an idiot when he called me a liberal.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> You dems want to let the bad guys walk around in a war zone with rpgs and weapons and you don't know why you are considered to be weak on defense?
> 
> You want them to shoot at our soldiers first and you wonder why you are considered weak?
> 
> HA
> 
> 
> You claim that you care about the soldiers hurt or killed in Iraq and it is you and those like you that make it harder for them to be successful.
> 
> These men were carrying weapons.. that has been confirmed.  They did what they were supposed to do.
> 
> Pull your heads out of your asses and stop hating the US so much... you really are sickening.



Amateur hour is over.

You need to come up with a deflection not as moldy as "you just hate the US."


----------



## SFC Ollie

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191775 said:
			
		

> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2191693 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like how some pregnant women had AK-47s.... but then it came out that they didn't and it was a cover-up?
> 
> Naturally, the military is now trying to claim they found more than they actually did in order to save face. It's not the first time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally, as a Liberal, you believe the enemies of the United States in EVERY case before your own country.
> 
> That, sir, would identify you as a hater of your own country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The US military has come out and said that they were unarmed and that their was a cover-up.
Click to expand...


Really? Can you kindly provide that link to the rest of us?


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not follow ROE.  At. All.  Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.org/
> 
> Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version.  Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians.  (state the exact time from the video.)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).
> 
> When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire?  I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent.  It's "perceived danger".  That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.
> 
> The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time.  They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs.  .  In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal.  However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage.  You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the fucker at you.
> 
> Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire.  So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't.  Reporters embed with insurgents too).  It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat.  It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq.  We k now this was the nasty reality of it.
> 
> Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.
> 
> As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.
> 
> As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.
> 
> This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.
> 
> My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.
> 
> But I doubt it.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?


----------



## Neser Boha

geauxtohell said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."
> 
> Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.
> 
> I'm just being realistic here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  It is repulsive.  As it has been since the inception of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok ... Shit like this (and worse) has been going down for thousands of years.  That hardly makes it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you ever think other wise?  Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it?  No, it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the public can't react to something it can't either see or hear.  So, when I saw this, I reacted. I was disgusted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's quite relative.  And I would never make such a blanket statement.  I do believe there is such a thing as just war.  However, anyone revelling - in killing others is an 'amoral shit-for-brains', yes.  Very much so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame the pilots for this.  They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the point above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you elected the stupid fuck and now you're eating his shit.
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not follow ROE.  At. All.  Here is the direct link showing the 38 minute version.
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.org/
> 
> Never mind I had to post the info showing the full version.  Just show where they were engaged that justified firing on the civilians.  (state the exact time from the video.)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).
> 
> When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire?  I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent.  It's "perceived danger".  That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.
> 
> The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time.  They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs.  .  In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal.  However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage.  You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the fucker at you.
> 
> Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire.  So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't.  Reporters embed with insurgents too).  It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat.  It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq.  We k now this was the nasty reality of it.
> 
> Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.
> 
> As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.
> 
> As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.
> 
> This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.
> 
> My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.
> 
> But I doubt it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?
Click to expand...


At the four minute mark of the "short version" you can hear the discussion about the RPG and of someone taking fire.  

That was what triggered the engagement.


----------



## geauxtohell

Neser Boha said:


> Ok ... Shit like this (and worse) has been going down for thousands of years.  That hardly makes it better.



No it doesn't.  I never said it did.  I said it has been a brutal undertaking, and will remain to be, for the duration of time.  



> Sorry, but the public can't react to something it can't either see or hear.  So, when I saw this, I reacted. I was disgusted.



Then you have a heart.  I am sure you will see much worse than this in the years to come.  



> That's quite relative.  And I would never make such a blanket statement.  I do believe there is such a thing as just war.  However, anyone revelling - in killing others is an 'amoral shit-for-brains', yes.  Very much so.



The reasons behind war may be just or unjust, but the very nature of combat is still the same.  World War II is considered "just".  I suppose it's just our good fortune that no one videotaped us when we firebombed Tokyo or Berlin?

I am only surprised that people are surprised.



> Yeah, you elected the stupid fuck and now you're eating his shit.



Those of us in "the know" have been eating his shit for some time now.  I am only mildly sorry that the average American voter has to flip on the TV to see the nastiness of something they supported.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt we will ever see the phantom "unedited" version and even though the pentagon has confirmed the video is authentic that doesn't stop rabid Nationalists from closing their eyes and screaming in vain hoping their mousy shrills will retard everyone else's ability to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "unedited version" doesn't include a transcript telling you what was really going on at the time, arrows and bubbles to highlight reporters, and close up enhancement to show children in the passengers seat of a van.
> 
> This stuff happens in real time and is, and always has been, the nature of war.  What do you think a video of Tokyo would have shown when we firebombed it?
> 
> There is no refining it.
> 
> It's convenient for people to sit here and second guess people now.  However, it is not realistic.  The intent of these pilots was not to kill civilians.
Click to expand...



With the video and audio evidence I don't really care to play the mind reading games of intent.  Your excuse about it being "real time" is pure honky kentucky grade bullshit.  I've been in similar situations so please don't try to sell me that. The crews did not come under fire before, during, or after they slaughtered those people.  

The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions.  Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.  

One way to engage this group would have been to fire warning shots around them on the ground.  Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force.  With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.


----------



## Nonelitist

Christian Science Monitor:

Killings of Iraqi journalists: US says they were not war crimes / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

"Crazyhorse 18 and 19, the helicopters in question, were on a directed mission in support of ground forces that had been taking constant fire from insurgents, according to the report. They identified &#8220;with reasonable certainty&#8221; the presence of military-age males with weapons at a location within 300 feet of the site where US forces were being attacked.

Photos included with the report show the presence of both a rocket-propelled grenade and an AK-47 automatic rifle among group members, according to the report. ...&#8220;While observing this group of individuals, the [helicopters] satisfied all requirements to initiate the engagement,&#8221; according to the investigation."

The aircrews &#8220;exercised sound judgment ... during attempts to acquire insurgents,&#8221; according to the report.

From NY Daily News:

Military: Brutal WikiLeaks video of shooting death of Reuters journalist in Iraq lacks context

The U.S. military is firing back at the outcry over a grisly video in which an Army helicopter in Iraq guns down a Reuters photojournalist and his driver, along with dozens of others.

"The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day," Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, told Fox News.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've watched the whole video (not the selective edits).
> 
> When does the ROE require that someone has to be engaged first before they fire?  I've defended the necessity of the ROE numerous times, but I would never defend a ROE that stringent.  It's "perceived danger".  That is even more shaky when you are talking about CAS whose mission is to find and eliminate targets to provide clearance for a ground element.
> 
> The fact that they were civilians was not known to the pilots at the time.  They either had, or thought they had, eyes-on Ak-47s and RPGs.  .  In Afghanistan, having an AK-47 did not justify engagement as they were legal.  However, an RPG was instant clearance to engage.  You didn't have to wait for someone to fire the fucker at you.
> 
> Also, at one point in the video one of the helicopters either was or thought they were taking ground fire.  So either the pilots, knowing that he whole incident would be on film, made up a script or they made a mistake (or maybe they didn't.  Reporters embed with insurgents too).  It's regrettable, but mistakes like this happen in combat.  It's why some of us (and I know it includes you, but it also includes me) adamantly opposed Iraq.  We k now this was the nasty reality of it.
> 
> Obviously the Army investigated the incident and to my knowledge didn't feel that the pilots violated the ROE.
> 
> As for the pilot's cavalier attitude about engaging something they perceived to be a target, that's the attitude I'd expect from them.
> 
> As for them being callous about the children, that's a defense mechanism.
> 
> This isn't a My Lai type of incident where military personnel intended to kill innocents.
> 
> My only hope is that the jackasses that supported this war and are horrified from seeing this in their living rooms have a moment of introspection.
> 
> But I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, did I overlook the part where you stated the time on the video where our Soldiers were engaged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the four minute mark of the "short version" you can hear the discussion about the RPG and of someone taking fire.
> 
> That was what triggered the engagement.
Click to expand...



I didn't ask that.  I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged.  It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths.  Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> With the video and audio evidence I don't really care to play the mind reading games of intent.  Your excuse about it being "real time" is pure honky kentucky grade bullshit.  I've been in similar situations so please don't try to sell me that. The crews did not come under fire before, during, or after they slaughtered those people.



You don't think intent matters here? That's a rather bizarre statement.  

Furthermore, as I pointed out to you, being fired upon is not a pre-requisite to engage.  You should know that.    



> The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions.



That's your perspective of the situation.  The pilots, by virtue of the narrative, thought otherwise.  Of course, as I pointed out and you don't want to accept, we have the benefit of a narrative and video enhancement.  They did not.   



> Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.



Yes, if only every situation in combat were like the cookie cutter drills in training, things would function so much better and we most likely wouldn't have scores of veterans with PTSD.    



> One way to engage this group would have been to fire warning shots around them on the ground.  Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force.  With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.



Warning shots with an Apache main gun?  Are you fucking kidding me?  It's an area-kill weapon.    

I always give people the benefit of the doubt, but a statement like that makes me wonder just how much experience you have in "situations like this".  I also can't remember many situations when bad guys decided to stand and fight against an attack helicopter once it had given up the element of surprise.   

Furthermore, they wanted to kill these men.  Why wouldn't they?  They perceived them to be insurgents.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I didn't ask that.  I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged.  It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths.  Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?



Sorry, I can't change the fact pattern to suit your collective conscious.  I've made the case as to why they engaged.  

That might not suit you, and you might want to impose an absurdly restrictive ROE on this scenario.  That's your prerogative.  

It's not relevant since our wants and desires don't equate to the reality of the situation.  If we all had our way, no innocents would be killed in war and there would be no bad decisions.

Since that, again, is not reality, we have to look at the intent of the pilots.

If you choose not to look at intent, then you are basically relegated to being pissed off at the situation.

Again, that is your right, but few are going to agree with you.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Well, this is quite shocking to people that have never been present in a combat situation and who are not used to such comments as "Look at all these dead bastards." "Let us shoot!" or "Pick up the gun!" just so he had an excuse to shoot him to death or laugh when a bradley vehicle runs over one of the dead bodies ... or just dismiss shooting of two innocent children as "Well, he shouldn't have brought his kids to the battle."
> 
> Sorry, most civilized people that don't have shit for morals and brains don't consider this very kosher and are rather REPULSED by it.
> 
> I'm just being realistic here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  It is repulsive.  As it has been since the inception of time.
> 
> Why would you ever think other wise?  Does the nastiness of the matter increase simply because you and the rest of the public can see it?  No, it does not.
> 
> If these pilots are "amoral shit-for-brains" then so is everyone else who has ever carried a weapon onto a battlefield.
> 
> I don't blame the pilots for this.  They weren't the ones who rattled their sabers and cut their order to go into combat.
> 
> That would be the American public and the shit-for-brains politicians who sent them there.
Click to expand...



Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent?  Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.

More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask that.  I asked for you to show where our troops were engaged.  It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths.  Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't change the fact pattern to suit your collective conscious.  I've made the case as to why they engaged.
> 
> That might not suit you, and you might want to impose an absurdly restrictive ROE on this scenario.  That's your prerogative.
> 
> It's not relevant since our wants and desires don't equate to the reality of the situation.  If we all had our way, no innocents would be killed in war and there would be no bad decisions.
> 
> Since that, again, is not reality, we have to look at the intent of the pilots.
> 
> If you choose not to look at intent, then you are basically relegated to being pissed off at the situation.
> 
> Again, that is your right, but few are going to agree with you.
Click to expand...



The only way I interpret this response is you have absolutely no fucking way to justify what happened so you ignore the facts.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent?  Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.



I never said anything remotely resembling that comment.  Don't be dishonest, it makes you look silly.  



> More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.



Are you saying any Officer who didn't protest the legality of the Iraq War is now a criminal?  Now who is being unreasonable? 

Also, I'd lay odds that out of the 2-4 individuals flying these Apaches, that more than half weren't commissioned officers.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> The only way I interpret this response is you have absolutely no fucking way to justify what happened so you ignore the facts.



No.  I am looking at the facts, and not just the aftermath in making my statements.  

As I pointed out to you, seeing an RPG was criteria to engage in my AO.  I'd assume the same here.  

You keep wanting to ignore the ROE while also insisting that these men didn't follow the ROE.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent?  Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said anything remotely resembling that comment.  Don't be dishonest, it makes you look silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More importantly, the pilots, as Officers, had a sworn duty to question the legality of being sent to Iraq so these assholes failed their Oath and slaughtered innocent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying any Officer who didn't protest the legality of the Iraq War is now a criminal?  Now who is being unreasonable?
> 
> Also, I'd lay odds that out of the 2-4 individuals flying these Apaches, that more than half weren't commissioned officers.
Click to expand...



You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed.  That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.

I didn't say they are criminals.  I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.


----------



## geauxtohell

So you are backing away from this statement?:



CurveLight said:


> Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent?  Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.



Good.  Lets keep it honest here.  



> You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed.  That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.



I said I don't blame soldiers for making mistakes when they are thrown in a meat grinder if their intent was honest.  

If I am going to blame anyone, it will be the politicians that sent them into the meat grinder.



> I didn't say they are criminals.  I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.



Not all officers are created equal, and not all officers have the same burdens. 

At any rate, so I understand you, you believe that any officer that went to Iraq failed their oath?  

You know, an officer tried to play that card and it turned out badly for him.  

I hate and hated our involvement in Iraq, but I never would claim it was something that an officer had the latitude to protest under the color of their rank.  The military works for the people, the people elected Bush, Bush got us in this war, the people re-elected him.

How about we be realistic, here?


----------



## Terral

Hi Mayya:



mayya555 said:


> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.



I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]

The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries. 

If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...

GL,

Terral


----------



## Liability

Terral said:


> Hi Mayya:
> 
> 
> 
> mayya555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]
> 
> The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.
> 
> If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
Click to expand...


Upon closer inspection, it is abundantly clear that the guy peeking around the corner at and just before the time mark of 1:29 *is* carrying a fucking weapon.  I see no basis to believe that the guys identified as carrying cameras were actually known to be carrying cameras (even if those were cameras).  I heard nothing indicating that the guys on our side thought they were doing anything but taking out some shit armed with RPGs.


----------



## eagleseven

It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.

Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.


----------



## geauxtohell

eagleseven said:


> It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.
> 
> Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.



Yeah, I noticed that too the first time I saw it.  Since the odds of an RPG taking down a helicopter are slim (though it has happened), It didn't make my heart jump.

Whether there were RPGs or not, the only thing relevant is that the helicopter pilots perceived that there were RPGs and engaged.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> So you are backing away from this statement?:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soldiers can do whatever they want because they were sent?  Hmmm....might wanna ponder that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  Lets keep it honest here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you don't blame the pilots because they didn't cut the orders to be combat deployed.  That means you assessed their actions by being deployed and not their specific choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said I don't blame soldiers for making mistakes when they are thrown in a meat grinder if their intent was honest.
> 
> If I am going to blame anyone, it will be the politicians that sent them into the meat grinder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they are criminals.  I clearly said they failed their Oath and Commissioned or not, they are still Officers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all officers are created equal, and not all officers have the same burdens.
> 
> At any rate, so I understand you, you believe that any officer that went to Iraq failed their oath?
> 
> You know, an officer tried to play that card and it turned out badly for him.
> 
> I hate and hated our involvement in Iraq, but I never would claim it was something that an officer had the latitude to protest under the color of their rank.  The military works for the people, the people elected Bush, Bush got us in this war, the people re-elected him.
> 
> How about we be realistic, here?
Click to expand...



There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did.  The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant. 

Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy.  I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.

You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well.  It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star.  Every soldier has the duty to question orders.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mayya:
> 
> 
> 
> mayya555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]
> 
> The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.
> 
> If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upon closer inspection, it is abundantly clear that the guy peeking around the corner at and just before the time mark of 1:29 *is* carrying a fucking weapon.  I see no basis to believe that the guys identified as carrying cameras were actually known to be carrying cameras (even if those were cameras).  I heard nothing indicating that the guys on our side thought they were doing anything but taking out some shit armed with RPGs.
Click to expand...



You're a fuxxing Snitch Bitch.  Don't even insult everyone here because we all know you reached a decision even before looking at the evidence.


----------



## CurveLight

eagleseven said:


> It's obvious that they believed the group of individuals had an RPG, and one of them damn well looked like he was preparing to fire (crouched behind cover). Given how a single RPG can take down a helicopter, I don't blame those men for firing.
> 
> Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.




What is the T mark for the "crouching behind cover?"


----------



## Dr Grump

Nonelitist said:


> You dems want to let the bad guys walk around in a war zone with rpgs and weapons and you don't know why you are considered to be weak on defense?
> 
> You want them to shoot at our soldiers first and you wonder why you are considered weak?
> 
> HA
> 
> 
> You claim that you care about the soldiers hurt or killed in Iraq and it is you and those like you that make it harder for them to be successful.
> 
> These men were carrying weapons.. that has been confirmed.  They did what they were supposed to do.
> 
> Pull your heads out of your asses and stop hating the US so much... you really are sickening.



"America, America uber alles..."


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did.  The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant.



I am not understanding the disconnect here.  You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.  That has never been how things have worked, and you should know it.  Helicopters on a search and destroy mission don't have to be fired on before they fire back.  No insurgent in their right mind would fire at an Apache.  They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys".  That's it.  They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.  

Of course they were jubilant.  They were under the impression they had killed insurgents.  When the Union jubilantly screamed "Fredericksburg!" after they had butchered the South at Pickett's Charge, did that make them villains?  

Do you object to what they did, or the fact that they were jubilant about it?



> Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy.  I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.



And the other was Watada.  If you consider a discharge under other than honorable circumstances as a "victory" then good on you.  99.99999999% of the military sees it as a massive black mark on a career.  

Furthermore, the fact that their claims were never validated (that is to say the military never said:  "You are right LT Watada!  Iraq _is_ illegal!") it means that the UCMJ did not buy their legal arguments.  



> You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well.  It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star.  Every soldier has the duty to question orders.



Okay, whatever.  So now the entire military that deployed to Iraq without questioning the legitimacy of the war violated the UCMJ and their oaths?  

Get real.


----------



## Dr Grump

geauxtohell said:


> .  You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.



Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....


----------



## Dr Grump

eagleseven said:


> Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.



you must be a drama queen in your spare time. The thing I love about this video is its clarity. When I saw the guy crouching it looked like somebody hiding behind a wall and looking down the street. IOW, he was keeping most of his body behind a solid object..

anybody who watches that video (and therefore the airforce personal unless they were morons) will note the only time they even were aware of the copter was after it started shooting.....

Murder is murder and those guys are murderers....


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....
Click to expand...


You are right.  The thread has evolved, as they tend to do, and I am addressing CL's points, which is considered the polite thing to do.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between making a mistake and what they did.  The audio makes it clear not only were they not under the stress of fire but they were actually jubilant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not understanding the disconnect here.  You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.  That has never been how things have worked, and you should know it.  Helicopters on a search and destroy mission don't have to be fired on before they fire back.  No insurgent in their right mind would fire at an Apache.  They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys".  That's it.  They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.
> 
> Of course they were jubilant.  They were under the impression they had killed insurgents.  When the Union jubilantly screamed "Fredericksburg!" after they had butchered the South at Pickett's Charge, did that make them villains?
> 
> Do you object to what they did, or the fact that they were jubilant about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who takes the Oath has an obligation to stand by it and the UCMJ clearly states every order given is to be questioned for it's legitimacy.  I know of two officers who refused deployment, the first was 6 years ago, and considering what they were facing, both were victorious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the other was Watada.  If you consider a discharge under other than honorable circumstances as a "victory" then good on you.  99.99999999% of the military sees it as a massive black mark on a career.
> 
> Furthermore, the fact that their claims were never validated (that is to say the military never said:  "You are right LT Watada!  Iraq _is_ illegal!") it means that the UCMJ did not buy their legal arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't know the UCMJ very well.  It doesn't matter if you are an E-1 or a Five Star.  Every soldier has the duty to question orders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, whatever.  So now the entire military that deployed to Iraq without questioning the legitimacy of the war violated the UCMJ and their oaths?
> 
> Get real.
Click to expand...



"I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
-- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/13_cohn_navy-judge-protest.htm


That info is only about five years old so maybe in 2015 you'll be more caught up so we can discuss this topic on a more level playing field.


----------



## Dr Grump

geauxtohell said:


> They fired because they believed they had identified some "bad guys".  That's it.  They may have been wrong, but their intent was to kill insurgents to protect the infantry and not to kill reporters.



1) They were gung ho
2) They had plenty of time to identify these guys
3) Then again all sand ******* look the same don't they.
4) I'm sick to death of you jingoistic, nationalist 'patriots' who give a free pass to your guys no matter how disgusting their actions due to some misguided belief that if you criticise them you are somehow dissing the US military...


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a drama queen in your spare time. The thing I love about this video is its clarity. When I saw the guy crouching it looked like somebody hiding behind a wall and looking down the street. IOW, he was keeping most of his body behind a solid object..
> 
> anybody who watches that video (and therefore the airforce personal unless they were morons) will note the only time they even were aware of the copter was after it started shooting.....
> 
> Murder is murder and those guys are murderers....
Click to expand...


?  The video was shot by the Apache.  The Airforce had nothing to do with this.  

The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage.  Hence the whole element of surprise thing.  

The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away.  They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.


----------



## Dr Grump

geauxtohell said:


> ?  The video was shot by the Apache.  The Airforce had nothing to do with this.
> 
> The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage.  Hence the whole element of surprise thing.
> 
> The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away.  They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.



Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army. 

Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> .  You seem to think that an American Soldier has to first allow themselves to be pinned down by a hail of bullet fire before justifiably acting to counter it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has what to do with the OP in this thread? Hint: Nothing....
Click to expand...



It has a lot to do with the op.  ROE are an essential element in debating the validity of the shooting.

My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded.  The first time a pilot mentioned an rpg he was fishing for confirmation to justify firing.  These assholes were jubilant before they killed the civilians.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> 1) They were gung ho



Good.  That's exactly what I'd want Apache pilots to be.  We don't train them to sing Kum ba yah.  



> 2) They had plenty of time to identify these guys



And they identified them as a threat to the ground unit.  That might have been a mistake, but in a combat zone, it doesn't elevate to a criminal offense or even misconduct or dereliction of duty.  



> 3) Then again all sand ******* look the same don't they.



That's pejorative and does nothing to buoy your claim.  



> 4) I'm sick to death of you jingoistic, nationalist 'patriots' who give a free pass to your guys no matter how disgusting their actions due to some misguided belief that if you criticise them you are somehow dissing the US military...



Then you are talking to the wrong guy.  I have opposed Iraq since the beginning.  

Here's what I am sick of:  arm chair quarterbacks who want to lynch our soldiers for doing their duty to the best of their ability and to the reasonable person standard because they disagree with the larger conflict.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> It has a lot to do with the op.  ROE are an essential element in debating the validity of the shooting.
> 
> My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded.  The first time a pilot mentioned an rpg he was fishing for confirmation to justify firing.  These assholes were jubilant before they killed the civilians.



Then you've got larger issues.  The military found, long ago via a 15-6, that these pilots acted in accordance with the ROE.  

If you want to believe these pilots scripted their lines to justify killing innocents, I won't even try to dissuade you as you have stepped into the conspiracy zone.

I'll go with Occam's razor.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
> -- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
> Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/13_cohn_navy-judge-protest.htm
> 
> 
> That info is only about five years old so maybe in 2015 you'll be more caught up so we can discuss this topic on a more level playing field.



Yeah, Paredes was still convicted and sentenced and is still trying to get his service record restored:



> Paredes was brought up on two charges, violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, absence without leave and Article 87 Missing movement, and found guilty by court martial on May 10, 2005. The sentencing came the day after his conviction and included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank from E-4 to E-1. September 19, 2005 Paredes filed a lawsuit against the United States Navy in federal district court. The petition said the Navy improperly rejected his application for discharge as a conscientious objector, and asked the Court to order the Navy to give Paredes an honorable discharge.[3]  The request was denied by both the courts and the Navy; Peredes has submitted a rebuttal and is awaiting the final decision of the courts.



Pablo Paredes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The LTCDR also didn't implicitly state that the wars were illegal and you and I both know that no representative of the UCMJ has ever made that statement.  

That certainly wasn't the holding at the Watada case either.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army.
> 
> Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...



You can call it whatever the hell you want.  It's not relevant.  What is relevant is what the chain of command calls it.  

All of you who want to hang these pilots seem to object to two things:  
1.)  The guys that got engaged just weren't acting "enemy-like" enough.
2.)  The pilots didn't automatically go into a philosophical "war is hell" rant after engaging targets. 

Neither of them make much sense.  This smacks of a zero defect mentality that is completely divorced form reality.  "Boys, do your jobs, but if you fuck up, we are going to hang you."  That kind of mentality gets soldiers killed in the combat zone.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watching the video, my heart jumped into my throat when one of the men crouched into a firing stance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be a drama queen in your spare time. The thing I love about this video is its clarity. When I saw the guy crouching it looked like somebody hiding behind a wall and looking down the street. IOW, he was keeping most of his body behind a solid object..
> 
> anybody who watches that video (and therefore the airforce personal unless they were morons) will note the only time they even were aware of the copter was after it started shooting.....
> 
> Murder is murder and those guys are murderers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?  The video was shot by the Apache.  The Airforce had nothing to do with this.
> 
> The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage.  Hence the whole element of surprise thing.
> 
> The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away.  They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.
Click to expand...



The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.



Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.

The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon. 

Seriously, you keep saying that you've "been there, done that" and then you keep making statements that make no tactical sense whatsoever.  

Secondly, why would they want to warn them?  They thought they were insurgents.  They intended to kill them.  

If you are going to second guess them, at least do so in a manner that makes some sort of sense in light of the situation.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) They were gung ho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  That's exactly what I'd want Apache pilots to be.  We don't train them to sing Kum ba yah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) They had plenty of time to identify these guys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they identified them as a threat to the ground unit.  That might have been a mistake, but in a combat zone, it doesn't elevate to a criminal offense or even misconduct or dereliction of duty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Then again all sand ******* look the same don't they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's pejorative and does nothing to buoy your claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) I'm sick to death of you jingoistic, nationalist 'patriots' who give a free pass to your guys no matter how disgusting their actions due to some misguided belief that if you criticise them you are somehow dissing the US military...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are talking to the wrong guy.  I have opposed Iraq since the beginning.
> 
> Here's what I am sick of:  arm chair quarterbacks who want to lynch our soldiers for doing their duty to the best of their ability and to the reasonable person standard because they disagree with the larger conflict.
Click to expand...


I defended the Soldiers involved with the Haditha incident due to the circumstances and I've often defended our Soldiers even though I've been opposed to iraq since 9E.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has a lot to do with the op.  ROE are an essential element in debating the validity of the shooting.
> 
> My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded.  The first time a pilot mentioned an rpg he was fishing for confirmation to justify firing.  These assholes were jubilant before they killed the civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've got larger issues.  The military found, long ago via a 15-6, that these pilots acted in accordance with the ROE.
> 
> If you want to believe these pilots scripted their lines to justify killing innocents, I won't even try to dissuade you as you have stepped into the conspiracy zone.
> 
> I'll go with Occam's razor.
Click to expand...



Yep. The military was so confident of its investigation it had no problem give the tape to Reuters upon request.  Wait.....damn! Thass not what happened.


I didn't say the pilots scripted their lines you fuxxing genius.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
> -- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
> Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/13_cohn_navy-judge-protest.htm
> 
> 
> That info is only about five years old so maybe in 2015 you'll be more caught up so we can discuss this topic on a more level playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Paredes was still convicted and sentenced and is still trying to get his service record restored:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paredes was brought up on two charges, violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, absence without leave and Article 87 Missing movement, and found guilty by court martial on May 10, 2005. The sentencing came the day after his conviction and included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank from E-4 to E-1. September 19, 2005 Paredes filed a lawsuit against the United States Navy in federal district court. The petition said the Navy improperly rejected his application for discharge as a conscientious objector, and asked the Court to order the Navy to give Paredes an honorable discharge.[3]  The request was denied by both the courts and the Navy; Peredes has submitted a rebuttal and is awaiting the final decision of the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pablo Paredes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The LTCDR also didn't implicitly state that the wars were illegal and you and I both know that no representative of the UCMJ has ever made that statement.
> 
> That certainly wasn't the holding at the Watada case either.
Click to expand...



You just proved your intellectual dishonesty.  Nothing else to say to you on this matter.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.
> 
> The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon.
> 
> Seriously, you keep saying that you've "been there, done that" and then you keep making statements that make no tactical sense whatsoever.
> 
> Secondly, why would they want to warn them?  They thought they were insurgents.  They intended to kill them.
> 
> If you are going to second guess them, at least do so in a manner that makes some sort of sense in light of the situation.
Click to expand...


I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.  Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.  Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Terral said:


> Hi Mayya:
> 
> 
> 
> mayya555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]
> 
> The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.
> 
> If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
Click to expand...


Terral, I suggest you look for the 39 minute uncut version of this film. It shows so much more. But still not enough to condemn anyone. And as you have been informed a million times, its not an illegal war and insurgents do not wear uniforms. Watch out for the black Helicopters.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> Terral said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mayya:
> 
> 
> 
> mayya555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]
> 
> The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.
> 
> If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terral, I suggest you look for the 39 minute uncut version of this film. It shows so much more. But still not enough to condemn anyone. And as you have been informed a million times, its not an illegal war and insurgents do not wear uniforms. Watch out for the black Helicopters.
Click to expand...



I read the entire transcript and it does not exonerate the "oh please let us engage" shitbag pilots.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Dr Grump said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?  The video was shot by the Apache.  The Airforce had nothing to do with this.
> 
> The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage.  Hence the whole element of surprise thing.
> 
> The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away.  They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army.
> 
> Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...
Click to expand...


Thank God that your concerns don't matter, Most people couldn't serve under your concerns. and those that did would end up dead.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Yep. The military was so confident of its investigation it had no problem give the tape to Reuters upon request.  Wait.....damn! Thass not what happened.



Of course the military didn't want to release this.  It's awful.  That doesn't mean the pilots were criminal or even derelict. 

If nothing else, I could see them not wanting to release it for the sake of the pilots.  My first though when I clicked on the link was "Man, I hope I don't recognize any of the voices on this video."  I have a lot of friends who are Apache pilots, and I don't want them to be crucified by the public for doing their jobs.   



> I didn't say the pilots scripted their lines you fuxxing genius.



First, are you capable of discussing anything without resorting to idiotic insults?  

Secondly:


> My main beef with it is the pilots actively tried to justify what they knew was being recorded.



Implies to me that you thought the pilots were reciting a script.  If that's not what you meant then, apologies.

What did you mean?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd



I don't know how it works in the USMC.  Does that mean you actually flew and gunned or were in charge of the ground crew responsible for keeping the helicopter flying?



> so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.



Then don't say dumb-assed things that imply you have zero knowledge about the situation.



> Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.



No clue.  It wasn't in my MTOE.  I do know I would probably have been laughed out of the TOC if I proposed firing "warning" shots with an area-kill weapon.  

Furthermore, it misses the point.  The pilots wanted to kill these guys.  They thought they were insurgents.  



> Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.



Arrogant why?  Because I disagree with you?  I guess I'll be "arrogant" then.

Ignorant?  Wrong again.  I've been on the ground as an infantryman.  I owe my life to CAS.  If there is anyone on this thread who is not ignorant of the realities of this matter, it's me.  

Hypocritical?  Again no.  Hypocritical would be acting like when I was on the ground my shit didn't stink and every decision I made was perfect.  

Speaking of hypocritical, how many innocent Iraqis or Afghanis or whatever got smoked because of your handy-work?  

I guess you are lucky that Cobras don't have cameras on them, huh?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I think that the government has successfully proved that any service member has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
> -- Lt. Cmdr. Robert Klant, presiding at Pablo Paredes' court-martial
> Http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/05/13_cohn_navy-judge-protest.htm
> 
> 
> That info is only about five years old so maybe in 2015 you'll be more caught up so we can discuss this topic on a more level playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Paredes was still convicted and sentenced and is still trying to get his service record restored:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paredes was brought up on two charges, violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 86, absence without leave and Article 87 Missing movement, and found guilty by court martial on May 10, 2005. The sentencing came the day after his conviction and included two months restriction, three months hard labor without confinement, and reduction in rank from E-4 to E-1. September 19, 2005 Paredes filed a lawsuit against the United States Navy in federal district court. The petition said the Navy improperly rejected his application for discharge as a conscientious objector, and asked the Court to order the Navy to give Paredes an honorable discharge.[3]  The request was denied by both the courts and the Navy; Peredes has submitted a rebuttal and is awaiting the final decision of the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pablo Paredes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The LTCDR also didn't implicitly state that the wars were illegal and you and I both know that no representative of the UCMJ has ever made that statement.
> 
> That certainly wasn't the holding at the Watada case either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved your intellectual dishonesty.  Nothing else to say to you on this matter.
Click to expand...


I would say the same about you.


----------



## Dr Grump

geauxtohell said:


> Good.  That's exactly what I'd want Apache pilots to be.  We don't train them to sing Kum ba yah.
> 
> Here's what I am sick of:  arm chair quarterbacks who want to lynch our soldiers for doing their duty to the best of their ability and to the reasonable person standard because they disagree with the larger conflict.



I don't want them to sing kumbyah either. I want them to identify their targets properly. They didn't. They had plenty of time..You liking them being gung ho is part of the problem with regard to the mindset that makes these kinds of things happen

If that is them doing their duty to the best of their ability, then I suggest they need better training..

..and there is no Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. You mistake me for somebody who doesn't realise that innocents get killed in war. That happens. In this case, it was OTT IMO..

And your whole argument is based on "it was a war situation, so that A OK"..cool, why not just drag civvies out of their houses and shoot them. Plus, this was 2007, I thought the 'war' was over.


----------



## Dr Grump

SFC Ollie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ?  The video was shot by the Apache.  The Airforce had nothing to do with this.
> 
> The point of CAS is to not be on top of whatever element they are going to engage.  Hence the whole element of surprise thing.
> 
> The fact is that these Apaches were flying support for the infantry unit that was 300 meters away.  They were taking them them out for the infantry, not for self preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army.
> 
> Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank God that your concerns don't matter, Most people couldn't serve under your concerns. and those that did would end up dead.
Click to expand...


And if you were in the SS during WWII you'd be making excuses for Heydrich. "We can do now wrong"....There is a reason you were never an officer....


----------



## SFC Ollie

Dr Grump said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough re who the Apache belongs to. Down here there is no air attachment to the army.
> 
> Why they took them out still does not excuse what happened. It was premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. And, no I'm not one of those people who hope for a perfect world where there will be no civilian casualties. That is inevitable in a war. But these circumstances were sickening. If those guys on the ground had been chanting, pumping AK47's into the air, looking up at the Apache etc, that would have been one volatile situation for sure, and it MIGHT have excused their actions. This was just gung-ho soldiers, and you can tell by what they were saying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank God that your concerns don't matter, Most people couldn't serve under your concerns. and those that did would end up dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you were in the SS during WWII you'd be making excuses for Heydrich. "We can do now wrong"....There is a reason you were never an officer....
Click to expand...


Yes there is, I turned down OCS back in 71.


----------



## eagleseven

If these guys failed to request clearance to engage, then they should be disciplined.

Only, in the video presented, they clearly followed ROE. The ROE are not perfect, but I'm not about to condemn our soldiers for following the rules.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Terral said:


> Hi Mayya:
> 
> 
> 
> mayya555 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very sad. Mistakes happen, but I think those boys were way too bloodlusty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just uploaded the uncut version of the Wikileaks video (see www.collateralmurder.com) to my Youtube Channel:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9A_-JU08Q0"]U.S. Military Murdering Innocent Reuters Journalists[/ame]
> 
> The U.S. Military is supposed to be fighting '*uniformed combatants*' in a '*declared war*' on the battlefield and NOT murdering *innocent Reuters Journalists* (story) on city streets sent there to cover the illegal invasion of another sovereign nation. There is no sign of any guns, but these reporters are carrying cameras. No American Soldier is under fire and nobody is shown in these pictures except innocent civilians. Every U.S. Citizen should be outraged that our U.S. Military, for our common DEFENSE, is being used against innocent civilians in other countries.
> 
> If Americans are willing to murder civilians in plain sight overseas, then U.S. Citizens can be murdered just as easily right here at home. America has transformed into a terrorist state and there is no rest and no peace for anyone in the Middle East. This murder of innocent reporters is no mistake at all, but each person was murdered very much on purpose. This is what happens when the military is allowed to 'police' civilians in any country (home or abroad) ...
> 
> GL,
> 
> Terral
Click to expand...


Fail.

Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47. 

And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.


----------



## Dr Grump

Tom Clancy said:


> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.




At what point do yhou see the crouch position? I see a guy with a CAMERA in the crouch position. I see one guy with an AK47 and MAYBE and RPG. Are they illegal in Iraq?


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  That's exactly what I'd want Apache pilots to be.  We don't train them to sing Kum ba yah.
> 
> Here's what I am sick of:  arm chair quarterbacks who want to lynch our soldiers for doing their duty to the best of their ability and to the reasonable person standard because they disagree with the larger conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want them to sing kumbyah either. I want them to identify their targets properly. They didn't. They had plenty of time..You liking them being gung ho is part of the problem with regard to the mindset that makes these kinds of things happen
> 
> If that is them doing their duty to the best of their ability, then I suggest they need better training..
> 
> ..and there is no Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. You mistake me for somebody who doesn't realise that innocents get killed in war. That happens. In this case, it was OTT IMO..
> 
> And your whole argument is based on "it was a war situation, so that A OK"..cool, why not just drag civvies out of their houses and shoot them. Plus, this was 2007, I thought the 'war' was over.
Click to expand...



Being gung ho is a good thing but the absence of discipline is what causes needless deaths on civilians and our own troops.  There were a lot of friendly fire kills in desert storm because of a lack of discipline.


----------



## CurveLight

Dr Grump said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do yhou see the crouch position? I see a guy with a CAMERA in the crouch position. I see one guy with an AK47 and MAYBE and RPG. Are they illegal in Iraq?
Click to expand...



We keep seeing these claims but nobody points to the evidence. Just like Crimson bitch complaining we formed opinions on an edited version yet that skank has never provided anything supporting that claim.  I doubt it will happen and am pretty confident there will be no retraction of the claim.


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.



I think the only germane thing is that the pilots believed it was an RPG, it very well could have been a long lens from a camera.

Are you in ROTC right now?  Any thoughts to branching?  I did ROTC in college and branched infantry.  If you ever have any questions, feel free to shoot me a line.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> I don't want them to sing kumbyah either. I want them to identify their targets properly. They didn't. They had plenty of time..You liking them being gung ho is part of the problem with regard to the mindset that makes these kinds of things happen
> 
> If that is them doing their duty to the best of their ability, then I suggest they need better training..
> 
> ..and there is no Monday morning quarterbacking going on here. You mistake me for somebody who doesn't realise that innocents get killed in war. That happens. In this case, it was OTT IMO..



Okay.  You want them to do their job better.  Complaint lodged.



> And your whole argument is based on "it was a war situation, so that A OK"..cool, why not just drag civvies out of their houses and shoot them. Plus, this was 2007, I thought the 'war' was over.



That is lame.  I've consistently drawn parallels between this and My Lai.  They are not the same.  Intent matters here.  The pilots fired with the intent to kill insurgents, not reporters and civilians.  That was not the intent at My Lai.  

Only knuckleheads thought that the "war" was over when Bush said it was.  Don't harp on me about this, I said we'd be there slow bleeding for 10 years when we entered Iraq.  I was never under any illusions as to what this would turn out to be.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dr Grump said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do yhou see the crouch position? I see a guy with a CAMERA in the crouch position. I see one guy with an AK47 and MAYBE and RPG. Are they illegal in Iraq?
Click to expand...


You see Doc, this is the problem.  First, and RPG is instant engagement criteria, so yes they are illegal.  That becomes even more salient when the Bushmaster element is taking fire 300 meters away from their position.  It starts to look like reinforcements.

So you consent that there might have been and RPG by your own eyes (never mind the trained eye of a pilot who identified it as such).  What would you have them do?  Wait until they were on top of the infantry (and thus couldn't be engaged by the Apaches) and shooting before you made positive I.D.?  Even if these guys weren't insurgents, if you establish that precedent, you are going to get soldiers killed who otherwise would have been covered by our CAS.  

It's a catch-22.  Your solution isn't necessarily better than what the pilots did.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do yhou see the crouch position? I see a guy with a CAMERA in the crouch position. I see one guy with an AK47 and MAYBE and RPG. Are they illegal in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see Doc, this is the problem.  First, and RPG is instant engagement criteria, so yes they are illegal.  That becomes even more salient when the Bushmaster element is taking fire 300 meters away from their position.  It starts to look like reinforcements.
> 
> So you consent that there might have been and RPG by your own eyes (never mind the trained eye of a pilot who identified it as such).  What would you have them do?  Wait until they were on top of the infantry (and thus couldn't be engaged by the Apaches) and shooting before you made positive I.D.?  Even if these guys weren't insurgents, if you establish that precedent, you are going to get soldiers killed who otherwise would have been covered by our CAS.
> 
> It's a catch-22.  Your solution isn't necessarily better than what the pilots did.
Click to expand...



Bushmaster was not taking fire when this happened and it's clear from the video the guys milling around on the road weren't doing anything but walking, and very casually to boot.  You're straight up lying to defend what happened.


----------



## germanguy

I can not judge from this video what happened. It simply looks gruesome.

Still, can we judge from some minutes of video the whole story ? I doubt it.

I only have the firm believe, that this whole Iraq War is one big mess with no real winner in the end.

The toll so far is 50.000 - 100.000 Iraqis dead, 4000plus US soldiers dead, some hundred Brits etc. - for what ?

You send young boys and girls into a war without a clear enemy, no real frontline, heavily armed and well trained. Then they experience frustration, fear and anger, because what they do is counterinsurgency and this never smells like roses. 

The outcome can be seen in this video. 

Is this war just and is it fought in an honorable way ? 

The more I read and see people debating it, I doubt, that anybody knows what this war is about and how it will end. 

regards
ze germanguy


----------



## SFC Ollie

germanguy said:


> I can not judge from this video what happened. It simply looks gruesome.
> 
> Still, can we judge from some minutes of video the whole story ? I doubt it.
> 
> I only have the firm believe, that this whole Iraq War is one big mess with no real winner in the end.
> 
> The toll so far is 50.000 - 100.000 Iraqis dead, 4000plus US soldiers dead, some hundred Brits etc. - for what ?
> 
> You send young boys and girls into a war without a clear enemy, no real frontline, heavily armed and well trained. Then they experience frustration, fear and anger, because what they do is counterinsurgency and this never smells like roses.
> 
> The outcome can be seen in this video.
> 
> Is this war just and is it fought in an honorable way ?
> 
> The more I read and see people debating it, I doubt, that anybody knows what this war is about and how it will end.
> 
> regards
> ze germanguy



Do not forget that this war started out as a conventional war with two opposing uniformed armies. It was Rumsfeld (IMO) who didn't realize what it was turning into. No doubt that the USA made mistakes after the military victory.  From what can be seen on the 39 minute uncut tape, it does not show everything needed to judge them as anything other than doing their job, as tough as that already is.


----------



## Tom Clancy

geauxtohell said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the only germane thing is that the pilots believed it was an RPG, it very well could have been a long lens from a camera.
> 
> Are you in ROTC right now?  Any thoughts to branching?  I did ROTC in college and branched infantry.  If you ever have any questions, feel free to shoot me a line.
Click to expand...


See now, at first i was like that looks like a Long Tripod for the Camera..  But then you clearly see him pointing it at someone/something..  Then you start to realize... Is it actually a RPG? I mean why else would you Aim that thing at someone/something..  

And apart from that, Me and many others have spotted at least more than 2 AK's. 


--

And right now, im finishing up shcool, getting a few extra credits, and then I'm taking a Sabbatical while attending a Community College, then next year I'll either be at *E*astern *C*arolina *U*niversity,  or *N*orth *C*arolina *S*tate. 

Both of them have very good ROTC programs.. 

After 4 years of ROTC, i'll be signing up for Army, And my 2 MOS Choices right now are Aviation (Flying AH-64's, UH-60, etc.)  Or Become a Infantry Officer..   Still deciding though.. You Recommend anything?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Tom Clancy said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the only germane thing is that the pilots believed it was an RPG, it very well could have been a long lens from a camera.
> 
> Are you in ROTC right now?  Any thoughts to branching?  I did ROTC in college and branched infantry.  If you ever have any questions, feel free to shoot me a line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See now, at first i was like that looks like a Long Tripod for the Camera..  But then you clearly see him pointing it at someone/something..  Then you start to realize... Is it actually a RPG? I mean why else would you Aim that thing at someone/something..
> 
> And apart from that, Me and many others have spotted at least more than 2 AK's.
> 
> 
> --
> 
> And right now, im finishing up shcool, getting a few extra credits, and then I'm taking a Sabbatical while attending a Community College, then next year I'll either be at *E*astern *C*arolina *U*niversity,  or *N*orth *C*arolina *S*tate.
> 
> Both of them have very good ROTC programs..
> 
> After 4 years of ROTC, i'll be signing up for Army, And my 2 MOS Choices right now are Aviation (Flying AH-64's, UH-60, etc.)  Or Become a Infantry Officer..   Still deciding though.. You Recommend anything?
Click to expand...


Also during this time period one of the pilots says we're taking fire. Or it sounded like he said that.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Dr Grump said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fail.
> 
> Your video clearly shows a guy in the Crouch position obviously pointing at a target.  whether it's a RPG or AK-47.
> 
> And your video clearly shows more than 2 AK's, and at least 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do yhou see the crouch position? I see a guy with a CAMERA in the crouch position. I see one guy with an AK47 and MAYBE and RPG. Are they illegal in Iraq?
Click to expand...


Right before the AH-64 starts firing rounds..  

A RPG isn't a Self Defense Weapon, I'm pretty sure when any Soldier or Marine sees a RPG they don't think "Oh hey, just a normal Citizen walking around with a RPG."

When people see a RPG, they are a Potential Threat.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Bushmaster was not taking fire when this happened and it's clear from the video the guys milling around on the road weren't doing anything but walking, and very casually to boot.  You're straight up lying to defend what happened.



Really?  Then who was on the radio saying "we are taking fire"?

You really are a pissy sport when people disagree with you.

BTW, you never answered my question:  you where an AH-1 Crew Chief.  Were you in the air or on the ground?

If it's the latter, I am a little puzzled how you've "been in these situations".


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.
> 
> The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon.
> 
> Seriously, you keep saying that you've "been there, done that" and then you keep making statements that make no tactical sense whatsoever.
> 
> Secondly, why would they want to warn them?  They thought they were insurgents.  They intended to kill them.
> 
> If you are going to second guess them, at least do so in a manner that makes some sort of sense in light of the situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.  Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.  Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.
Click to expand...


How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

eots said:


> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children



Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.


----------



## SFC Ollie

PatekPhilippe said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
Click to expand...


Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.
> 
> The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon.
> 
> Seriously, you keep saying that you've "been there, done that" and then you keep making statements that make no tactical sense whatsoever.
> 
> Secondly, why would they want to warn them?  They thought they were insurgents.  They intended to kill them.
> 
> If you are going to second guess them, at least do so in a manner that makes some sort of sense in light of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.  Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.  Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
Click to expand...


Curvelight was hanging on the skids of course...


----------



## CrimsonWhite

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
Click to expand...


And we all know that RPG's are defensive weapons right? They surely aren't used to do things like shoot down helicopters. People don't realize that this is a fucking war. This is what happens in war. People get killed. These guys followed the ROE to the letter and Curvelight wants be a douchebag and play monday morning quarterback.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
Click to expand...


I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

PatekPhilippe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
Click to expand...


I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CrimsonWhite said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
Click to expand...


Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CrimsonWhite said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
Click to expand...


Agreed now that I viewed it a second time minus that ass clown's diatribe....in the first viewing I only caught 2 AK's.  Not to mention....what kind of parent brings their kids to a helicopter gunship attack scene when there is still the chance they may be fired upon again?


----------



## CrimsonWhite

SFC Ollie said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.
Click to expand...


Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.


----------



## Liability

CrimsonWhite said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
Click to expand...


I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.

It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.  

Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that we are not the evil force in today's world.


----------



## eots

Liability said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.
> 
> It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.
> 
> Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that *we are not the evil force in today's world.*
Click to expand...


what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world


----------



## Liability

CrimsonWhite said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
Click to expand...




eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.
> 
> It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.
> 
> Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that *we are not the evil force in today's world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world
Click to expand...


Who the fuck said ANYTHING about evil being assigned to half the world?  

You are stupider and crazier and more of an outright liar than usual tonight, you shitforbrains lying Troofer pussy.

What I DID say, you pussy lying filthy scumbag piece of rat shit, is that nothing will or could ever convince shit-suckers like you and _bent tight_ that WE are not the evil force in today's world.


----------



## eots

Liability said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but us seeing it in the video is not as strong as the Infantry reporting it. Knowing Bentlight and eots they will deny that we can spot anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.
> 
> It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.
> 
> Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that *we are not the evil force in today's world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck said ANYTHING about evil being assigned to half the world?
> 
> You are stupider and crazier and more of an outright liar than usual tonight, you shitforbrains lying Troofer pussy.
> 
> What I DID say, you pussy lying filthy scumbag piece of rat shit, is that nothing will or could ever convince shit-suckers like you and _bent tight_ that WE are not the evil force in today's world.
Click to expand...


who is WE .... moron ...so evil is assigned to _us_ and _them_ ?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.
> 
> It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.
> 
> Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that *we are not the evil force in today's world.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world
Click to expand...


Apparently YOU fit the description of that moron.  You think the United States is evil and to blame for ALL OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS.  That is patently obvious by what you post here and have stated on several occasions.

Here's a lovely video for you to enjoy.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPQSld3_10]YouTube - Apache Helicopter gunship Gun-cam Compilation-Symphony of destruction[/ame]


----------



## eots

PatekPhilippe said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never done it for a living, but I'm still not at all convinced that my untrained civilian eyes can make such things out anyway.
> 
> It's too easy for a bunch of civilians, here now,  to judge the guys out there doing it all in real time.  But if *they* err on the side of "it might possibly conceivably be a fucking journalist with a long telescopic lens" (which is mighty fucking bizarre thinking), then the troops on the ground in harms way might not come out of it so well if it does turn out to be a RPG launcher, for example.
> 
> Fuck these pontificating ass-wipes like id-eots and _bent tight_.   Seriously.  There's not a fucking thing in this world that will (or could) ever convince suck lowlife scumbags that *we are not the evil force in today's world.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently YOU fit the description of that moron.  You think the United States is evil and to blame for ALL OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS.  That is patently obvious by what you post here and have stated on several occasions.
> 
> Here's a lovely video for you to enjoy.
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcPQSld3_10]YouTube - Apache Helicopter gunship Gun-cam Compilation-Symphony of destruction[/ame]
Click to expand...


really ? I blame America ..for all the worlds problems ? I must of missed that
I do however blame an administration for invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations on the basis of lies


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

....

Am I the only one whose complaint still lies with the actions taken after the van showed up, clearly aiding an injured man and not appearing armed or otherwise a threat at the time it was fired upon? How did everyone end up arguing about the events prior?


----------



## eots

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197043 said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Am I the only one whose complaint still lies with the actions taken after the van showed up, clearly aiding an injured man and not appearing armed or otherwise a threat at the time it was fired upon? How did everyone end up arguing about the events prior?



its called a shitscreen you fill the air with shit until it obscures the image of the wounded children


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.
> 
> The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon.
> 
> Seriously, you keep saying that you've "been there, done that" and then you keep making statements that make no tactical sense whatsoever.
> 
> Secondly, why would they want to warn them?  They thought they were insurgents.  They intended to kill them.
> 
> If you are going to second guess them, at least do so in a manner that makes some sort of sense in light of the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.  Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.  Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
Click to expand...


How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.


----------



## Nonelitist

PatekPhilippe said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it too and mentioned it about 15 pages ago. I counted 3 Kalashnikovs and 1 RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed now that I viewed it a second time minus that ass clown's diatribe....in the first viewing I only caught 2 AK's.  Not to mention....what kind of parent brings their kids to a helicopter gunship attack scene when there is still the chance they may be fired upon again?
Click to expand...



The kind of parent that will also strap bombs to their kids to kill innocent people in a market.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bushmaster was not taking fire when this happened and it's clear from the video the guys milling around on the road weren't doing anything but walking, and very casually to boot.  You're straight up lying to defend what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then who was on the radio saying "we are taking fire"?
> 
> You really are a pissy sport when people disagree with you.
> 
> BTW, you never answered my question:  you where an AH-1 Crew Chief.  Were you in the air or on the ground?
> 
> If it's the latter, I am a little puzzled how you've "been in these situations".
Click to expand...



Here is the transcript:

Http://www.collateralmurder.org/en/transcript.html

Show us where Bushmaster says they are taking fire.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we all know that RPG's are defensive weapons right? They surely aren't used to do things like shoot down helicopters. People don't realize that this is a fucking war. This is what happens in war. People get killed. These guys followed the ROE to the letter and Curvelight wants be a douchebag and play monday morning quarterback.
Click to expand...



Did you ever find that unedited video you useless bitch?  Or were you hoping you wouldn't have to support or retract your claim?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
Click to expand...



Rotfl!  You nationalistic fuks are a riot.


----------



## RadiomanATL

SFC Ollie said:


> From what can be seen on the 39 minute uncut tape



The 39 minute version is edited as well.

FYI.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a crew chief on Cobras you fuxxing reetawrd so don't try to preach to me about armaments on our attack helicopters.  Do you even know what the sight system is on the 30mm gun?  You act like it's a fucking cluster bomb.  Holy fuk you are an arrogant hypocritical ignorant snot rag.  And no, that is not sarcastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.
Click to expand...


No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question. 

And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
Click to expand...



Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

RadiomanATL said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
Click to expand...


The video could be six hours long have footage of US soldiers doing charity work before this incident and it wouldn't matter these fuckers.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?



The $64K question. 

With a follow up:  do you think all the munitions you loaded your Cobras up with magically only hit Iraqi soldiers?

Christ, in Gulf War I there was even less concern for collateral damage then we have now.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.



That's not what you said, boss.  You said you had directly been in situations similar to this.

A curious statement for a helicopter ground's crewman to make.

Why not just be honest.  You have never been in a "situation like this" have you?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CrimsonWhite said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video could be six hours long have footage of US soldiers doing charity work before this incident and it wouldn't matter these fuckers.
Click to expand...


Yup.

The 'Full Version' of The Wikileaks Video Is Missing 30 Minutes of Footage - wikileaks - Gawker



> You've all seen the edited, 17 minute video  of U.S. Apache helicopters killing two Reuters journalists in Iraq.  Some of you may have sat through the 39 minute 'Full Version.". But  even this video has a full half-hour of footage cut out from the middle.  At 31:08, the video fades to black andaccording to the time-stamp on  the footageresumes about 30 minutes later to show an additional missile  attack.





> What happened during that missing half-hour? The Jawa Report cites the sworn statements of the pilots involved in the attack. One pilot said in his statement that between the attack on the journalists and the second attack, two events occurred which may have softened the picture of the pilots provided by the video: 1) The pilots went to assist soldiers under attack, but saw a child and other "noncombatants" and held their fire. 2) The pilots saw a red SUV that may have contained insurgents, but held their fire because they couldn't get a positive identification.





> The full version appears to leave out two instances of the pilots holding their fire, while including footage of them destroying a building (and hitting a passerby on the sidewalk.)
> 
> This might seem like nitpicking. After all, the full attack on the journalists was in the video, uncut from start to finish. What evidence it provides for or against improper behavior by the pilots still stands. But Wikileaks released this 'full version' to fight against exactly the kinds of claims of selective editing it appears to have done.





> Update: Wikileaks editor Jullian Assange told CNN yesterday that the 39 minute video is "everything we have. It is a continuous take except for one 20 minute interval." So, Wikileaks did not edit the video themselvestheir source did. But the point still stands: both the "edited" and the "full" version appear to have been selectively edited. Why leave in the second attack after the cut? And how can this be called an "uncut" or "unedited" versionthe implication being that this video depicts what "really happened"when 20 minutes of less-incriminating footage was removed? *It also deepens the mystery of Wikileak's military source: Who is so disgruntled as to not only leak the video, but also edit out the slightest bit of redeeming footage?*


----------



## geauxtohell

PatekPhilippe said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting video...I clearly saw armed men with AK-47's.  Perhaps it would be wise if reporters didn't associate with armed men out in the open during a war when the attacking forces have unrestricted air superiority.  Common sense should prevail instead of opting for the attempt to get a sob story from the insurgents on how the big bad USA caused them to become terrorists.  I wouldn't be surprised if they were actually filming an Al Qaeda recruitment video and got caught out in the open by our very professional soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also if you see the 39 minute video the infantry reports a RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I clearly saw an UNLOADED RPG launcher on one of the guys NOT identified as the camera man.  Plus when our extremely efficient and professional soldiers investigated the area after the attack they did in fact find that rocket launcher.
Click to expand...


Two things:

1.)  Apache pilots are trained and experienced to identify ground weapons.  Much more than we are.

2.)  Did the Army confirm there was an RPG on the ground when the Infantry did the BDA?

If so, then game over.


----------



## RadiomanATL

geauxtohell said:


> That's not what you said, boss.  You said you had directly been in situations similar to this.



He's going to say he never said that.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
Click to expand...


Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
Click to expand...



You.

Looney Tunes.

That is all.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $64K question.
> 
> With a follow up:  do you think all the munitions you loaded your Cobras up with magically only hit Iraqi soldiers?
> 
> Christ, in Gulf War I there was even less concern for collateral damage then we have now.
Click to expand...



It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
Click to expand...


I fucking dare you to prove that I said. I said that we are making assumptions off a video that is highly edited and that may not be smart.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $64K question.
> 
> With a follow up:  do you think all the munitions you loaded your Cobras up with magically only hit Iraqi soldiers?
> 
> Christ, in Gulf War I there was even less concern for collateral damage then we have now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Strawman


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You.
> 
> Looney Tunes.
> 
> That is all.
Click to expand...


So you hope to avoid the fact you have not provided any evidence of this phantom video by ad homs.  Don't worry. Your buddies will give you a free pass because your kind is deathly allergic to principles.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bushmaster was not taking fire when this happened and it's clear from the video the guys milling around on the road weren't doing anything but walking, and very casually to boot.  You're straight up lying to defend what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then who was on the radio saying "we are taking fire"?
> 
> You really are a pissy sport when people disagree with you.
> 
> BTW, you never answered my question:  you where an AH-1 Crew Chief.  Were you in the air or on the ground?
> 
> If it's the latter, I am a little puzzled how you've "been in these situations".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the transcript:
> 
> Http://www.collateralmurder.org/en/transcript.html
> 
> Show us where Bushmaster says they are taking fire.
Click to expand...


At 0249 in the 39:00 video.  "We had a guy shooting".  It could have been Crazy Horse referring to what they thought was the guy with the RPG.  

At any rate, at 0200 you can clearly see AK-47s and that was what got the initial clearance to fire.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> So you hope to avoid the fact you have not provided any evidence of this phantom video



Don't know how to read, huh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...rs-reporters-and-children-15.html#post2197480


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly does a "crew chief" get into a situation like that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The $64K question.
> 
> With a follow up:  do you think all the munitions you loaded your Cobras up with magically only hit Iraqi soldiers?
> 
> Christ, in Gulf War I there was even less concern for collateral damage then we have now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that you are playing fast and loose with the facts on this is not a strawman.  On this thread, you stated you had been in these situations.

We know now by "in these situations" you meant you were familiar with CAS because you were on a ground crew for AH-1s in the Gulf War.

That's not quite the same thing.

Also, as I said, good thing for you that there were no videos of the crew you supported.  I am sure there would be some disturbing images as well.  

I guess it's easier to act like your shit doesn't stink though, huh?


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I fucking dare you to prove that I said. I said that we are making assumptions off a video that is highly edited and that may not be smart.
Click to expand...



Lol....you've never proven the video you were referencing existed (just like radioass) but here you get indignant and I noticed you didn't ask him for a link to prove his claim.  Got hypocrisy?


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> And we all know that RPG's are defensive weapons right? They surely aren't used to do things like shoot down helicopters. People don't realize that this is a fucking war. This is what happens in war. People get killed. These guys followed the ROE to the letter and Curvelight wants be a douchebag and play monday morning quarterback.



Or to light up the Infantry that is a few hundred meters away, which is what the pilots presumed the guy was doing when he took the cylinder-looking object and crouched behind a corner and pointed it at there direction.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fucking dare you to prove that I said. I said that we are making assumptions off a video that is highly edited and that may not be smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....you've never proven the video you were referencing existed (just like radioass) but here you get indignant and I noticed you didn't ask him for a link to prove his claim.  Got hypocrisy?
Click to expand...


The proof is the video itself and its timestamps.

Clamping your hands over your ears and going la-la-la-la-la doesn't make the evidence go away.

But it is amusing to the rest of us


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> And right now, im finishing up shcool, getting a few extra credits, and then I'm taking a Sabbatical while attending a Community College, then next year I'll either be at *E*astern *C*arolina *U*niversity,  or *N*orth *C*arolina *S*tate.
> 
> Both of them have very good ROTC programs..
> 
> After 4 years of ROTC, i'll be signing up for Army, And my 2 MOS Choices right now are Aviation (Flying AH-64's, UH-60, etc.)  Or Become a Infantry Officer..   Still deciding though.. You Recommend anything?



I am always hesitant to make recommendations.  Do what you think you'll enjoy.

I thought being an Infantry Officer was the best job in the Army, but I am probably biased.  I lucked out in that I always had exceptional commanders.  Of course, you throw that dice no matter what branch.  I do think the combat arms has the best leadership and soldiers.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is that video?  Is this like when Crimsonbitch claimed there was an unedited version that told a different story but has never proven or retracted that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fucking dare you to prove that I said. I said that we are making assumptions off a video that is highly edited and that may not be smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....you've never proven the video you were referencing existed (just like radioass) but here you get indignant and I noticed you didn't ask him for a link to prove his claim.  Got hypocrisy?
Click to expand...


That is because *he provided a link* proving that 30 minutes was missing from the 39 minute video that you posted.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fucking dare you to prove that I said. I said that we are making assumptions off a video that is highly edited and that may not be smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....you've never proven the video you were referencing existed (just like radioass) but here you get indignant and I noticed you didn't ask him for a link to prove his claim.  Got hypocrisy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because *he provided a link* proving that 30 minutes was missing from the 39 minute video that you posted.
Click to expand...



Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you hope to avoid the fact you have not provided any evidence of this phantom video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how to read, huh?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...rs-reporters-and-children-15.html#post2197480
Click to expand...



Rotfl!  You got a real source?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you hope to avoid the fact you have not provided any evidence of this phantom video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know how to read, huh?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/milit...rs-reporters-and-children-15.html#post2197480
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  You got a real source?
Click to expand...



Still embarrassed you can't read, huh?

Here ya go:


----------



## Liability

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Just reiterating that they are there and that those us that have actually done this for a living can see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what kind of a moron thinks evil is assigned to one half of the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck said ANYTHING about evil being assigned to half the world?
> 
> You are stupider and crazier and more of an outright liar than usual tonight, you shitforbrains lying Troofer pussy.
> 
> What I DID say, you pussy lying filthy scumbag piece of rat shit, is that nothing will or could ever convince shit-suckers like you and _bent tight_ that WE are not the evil force in today's world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who is WE .... moron ...so evil is assigned to _us_ and _them_ ?
Click to expand...



Good God in heaven, you are retarded.  We are the guys on our side, you fucking id-eot.

And no.  Evil is NOT assigned to us and them.  I am merely denying the implicit claim of shit fuckers like you, you scumbag, that WE are evil.

We aren't now and have never been.

Scumbags like you revel in pointing out that we have been in the wrong, from time to time, in the past.  No shit, asshole.  Everyone is.  It's the human condition.  But the fact is that overall, we are a factor for good in this world and have long been such a factor and have tried to be such a factor.  We aim to be in the right.

Denying that WE are the evil force in the world, you scumbag lying piece of shit, is NOT the same as contending that anybody else is.   As a matter of fact, though, to clear things up for your little retarded mind, there ARE some evil fucks out there in the real world.  We just happen not to fit in that category.  And nobody (other than you, you lying shithead) ever discussed it as a half vs half thing.

You seriously are a stupid fucker.  And you are also a compulsive liar.  Fuck yourself, id-eots.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The $64K question.
> 
> With a follow up:  do you think all the munitions you loaded your Cobras up with magically only hit Iraqi soldiers?
> 
> Christ, in Gulf War I there was even less concern for collateral damage then we have now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?

If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does a Crew Chief get in a situation to know the armaments on our attack helicopters?  The scary part is you are probably serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you said, boss.  You said you had directly been in situations similar to this.
> 
> A curious statement for a helicopter ground's crewman to make.
> 
> Why not just be honest.  You have never been in a "situation like this" have you?
Click to expand...



Holy fuk you are pathetic.  It's been amusing watching you punks work yourselves into a frenzy when you think you have a "Gotcha!"  try to pay attention.

I said the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and you responded by saying they couldn't do that because the apache gun is an area kill weapon so I responded by pointing out you obviously don't know the sight system. 

Somehow some way you and crimsonbitch get it in your head I claimed I was in the pilot's position then celebrate your "Gotcha!" but it's a strawman as I never said that.  What I did say is I was in similar situations from the ground:

Post 116:

"We had situations where we would be approached by civilians on the ground and we still could not fire without threat confirmation.  Most of the time the people were just hungry and thirsty so we gave them MREs and water."

Now you punks will add to the amusement factor by denying your fuk up.


----------



## RadiomanATL

geauxtohell said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
Click to expand...



Rare photo of Curvie in the military:

http://thepriorart.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/dont_worry_sir_i_m_from_the_internet.jpg


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> but it's a strawman as I never said that.




Hey Geaux, 

Toldja!


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....you've never proven the video you were referencing existed (just like radioass) but here you get indignant and I noticed you didn't ask him for a link to prove his claim.  Got hypocrisy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because *he provided a link* proving that 30 minutes was missing from the 39 minute video that you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm.....

"The Defense Department can't locate its copy of the video of a July 2007 air strike that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq, a military official told The Associated Press."
Http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/military-cant-find-its-video-showing-newsmens-deaths/19429850


I looked for an update and couldn't find any so is the DOD still claiming they can't find the video?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, *it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.*





geauxtohell said:


> You said you had directly been in situations similar to this.
> 
> A curious statement for a helicopter ground's crewman to make.
> 
> Why not just be honest.  You have never been in a "situation like this" have you?





RadiomanATL said:


> He's going to say he never said that.





CurveLight said:


> but it's a strawman as I never said that.



LOL.


Pwned!!




​


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Holy fuk you are pathetic.  It's been amusing watching you punks work yourselves into a frenzy when you think you have a "Gotcha!"  try to pay attention.
> 
> I said the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and you responded by saying they couldn't do that because the apache gun is an area kill weapon so I responded by pointing out you obviously don't know the sight system.



You're not getting it smart guy.  You don't fire "warning shots" with an area kill weapon.  You do it with point kill weapons.  You don't use an area kill weapon to fire warning shots because you can't be completely precise about where the round is going to land and the damage it's going to do.  It's not evenly remotely doctrinally correct (which still ignores the fact that these pilots didn't want to send a "warning shot" to an element they perceived to be about to attack American forces).

It's great that you are familiar with the ins and outs of keeping helicopters up and going.  You know jack and shit about tactical operations on the ground.  That includes what your helicopters did/do when they are flying in support of infantry.   



> Somehow some way you and crimsonbitch get it in your head I claimed I was in the pilot's position then celebrate your "Gotcha!" but it's a strawman as I never said that.  What I did say is I was in similar situations from the ground:
> 
> Post 116:
> 
> "We had situations where we would be approached by civilians on the ground and we still could not fire without threat confirmation.  Most of the time the people were just hungry and thirsty so we gave them MREs and water."
> 
> Now you punks will add to the amusement factor by denying your fuk up.



That is in no-way a similar situation to this.  Why in the fuck would you even consider firing on civilians who were of no threat and wanted food and water?  

Dealing with civilians in the combat zone doesn't even come close to being analogous to this situation, and you know it.  

BTW, you can find the port-hole to the official 15-6 here:

Wings Over Iraq: I lied, final thoughts on the Apache video (for the morning)

It's hard to get on the centcom site because of traffic.  However, in the 15-6 the fact pattern mentions that Bushmaster had been in contact when the Apaches checked onto station.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a strawman you dumfuk.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
> 
> If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.
Click to expand...


Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.

Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
> 
> If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the _*eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.*_
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
Click to expand...


From your link:


> Armament: M230 _*33mm*_ gun


Retard.

If your going to post a link to try and prove your assertion, don't post a link with such a glaring factual error.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you got nothing. Just like I suspected. Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
> 
> If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with the sighting system.  I've already explained this to you. You can keep trying to back-peddle if you want, you're statement is further evidence that, despite your time in uniform, you don't really have a clear idea of what happened here and why.

Of course, it he helicopter pilots did what you wanted them to do and fired warning shots and a child was inadvertently hurt because you can't predict with 100% accuracy where the shell is going to land and what the fragments are going to do, you'd be bitching about that too.

Oh yeah, the Apache only fires explosive founds.  Either DU or HE.  

Maybe they could have just thrown a "warning grenade" instead?


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, *it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you had directly been in situations similar to this.
> 
> A curious statement for a helicopter ground's crewman to make.
> 
> Why not just be honest.  You have never been in a "situation like this" have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's going to say he never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it's a strawman as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> 
> Pwned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


Good grief you are fuxxing stoopid.  I already pointed out what I said in post 116 about being on the ground.  Or do you think you can only pop off warning rounds from the air?  Do you think it's possible to pop off warning shots from the ground?  Do you think that has ever happened?  Since I already stated my experience was with similar situations on the ground I didn't think I needed to repeat it but obviously I'm dealing with bitches who don't know how to be honest.


----------



## RadiomanATL

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
> 
> If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the sighting system.  I've already explained this to you. You can keep trying to back-peddle if you want, you're statement is further evidence that, despite your time in uniform, you don't really have a clear idea of what happened here and why.
> 
> Of course, it he helicopter pilots did what you wanted them to do and fired warning shots and a child was inadvertently hurt because you can't predict with 100% accuracy where the shell is going to land and what the fragments are going to do, you'd be bitching about that too.
Click to expand...



At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, *it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it's a strawman as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> 
> Pwned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief you are fuxxing stoopid.  I already pointed out what I said in post 116 about being on the ground.  Or do you think you can only pop off warning rounds from the air?  Do you think it's possible to pop off warning shots from the ground?  Do you think that has ever happened?  Since I already stated my experience was with similar situations on the ground I didn't think I needed to repeat it but obviously I'm dealing with bitches who don't know how to be honest.
Click to expand...



Keep backpedaling curvie 

The quotes have been provided. You lose.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ground unit was in no immediate danger so the pilots could have popped off a couple of warning rounds and watched the reaction.  That isn't MMQing, *it's common fuxxing sense for any of us who have been in that type of situation.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it's a strawman as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> 
> Pwned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good grief you are fuxxing stoopid.  I already pointed out what I said in post 116 about being on the ground.  Or do you think you can only pop off warning rounds from the air?  Do you think it's possible to pop off warning shots from the ground?  Do you think that has ever happened?  Since I already stated my experience was with similar situations on the ground I didn't think I needed to repeat it but obviously I'm dealing with bitches who don't know how to be honest.
Click to expand...


So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?



Clearly we don't know what the fuck we are talking about.

I don't know about you, but I always used my 240Bs and MK-19s to fire warning shots


----------



## germanguy

Hi there ....

interesting, what I see is a highly sophisticated debate about tactics, armor, doctrine etc. but nothing what really should interest us:
WTF are the Yanks doing there ? This is a gunship and by definition they are designed and equipped for a different purpose.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Apache was not constructed to mow down insurgents, but APCs and stuff like that.
So, you have an army in a suburban surrounding, trained and equipped for a battle on a battlefield against a trained army. Add to this frustration, anger, fear etc. and the outcome is foreseeable and can be watched on this video. Man, you are using very big sticks in a suburban area.
Are there only insurgents living in an area like this ? Where are the normal Iraquis ? 
What would you think if a gunship would open fire in your neighbourhood ?

Do you think by stunts like that they will forever be thankful to be gotten rid of SAddam ?

Aain:
What it shows or what it not shows is not the point. 
If you bring heavy weapons into the area, you have a result like that.

The Brits in Northern Ireland have been clever by not bringing heavy weapons into the "Troubles".
By that they saved civilian lifes and this is what counterinsurgency should be about.
If the civilians fear more to get killed by terrorists than by US troops, than you might have a chance to dry this out. 
But videos like that and the following debate I see here leave me head-scratching if the Americans are out of their mind.

To put it frankly:
I have not understood what for you have started this war, for what reason you have lead it the way you did and what the final outcome will be.

But that´s perhaps only me...

kind regards
ze germanguy


----------



## geauxtohell

RadiomanATL said:


> At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.



Yeah, that's what I mean about "area kill" weapon.  I didn't make the term up.  It's a doctrine thing.  As you saw, when the helicopter fired, it pretty much bracketed the ground.  The pilots know approximately where the rounds were going to land, but he didn't know exactly where.   

To compound the matter, as you saw, the rounds Apaches fire explode on contact.  

I couldn't think of a worse weapon to fire "warning shots" with.

All this ignores the larger issue.  The pilots wanted to kill the guys on the ground.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see the post where CL, with his advanced knowledge of helicopter armament, stated they pilots should have fired "warning shots" with an area-kill weapon (Apache main gun)?
> 
> If you are going to Monday morning quarterback the event, at least call legit plays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the _*eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.*_
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> Armament: M230 _*33mm*_ gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retard.
> 
> If your going to post a link to try and prove your assertion, don't post a link with such a glaring factual error.
Click to expand...



Lol...not sure what's funnier....that you would ignore the type of sight system or that you try to behind a typo by that website. Here's a different link bitch.

Http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html


----------



## CrimsonWhite

geauxtohell said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly we don't know what the fuck we are talking about.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I always used my 240Bs and MK-19s to fire warning shots
Click to expand...


That's what I always used too.


----------



## geauxtohell

germanguy said:


> Hi there ....
> 
> interesting, what I see is a highly sophisticated debate about tactics, armor, doctrine etc. but nothing what really should interest us:
> WTF are the Yanks doing there ? This is a gunship and by definition they are designed and equipped for a different purpose.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the Apache was not constructed to mow down insurgents, but APCs and stuff like that.
> So, you have an army in a suburban surrounding, trained and equipped for a battle on a battlefield against a trained army. Add to this frustration, anger, fear etc. and the outcome is foreseeable and can be watched on this video. Man, you are using very big sticks in a suburban area.
> Are there only insurgents living in an area like this ? Where are the normal Iraquis ?
> What would you think if a gunship would open fire in your neighbourhood ?
> 
> Do you think by stunts like that they will forever be thankful to be gotten rid of SAddam ?
> 
> Aain:
> What it shows or what it not shows is not the point.
> If you bring heavy weapons into the area, you have a result like that.
> 
> The Brits in Northern Ireland have been clever by not bringing heavy weapons into the "Troubles".
> By that they saved civilian lifes and this is what counterinsurgency should be about.
> If the civilians fear more to get killed by terrorists than by US troops, than you might have a chance to dry this out.
> But videos like that and the following debate I see here leave me head-scratching if the Americans are out of their mind.
> 
> To put it frankly:
> I have not understood what for you have started this war, for what reason you have lead it the way you did and what the final outcome will be.
> 
> But that´s perhaps only me...
> 
> kind regards
> ze germanguy



The Apache is not limited in it's role.  It can engage ground personal.  The Army investigation found that using the chain gun was an appropriate proportional use of force.

No one is debating that it's tragic when innocent people are killed in war.  It's also inevitable.  That doesn't make this a criminal act or even a dereliction of duty.  Hind site is not a reasonable standard to judge the actions on the ground.

Many of us, myself included, opposed and continue to oppose Iraq.  That doesn't mean we have to demonize the soldiers who are in a tough situation and are doing the best that they can.

Ironically, no one would be bitching about this if these pilots had waited for someone to load an RPG and light up the ground element before they fired.

Of course, there would be a few families whose kids came home in metal boxes, but at least our collective sense of guilt wouldn't be troubled.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly we don't know what the fuck we are talking about.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I always used my 240Bs and MK-19s to fire warning shots
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I always used too.
Click to expand...


"Let's just lob a few grenades over there to make sure they are bad guys".


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> 
> Pwned!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief you are fuxxing stoopid.  I already pointed out what I said in post 116 about being on the ground.  Or do you think you can only pop off warning rounds from the air?  Do you think it's possible to pop off warning shots from the ground?  Do you think that has ever happened?  Since I already stated my experience was with similar situations on the ground I didn't think I needed to repeat it but obviously I'm dealing with bitches who don't know how to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
Click to expand...



Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Lol...not sure what's funnier....that you would ignore the type of sight system or that you try to behind a typo by that website. Here's a different link bitch.
> 
> Http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html



The magic sight system that you are all hung up over doesn't change the fact that it's an area kill weapon and your statement was completely fucking stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.



How many downed choppers were there in the Gulf War?  

How many of those were in urban areas against insurgent forces?

No one is buying your bullshit.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief you are fuxxing stoopid.  I already pointed out what I said in post 116 about being on the ground.  Or do you think you can only pop off warning rounds from the air?  Do you think it's possible to pop off warning shots from the ground?  Do you think that has ever happened?  Since I already stated my experience was with similar situations on the ground I didn't think I needed to repeat it but obviously I'm dealing with bitches who don't know how to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.
Click to expand...


How many downed choppers did you deploy to?


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> How many downed choppers did you deploy to?



Time to play "grasping for straws".


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the _*eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.*_
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> 
> 
> 
> Armament: M230 _*33mm*_ gun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Retard.
> 
> If your going to post a link to try and prove your assertion, don't post a link with such a glaring factual error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...not sure what's funnier....that you would ignore the type of sight system or that you try to behind a typo by that website. Here's a different link bitch.
> 
> Http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html
Click to expand...



Hey retard, nothing in your links even hints that the m230 can be used in a way in which you describe.

Keep backpedaling


----------



## RadiomanATL

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many downed choppers did you deploy to?
Click to expand...



Only one:


----------



## geauxtohell

The people that want to Monday morning quarterback this event have to come up with "creative scenarios", because short of that they have to admit that they can only pragmatically advocate for two scenarios:

1.)  That pilots have some sort of magical sense about them that allows them to automatically delineate who is good and bad in a combat zone (obviously not pragmatic).

2.)  The pilots should have waited until the guys on the ground got shot before engaging them.

Realistically the only outcome is #2.  In which case, I am glad that none of you were ever in a position of responsibility when I was on the ground.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the sighting system.  I've already explained this to you. You can keep trying to back-peddle if you want, you're statement is further evidence that, despite your time in uniform, you don't really have a clear idea of what happened here and why.
> 
> Of course, it he helicopter pilots did what you wanted them to do and fired warning shots and a child was inadvertently hurt because you can't predict with 100% accuracy where the shell is going to land and what the fragments are going to do, you'd be bitching about that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.
Click to expand...


I never said fire over their heads and wouldn't suggest that with a chopper gun.  You love putting words in others' mouths eh?


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link:
> Retard.
> 
> If your going to post a link to try and prove your assertion, don't post a link with such a glaring factual error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...not sure what's funnier....that you would ignore the type of sight system or that you try to behind a typo by that website. Here's a different link bitch.
> 
> Http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey retard, nothing in your links even hints that the m230 can be used in a way in which you describe.
> 
> Keep backpedaling
Click to expand...


My bad. Forgot I'm dealing with kids who need their hands held.

"As the pilots waited for clearance, an overweight male emerged from a building, making hand signals in the direction of the British troops.

Widow 79 gave the clearance to attack. The Apaches prepared to fire warning shots. From the underside of Ugly Five Zero, the 30mm cannon barked, and its spent shell casings rained down below. There was a couple of seconds  delay, and then the rounds tore into the hard-beaten surface of the dirt track in front of the compound. The figures inside didnt seem to so much as flinch.
A second warning burst was fired, this time much closer."
Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1044410/Britains-4-billion-Killing-Machine.html


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CrimsonWhite said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, follow along. How does a Crew Chief get into a situation like the one in the video. Quit deflecting and answer the fucking question.
> 
> And yes I saw the full video. You posted it. The infantry reported an RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video could be six hours long have footage of US soldiers doing charity work before this incident and it wouldn't matter these fuckers.
Click to expand...



Charity work six hours earlier would have nothing to do with the events in question. So no, it doesn't matter anymore than what they did the week before. Unless you're saying that six hours before, they encountered these individuals or some other event occured that's actually relevant, you can stop running your mouth.


Again, I don't care about the first time shots were fired. Right or wrong, they appear to have believed the men posed a threat to ground troops. 


Now back to the van...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

has anyone said what transpired to make the van seem like a threat?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because *he provided a link* proving that 30 minutes was missing from the 39 minute video that you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.....
> 
> "The Defense Department can't locate its copy of the video of a July 2007 air strike that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq, a military official told The Associated Press."
> Http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/military-cant-find-its-video-showing-newsmens-deaths/19429850
> 
> 
> I looked for an update and couldn't find any so is the DOD still claiming they can't find the video?
Click to expand...


I don't doubt that they lack an extensive and organized library of all footage ever shot in case something pops up a few years later or something.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> Oh yeah, the Apache only fires explosive founds.  Either DU or HE.


DU's considered an explosive armament? I thought it fell under armor-piercing?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

RadiomanATL said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep proving your ignorance......or do something totally different and learn about the eyepiece sight system for the 30mm.
> 
> Http://www.warfare.ru/?linkid=2032&catid=260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the sighting system.  I've already explained this to you. You can keep trying to back-peddle if you want, you're statement is further evidence that, despite your time in uniform, you don't really have a clear idea of what happened here and why.
> 
> Of course, it he helicopter pilots did what you wanted them to do and fired warning shots and a child was inadvertently hurt because you can't predict with 100% accuracy where the shell is going to land and what the fragments are going to do, you'd be bitching about that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.
Click to expand...


So it's pretty much a Vulcan gun? Couple thousand huge-ass rounds before you hear the gun on the ground?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what I mean about "area kill" weapon.  I didn't make the term up.  It's a doctrine thing.  As you saw, when the helicopter fired, it pretty much bracketed the ground.  The pilots know approximately where the rounds were going to land, but he didn't know exactly where.
> 
> To compound the matter, as you saw, the rounds Apaches fire explode on contact.
> 
> I couldn't think of a worse weapon to fire "warning shots" with.
Click to expand...


A Davey Crocket?


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197857 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.....
> 
> "The Defense Department can't locate its copy of the video of a July 2007 air strike that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq, a military official told The Associated Press."
> Http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/military-cant-find-its-video-showing-newsmens-deaths/19429850
> 
> 
> I looked for an update and couldn't find any so is the DOD still claiming they can't find the video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that they lack an extensive and organized library of all footage ever shot in case something pops up a few years later or something.
Click to expand...



This shooting was investigated so yes it should be archived in those files.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197862 said:
			
		

> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the sighting system.  I've already explained this to you. You can keep trying to back-peddle if you want, you're statement is further evidence that, despite your time in uniform, you don't really have a clear idea of what happened here and why.
> 
> Of course, it he helicopter pilots did what you wanted them to do and fired warning shots and a child was inadvertently hurt because you can't predict with 100% accuracy where the shell is going to land and what the fragments are going to do, you'd be bitching about that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At over 10 rounds per second, it's impossible for the Apache to be accurate and fire a round over someone's head like Curvie wants them to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's pretty much a Vulcan gun? Couple thousand huge-ass rounds before you hear the gun on the ground?
Click to expand...


Yes it can do that but as I've shown it can also fire warning shots due to the optical sight in the helmet.  Where the pilot looks is where it shoots.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197843 said:
			
		

> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the full video either. The full video goes on for over an hour. But the parts that didn't portray our soldiers as bloodthirsty goons were cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video could be six hours long have footage of US soldiers doing charity work before this incident and it wouldn't matter these fuckers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Charity work six hours earlier would have nothing to do with the events in question. So no, it doesn't matter anymore than what they did the week before. Unless you're saying that six hours before, they encountered these individuals or some other event occured that's actually relevant, you can stop running your mouth.
> 
> 
> Again, I don't care about the first time shots were fired. Right or wrong, they appear to have believed the men posed a threat to ground troops.
> 
> 
> Now back to the van...
Click to expand...



I agree that is a salient point being ignored.  Once the crazy horses opened fired they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit so a civilian van showing up to pick up the wounded posed no threat.  They had no reason to keep firing.


----------



## Tom Clancy

geauxtohell said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And right now, im finishing up shcool, getting a few extra credits, and then I'm taking a Sabbatical while attending a Community College, then next year I'll either be at *E*astern *C*arolina *U*niversity,  or *N*orth *C*arolina *S*tate.
> 
> Both of them have very good ROTC programs..
> 
> After 4 years of ROTC, i'll be signing up for Army, And my 2 MOS Choices right now are Aviation (Flying AH-64's, UH-60, etc.)  Or Become a Infantry Officer..   Still deciding though.. You Recommend anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am always hesitant to make recommendations.  Do what you think you'll enjoy.
> 
> I thought being an Infantry Officer was the best job in the Army, but I am probably biased.  I lucked out in that I always had exceptional commanders.  Of course, you throw that dice no matter what branch.  I do think the combat arms has the best leadership and soldiers.
Click to expand...


I see..  Well, I'm asking for recommendations to people who have previous Experience.. you know, how it was when you were a Officer etc.. 

All i know is that Aviation takes around 16-18 months to  complete and get sent out. 

I don't know if i want to wait that long  before i get shipped out..

But then again, i have around 4 1/2 years left to think about what MOS I really want..  

I'm guessing they teach you about those Officer MOS's in ROTC?


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197859 said:
			
		

> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, the Apache only fires explosive founds.  Either DU or HE.
> 
> 
> 
> DU's considered an explosive armament? I thought it fell under armor-piercing?
Click to expand...


I think DU is so dense that it confers enough energy upon impact to make and explosion.  I think that's how sabot rounds function to knock out tanks.  I could be wrong about that though.  I never dealt with DU rounds.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...not sure what's funnier....that you would ignore the type of sight system or that you try to behind a typo by that website. Here's a different link bitch.
> 
> Http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/attack/ah64_apache.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey retard, nothing in your links even hints that the m230 can be used in a way in which you describe.
> 
> Keep backpedaling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad. Forgot I'm dealing with kids who need their hands held.
> 
> "As the pilots waited for clearance, an overweight male emerged from a building, making hand signals in the direction of the British troops.
> 
> Widow 79 gave the clearance to attack. The Apaches prepared to fire warning shots. From the underside of Ugly Five Zero, the 30mm cannon barked, and its spent shell casings rained down below. There was a couple of seconds  delay, and then the rounds tore into the hard-beaten surface of the dirt track in front of the compound. The figures inside didnt seem to so much as flinch.
> A second warning burst was fired, this time much closer."
> Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1044410/Britains-4-billion-Killing-Machine.html
Click to expand...


Yes.  The British Army = The American Army. 

Excellent point.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197853 said:
			
		

> has anyone said what transpired to make the van seem like a threat?



Per the 15-6 it was legitimate engagement because it was perceived as trying to remove weapons from the scene.


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And right now, im finishing up shcool, getting a few extra credits, and then I'm taking a Sabbatical while attending a Community College, then next year I'll either be at *E*astern *C*arolina *U*niversity,  or *N*orth *C*arolina *S*tate.
> 
> Both of them have very good ROTC programs..
> 
> After 4 years of ROTC, i'll be signing up for Army, And my 2 MOS Choices right now are Aviation (Flying AH-64's, UH-60, etc.)  Or Become a Infantry Officer..   Still deciding though.. You Recommend anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am always hesitant to make recommendations.  Do what you think you'll enjoy.
> 
> I thought being an Infantry Officer was the best job in the Army, but I am probably biased.  I lucked out in that I always had exceptional commanders.  Of course, you throw that dice no matter what branch.  I do think the combat arms has the best leadership and soldiers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see..  Well, I'm asking for recommendations to people who have previous Experience.. you know, how it was when you were a Officer etc..
> 
> All i know is that Aviation takes around 16-18 months to  complete and get sent out.
> 
> I don't know if i want to wait that long  before i get shipped out..
> 
> But then again, i have around 4 1/2 years left to think about what MOS I really want..
> 
> I'm guessing they teach you about those Officer MOS's in ROTC?
Click to expand...


Yeah, you should get exposure to all of the branches.  Just don't make the mistake that a lot of ROTC cadets make and interpret the infantry tactics and experiences you have as an ROTC student with life in an actual infantry unit.  It's much different.  

Must less stupidity.


----------



## Tom Clancy

geauxtohell said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am always hesitant to make recommendations.  Do what you think you'll enjoy.
> 
> I thought being an Infantry Officer was the best job in the Army, but I am probably biased.  I lucked out in that I always had exceptional commanders.  Of course, you throw that dice no matter what branch.  I do think the combat arms has the best leadership and soldiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see..  Well, I'm asking for recommendations to people who have previous Experience.. you know, how it was when you were a Officer etc..
> 
> All i know is that Aviation takes around 16-18 months to  complete and get sent out.
> 
> I don't know if i want to wait that long  before i get shipped out..
> 
> But then again, i have around 4 1/2 years left to think about what MOS I really want..
> 
> I'm guessing they teach you about those Officer MOS's in ROTC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you should get exposure to all of the branches.  Just don't make the mistake that a lot of ROTC cadets make and interpret the infantry tactics and experiences you have as an ROTC student with life in an actual infantry unit.  It's much different.
> 
> Must less stupidity.
Click to expand...


Different how?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Just read one of the Official Summary Reports of the incident.

There is no crime no foul. The Helicopters were in support of Infantry units which had recently  received fire from AKs and RPGs. The guy who crouched at the corner of the building was facing a HMVEE only about a block away.

Good Job Gentlemen continue on to next mission.

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/...Air Cavalry Brigade AR 15-6 Investigation.pdf


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see..  Well, I'm asking for recommendations to people who have previous Experience.. you know, how it was when you were a Officer etc..
> 
> All i know is that Aviation takes around 16-18 months to  complete and get sent out.
> 
> I don't know if i want to wait that long  before i get shipped out..
> 
> But then again, i have around 4 1/2 years left to think about what MOS I really want..
> 
> I'm guessing they teach you about those Officer MOS's in ROTC?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you should get exposure to all of the branches.  Just don't make the mistake that a lot of ROTC cadets make and interpret the infantry tactics and experiences you have as an ROTC student with life in an actual infantry unit.  It's much different.
> 
> Must less stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Different how?
Click to expand...


All of you leadership evaluations and training in ROTC land is based on leading infantry small unit missions (ambush, recon, react to contact, etc).  Your ROTC instructors are going to come from a lot of different branches and backgrounds and there is just a lot of stupidity in ROTC land in the field that is not going to be the norm in an actual infantry unit when you are dealing with professionals and an infantry unit.  

A lot of people assume because they spent their time in ROTC-land doing a lot of hokey and idiotic stuff that some Quartermaster Corps officer dreamed up for an FTX, that that is what it's like to be in an infantry unit.

It's a lot different.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey retard, nothing in your links even hints that the m230 can be used in a way in which you describe.
> 
> Keep backpedaling
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad. Forgot I'm dealing with kids who need their hands held.
> 
> "As the pilots waited for clearance, an overweight male emerged from a building, making hand signals in the direction of the British troops.
> 
> Widow 79 gave the clearance to attack. The Apaches prepared to fire warning shots. From the underside of Ugly Five Zero, the 30mm cannon barked, and its spent shell casings rained down below. There was a couple of seconds  delay, and then the rounds tore into the hard-beaten surface of the dirt track in front of the compound. The figures inside didnt seem to so much as flinch.
> A second warning burst was fired, this time much closer."
> Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1044410/Britains-4-billion-Killing-Machine.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  The British Army = The American Army.
> 
> Excellent point.
Click to expand...



Apache 30mm=Apache 30mm.

Or are you implying British pilots are superior to American pilots therefore they have the ability to fire warning shots but our pilots do not?

Or are you desperately searching any laughable means of ignoring the fact the Apache
 can fire warning shots?  This is why you are pure bitch.


----------



## Samson

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad. Forgot I'm dealing with kids who need their hands held.
> 
> "As the pilots waited for clearance, an overweight male emerged from a building, making hand signals in the direction of the British troops.
> 
> Widow 79 gave the clearance to attack. The Apaches prepared to fire warning shots. From the underside of Ugly Five Zero, the 30mm cannon barked, and its spent shell casings rained down below. There was a couple of seconds  delay, and then the rounds tore into the hard-beaten surface of the dirt track in front of the compound. The figures inside didnt seem to so much as flinch.
> A second warning burst was fired, this time much closer."
> Http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1044410/Britains-4-billion-Killing-Machine.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  The British Army = The American Army.
> 
> Excellent point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Apache 30mm=Apache 30mm.
> 
> Or are you implying British pilots are superior to American pilots therefore they have the ability to fire warning shots but our pilots do not?
> 
> Or are you desperately searching any laughable means of ignoring the fact the Apache
> can fire warning shots?  This is why you are pure bitch.
Click to expand...


You are wrong.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Apache 30mm=Apache 30mm.
> 
> Or are you implying British pilots are superior to American pilots therefore they have the ability to fire warning shots but our pilots do not?
> 
> Or are you desperately searching any laughable means of ignoring the fact the Apache
> can fire warning shots?  This is why you are pure bitch.



I am not implying anything.  The point, which was obvious, is that different nations have different doctrines.  Even then, I'd be surprised if it's doctrinally correct in the British Army to use the Apache main gun to fire "warning shots".  Just because someone did it doesn't mean it was an accepted practice.  

All of which misses the larger point.  These pilots had no intent to "warn" these guys.  They planned to destroy them, because their assessment was that these guys were going to set up on the infantry unit.  

You can toss out names and insults all you want on here, you've been so thoroughly discredited that I am only surprised that you think anyone cares what your opinion is.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Why in hell would anyone want to fire a warning shot at people who appear to be preparing an ambush for advancing ground troops. Want to even up the odds by allowing them to get under cover?

Some people make no sense.


----------



## Liability

geauxtohell said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, the Apache only fires explosive founds.  Either DU or HE.
> 
> 
> 
> DU's considered an explosive armament? I thought it fell under armor-piercing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think DU is so dense that it confers enough energy upon impact to make and explosion.  I think that's how sabot rounds function to knock out tanks.  I could be wrong about that though.  I never dealt with DU rounds.
Click to expand...


I always thought its weight made it armor piercing (like anti-tank) shells.  But I just discovered it can also serve as part of the armor to make penetration of tanks MORE difficult!  Here's a fairly complete synopsis.  I'm not a scientist, so I can't verify this piece in most respects, but it should serve as a good point of departure at least:

Depleted uranium ammunition is a very recent advancement in military weapons use


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> Why in hell would anyone want to fire a warning shot at people who appear to be preparing an ambush for advancing ground troops. Want to even up the odds by allowing them to get under cover?
> 
> Some people make no sense.



They wouldn't.  I was just pointing out that, the fact that the pilots assessed these guys to be hostile aside, CL's "alternate plan" is stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DU's considered an explosive armament? I thought it fell under armor-piercing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think DU is so dense that it confers enough energy upon impact to make and explosion.  I think that's how sabot rounds function to knock out tanks.  I could be wrong about that though.  I never dealt with DU rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought its weight made it armor piercing (like anti-tank) shells.  But I just discovered it can also serve as part of the armor to make penetration of tanks MORE difficult!  Here's a fairly complete synopsis.  I'm not a scientist, so I can't verify this piece in most respects, but it should serve as a good point of departure at least:
> 
> Depleted uranium ammunition is a very recent advancement in military weapons use
Click to expand...


This is what I was referring too:

DU also easily burns, just like magnesium, upon penetration, adding to the effectiveness of the ammo as an armor piercing device.14c When the projectile cuts through the armor, the DU penetrator and parts of the tank get so hot that it literally vaporizes. Anywhere from 18-70% of the DU usually oxidizes (depending on type of impact).

A DU round imparts so much kinetic energy upon impact that there is some sort of explosion.  That being said, I am not sure if the Apaches were fire DU or HE (high explosive) rounds.

Whatever they were firing, there was some sort of explosion upon impact.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apache 30mm=Apache 30mm.
> 
> Or are you implying British pilots are superior to American pilots therefore they have the ability to fire warning shots but our pilots do not?
> 
> Or are you desperately searching any laughable means of ignoring the fact the Apache
> can fire warning shots?  This is why you are pure bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not implying anything.  The point, which was obvious, is that different nations have different doctrines.  Even then, I'd be surprised if it's doctrinally correct in the British Army to use the Apache main gun to fire "warning shots".  Just because someone did it doesn't mean it was an accepted practice.
> 
> All of which misses the larger point.  These pilots had no intent to "warn" these guys.  They planned to destroy them, because their assessment was that these guys were going to set up on the infantry unit.
> 
> You can toss out names and insults all you want on here, you've been so thoroughly discredited that I am only surprised that you think anyone cares what your opinion is.
Click to expand...



I've been discredited?  You whiny ****.  You laughed when I said they could have fired warning shots because you didn't think that could be done with the apache.   Then you try to ignore a link with a typo that said the gun was a 33mm when I said it is a 30mm.  Then you miss the point of my last link.....which was to show warning shots couple be fired from the apache.

You bitches are pure *****.  Period.  When the facts are in your face you ignore them.  I'm calling you names because you deserve it for your cowardice, hypocrisy, and arrogance.  The civilians made no threatening moves and after the apache fired nobody shot at the apaches or the ground unit but you keep on ignoring those facts you useless fuxxing ****.


----------



## SFC Ollie

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197859 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DU's considered an explosive armament? I thought it fell under armor-piercing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think DU is so dense that it confers enough energy upon impact to make and explosion.  I think that's how sabot rounds function to knock out tanks.  I could be wrong about that though.  I never dealt with DU rounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought its weight made it armor piercing (like anti-tank) shells.  But I just discovered it can also serve as part of the armor to make penetration of tanks MORE difficult!  Here's a fairly complete synopsis.  I'm not a scientist, so I can't verify this piece in most respects, but it should serve as a good point of departure at least:
> 
> Depleted uranium ammunition is a very recent advancement in military weapons use
Click to expand...


that is why I laugh at those who claim DU is so dangerous, when we use it as a layer of our own armor.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I've been discredited?  You whiny ****.  You laughed when I said they could have fired warning shots because you didn't think that could be done with the apache.   Then you try to ignore a link with a typo that said the gun was a 33mm when I said it is a 30mm.  Then you miss the point of my last link.....which was to show warning shots couple be fired from the apache.



You could fire "warning shots" with a mortar round on air burst if you wanted to.  It's just a fucking stupid idea and not supported by any of our doctrine.  

That means our pilots don't train to do so and it's not something they would consider doing.

Nor would they in this instance, they perceived a hostile threat by these guys.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the link. 

You tried to claim some sort of special dispensation on this matter because you had been in similar situations like this.  It turns out you were REMF that has never been in anything remotely close to this.  

You are completely ignorant of the ROE and the way things operate outside the wire.  You've tried to make some bizarre claims that the pilots needed to be engaged or wait until the the infantry was engaged before they fired, which is pure bullshit.  

You apparently want to advocate for some dumb-assed ROE that would further hinder our aviation advantages and get soldiers killed.  

And then you have the moxy to call us dumb-asses. 

You are pissed off that innocent people got killed here (the children were innocent at the very least).  I get that.  You have no workable alternative that could have prevented this.  The pilots were acting on good faith and doing their best to protect the guys on the ground.  That's why the 15-6 found it was "no foul".  



> You bitches are pure *****.  Period.  When the facts are in your face you ignore them.  I'm calling you names because you deserve it for your cowardice, hypocrisy, and arrogance.  The civilians made no threatening moves and after the apache fired nobody shot at the apaches or the ground unit but you keep on ignoring those facts you useless fuxxing ****.



To the contrary.  The guy crouched around the corner with a cylinder like object that he aimed at the infantry unit.  That's what got them killed.  Maybe it was a camera lens, maybe it was an RPG.  It's irrelevant.  The pilot perceived it to be an RPG.  Shit happens in combat.

You should know it.

Other than that, your names mean nothing to me.  You can join the ranks of the others who think they know something, but know jack shit.

It's probably a good thing for all involved parties that you were never in charge of any tactical decisions.

BTW, you can type "fucking" on this board.  You don't have to continue to look like a 13 year old girl with new and inventive ways to try and get around a non-existent filter.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why in hell would anyone want to fire a warning shot at people who appear to be preparing an ambush for advancing ground troops. Want to even up the odds by allowing them to get under cover?
> 
> Some people make no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They wouldn't.  I was just pointing out that, the fact that the pilots assessed these guys to be hostile aside, CL's "alternate plan" is stupid.
Click to expand...



I knew it was a waste of time to prove the apache can fire warning shots.  The civilians presented no immediate threat but your dum **** punk ass wants to advocate the false dilemma of slaughtering them or letting our troops get slaughtered.  There were other options but you go on and keep your eyes closed.  Bitch.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I knew it was a waste of time to prove the apache can fire warning shots.  The civilians presented no immediate threat but your dum **** punk ass wants to advocate the false dilemma of slaughtering them or letting our troops get slaughtered.  There were other options but you go on and keep your eyes closed.  Bitch.



Whaa fucking whaa.  Go find an Apache pilot and ask them if they train to fire warning shots with their 30 mm cannon.  

You with your all powerful hindsite (which the pilots didn't have) want to castigate pilots for doing their best to keep soldiers on the battlefield alive.  They didn't act with any criminal intent, their intent was completely mission oriented and they followed the ROE (per the 15-6).  

Once the pilots perceived hostile intent by the guys on the ground, there was no more dilemma.  

So pout all you want.  It doesn't change a damn thing.


----------



## CurveLight

You know what is disturbing?  All the people who defend what happened have not paused for one second to ask:

"is there a way to learn from this to prevent civilians from getting killed in the future?"

No.  They keep their eyes shut and regurgitate cliches and make claims they cannot support.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You know what is disturbing?  All the people who defend what happened have not paused for one second to ask:
> 
> "is there a way to learn from this to prevent civilians from getting killed in the future?"
> 
> No.  They keep their eyes shut and regurgitate cliches and make claims they cannot support.



It's just because you are such a noble former warrior, CL.

The rest of us collected scalps and ears and gleefully raped and pillaged our way across the combat zone.

That or we see no reason to over-analyze the actions of pilots who made a decision that 99% of all other pilots would have also made (yes, I made that number up.  You get the point).  We certainly see no reason to add even more restrictions to the guys in the air that will result in soldiers getting killed (i.e. "wait for them to fire and RPG first before you engage them!")

One of those two realities.

FWIW, USMC AH-1s flew CAS for us in Afghanistan and we loved those guys.  They were every bit as aggressive as the Apache pilots in this video.


----------



## Tom Clancy

geauxtohell said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you should get exposure to all of the branches.  Just don't make the mistake that a lot of ROTC cadets make and interpret the infantry tactics and experiences you have as an ROTC student with life in an actual infantry unit.  It's much different.
> 
> Must less stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Different how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of you leadership evaluations and training in ROTC land is based on leading infantry small unit missions (ambush, recon, react to contact, etc).  Your ROTC instructors are going to come from a lot of different branches and backgrounds and there is just a lot of stupidity in ROTC land in the field that is not going to be the norm in an actual infantry unit when you are dealing with professionals and an infantry unit.
> 
> A lot of people assume because they spent their time in ROTC-land doing a lot of hokey and idiotic stuff that some Quartermaster Corps officer dreamed up for an FTX, that that is what it's like to be in an infantry unit.
> 
> It's a lot different.
Click to expand...


Interesting... 

Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.


----------



## geauxtohell

Tom Clancy said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of you leadership evaluations and training in ROTC land is based on leading infantry small unit missions (ambush, recon, react to contact, etc).  Your ROTC instructors are going to come from a lot of different branches and backgrounds and there is just a lot of stupidity in ROTC land in the field that is not going to be the norm in an actual infantry unit when you are dealing with professionals and an infantry unit.
> 
> A lot of people assume because they spent their time in ROTC-land doing a lot of hokey and idiotic stuff that some Quartermaster Corps officer dreamed up for an FTX, that that is what it's like to be in an infantry unit.
> 
> It's a lot different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> Thanks for the heads up, much appreciated.
Click to expand...


No problem.  It's hard to quantify, but you'll see what I mean when you get there.  Also, observe how the officers from various branches conduct themselves in the day to day stuff in ROTC land.  See how the demeanor of the Infantry guys is versus other branches.  One of the things that made me branch infantry is that I was so impressed with out cadre that were Infantry officers.  They were always calm, used common sense, weren't afraid to be personable while still maintaining proper military bearing, and were, all in all, great role models.  

I'll never forget when one of my favorite ROTC instructors, who was an Infantry Officer, dropped by to visit me at the end of the first phase of Ranger School.  It turns out, one of his college ROTC buddies was my company commander and he'd been keeping dibs on me.  It was a small act on his part, but it meant the world to me (and still does obviously).  

Of course, every branch has it's share of good and bad officers.

My suggestion is to to the program (can't remember what it is called now) after camp where you get to go shadow an actual unit for a couple of weeks.  Pick one of your top two (aviation probably wouldn't be a good choice, since you wouldn't get any fly time, but you'd have a good time in an Infantry unit.  We always made sure our visiting cadets were taken care of) and see how it works in the real Army.  I was conflicted between Armor and Infantry and went to Ft. Knox for Armor.  I had a good time, but realized that I didn't want to deal with a bunch of machinery so I picked light infantry and got it.  In my day, anyone that picked infantry basically got it, I understand that it's a little more competitive now.  

Infantry branch also affords you some good options for schooling, you'll be expected to do Ranger School and Airborne School and Air Assault School if you are in an Air assault unit.  I also picked up the mortar course when I was at Benning (which was really challenging) and some other schools.  Then if you want to transition into SF, you'll have a lot to bring to the table for selection (though SF takes from all branches and I was never SF so I can't speak much about this).  You can also transfer into the 75th Ranger Regiment from a regular infantry unit if you want to do that.  

The only branch I'd advise against, and I don't want to offend any of them, is Field Artillery.  That is because the FA branch is really struggling to find their relevance on the modern battlefield.  Most of my friends who were FA officers got grabbed away from their guns and were made special staff officers.

If you have any other questions, feel free to PM me.


----------



## eots

Shitscreens


----------



## Liability

eots said:


> Shitscreens



^ shit head.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> So were ground crew and you have been in these types of situations? You want to fire warning shots with a 30MM cannon? And you call us stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many downed choppers did you deploy to?
Click to expand...


Still waiting on an answer.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> BTW, you can type "fucking" on this board.  You don't have to continue to look like a 13 year old girl with new and inventive ways to try and get around a non-existent filter.





***Curvey is _Not_ a 13 year old gurl?***


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are stoopid and arrogant.  You assume being part of the ground crew meant we simply sat in the rear.  We had forward contact teams for emergency response to a downed chopper.  Basically, you're an immature bitch that is saturated in hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many downed choppers did you deploy to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer.
Click to expand...



Still waiting on that unedited video.....

Still waiting for your punk ass to admit you fuxxed up....

Not holding my breath.

I personally did not have to deploy to any downed aircraft.  Now you can focus on that as deflection for the next three pages you whiny ****.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197857 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.....
> 
> "The Defense Department can't locate its copy of the video of a July 2007 air strike that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq, a military official told The Associated Press."
> Http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/military-cant-find-its-video-showing-newsmens-deaths/19429850
> 
> 
> I looked for an update and couldn't find any so is the DOD still claiming they can't find the video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that they lack an extensive and organized library of all footage ever shot in case something pops up a few years later or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This shooting was investigated so yes it should be archived in those files.
Click to expand...



I don't doubt that the 'archives' are little more than a disorganized pile in a basement somewhere.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197853 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anyone said what transpired to make the van seem like a threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Per the 15-6 it was legitimate engagement because it was perceived as trying to remove weapons from the scene.
Click to expand...

We saw them pick up a man. Please give me the time in the video where they approach or attempt to retrieve any weapons.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2199303 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197857 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that they lack an extensive and organized library of all footage ever shot in case something pops up a few years later or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shooting was investigated so yes it should be archived in those files.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that the 'archives' are little more than a disorganized pile in a basement somewhere.
Click to expand...



The video was leaked from inside the Pentagon.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many downed choppers did you deploy to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on that unedited video.....
> 
> Still waiting for your punk ass to admit you fuxxed up....
> 
> Not holding my breath.
> 
> I personally did not have to deploy to any downed aircraft.  Now you can focus on that as deflection for the next three pages you whiny ****.
Click to expand...


You dumbass. I never said anytihng about seeing the video or producing it. I just pointed out that the one that we saw in the OP was highly edited. You really are a fucking idiot.

And if you never had to forward deploy, then what the fuck are you talking about? Admit it. You don't know what zippers sound like. Dismissed.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on that unedited video.....
> 
> Still waiting for your punk ass to admit you fuxxed up....
> 
> Not holding my breath.
> 
> I personally did not have to deploy to any downed aircraft.  Now you can focus on that as deflection for the next three pages you whiny ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbass. I never said anytihng about seeing the video or producing it. I just pointed out that the one that we saw in the OP was highly edited. You really are a fucking idiot.
> 
> And if you never had to forward deploy, then what the fuck are you talking about? Admit it. You don't know what zippers sound like. Dismissed.
Click to expand...


I never said I never had to forward deploy you whiny skank.  Face it.  You're so fuxxing immature you desperately keep searching for some minutia to bitch about.  You're so fuxxing arrogant you want to accuse me of lying simply because I pwn you on a regular basis and there isn't a damn thing you can do but bitch and moan like the dyed in the wool skank you keep proving to be.  Do you really think you are informed or wise enough to use divine powers to know my experiences in iraq?  (rhetorical as your arrogance has already answered)


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting on that unedited video.....
> 
> Still waiting for your punk ass to admit you fuxxed up....
> 
> Not holding my breath.
> 
> I personally did not have to deploy to any downed aircraft.  Now you can focus on that as deflection for the next three pages you whiny ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dumbass. I never said anytihng about seeing the video or producing it. I just pointed out that the one that we saw in the OP was highly edited. You really are a fucking idiot.
> 
> And if you never had to forward deploy, then what the fuck are you talking about? Admit it. You don't know what zippers sound like. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said I never had to forward deploy you whiny skank.  Face it.  You're so fuxxing immature you desperately keep searching for some minutia to bitch about.  You're so fuxxing arrogant you want to accuse me of lying simply because I pwn you on a regular basis and there isn't a damn thing you can do but bitch and moan like the dyed in the wool skank you keep proving to be.  Do you really think you are informed or wise enough to use divine powers to know my experiences in iraq?  (rhetorical as your arrogance has already answered)
Click to expand...


 Jesus Christ you are retarded.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dumbass. I never said anytihng about seeing the video or producing it. I just pointed out that the one that we saw in the OP was highly edited. You really are a fucking idiot.
> 
> And if you never had to forward deploy, then what the fuck are you talking about? Admit it. You don't know what zippers sound like. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I never had to forward deploy you whiny skank.  Face it.  You're so fuxxing immature you desperately keep searching for some minutia to bitch about.  You're so fuxxing arrogant you want to accuse me of lying simply because I pwn you on a regular basis and there isn't a damn thing you can do but bitch and moan like the dyed in the wool skank you keep proving to be.  Do you really think you are informed or wise enough to use divine powers to know my experiences in iraq?  (rhetorical as your arrogance has already answered)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ you are retarded.
Click to expand...



Thass light years ahead of being CrimsonWhite.  Which reminds me....did you ever prove the claim about the longer version radioasswipe spoke of?  Or are you such a hypocrite you accept a source as fuxxed up as gawker when it suits your needs?  

Since you whined so much about the edited video in the op will you please show us what is found in the 39 minute version that changes anything?


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2199312 said:
			
		

> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197853 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> has anyone said what transpired to make the van seem like a threat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Per the 15-6 it was legitimate engagement because it was perceived as trying to remove weapons from the scene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We saw them pick up a man. Please give me the time in the video where they approach or attempt to retrieve any weapons.
Click to expand...


Again, it's what the pilots perceived.  Other than that, you can read the 15-6 to see their feelings on the matter.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I never had to forward deploy you whiny skank.  Face it.  You're so fuxxing immature you desperately keep searching for some minutia to bitch about.  You're so fuxxing arrogant you want to accuse me of lying simply because I pwn you on a regular basis and there isn't a damn thing you can do but bitch and moan like the dyed in the wool skank you keep proving to be.  Do you really think you are informed or wise enough to use divine powers to know my experiences in iraq?  (rhetorical as your arrogance has already answered)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ you are retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thass light years ahead of being CrimsonWhite.  Which reminds me....did you ever prove the claim about the longer version radioasswipe spoke of?  Or are you such a hypocrite you accept a source as fuxxed up as gawker when it suits your needs?
> 
> Since you whined so much about the edited video in the op will you please show us what is found in the 39 minute version that changes anything?
Click to expand...


Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

geauxtohell said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2199312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per the 15-6 it was legitimate engagement because it was perceived as trying to remove weapons from the scene.
> 
> 
> 
> We saw them pick up a man. Please give me the time in the video where they approach or attempt to retrieve any weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, it's what the pilots perceived.  Other than that, you can read the 15-6 to see their feelings on the matter.
Click to expand...

If the link was posted, I missed it.

Do you have it?

My complaint remains that the van was not a threat and did not appear hostile.


----------



## Gatekeeper

The latest story regarding this.



> Last week it released the cockpit recording from an American Apache helicopter as it killed Iraqi civilians, including a Reuters photographer, in Baghdad in 2007.





> Activists behind a website dedicated to revealing secret documents have complained of harassment by police and intelligence services as they prepare to release a video showing an American attack in which 97 civilians were killed in Afghanistan



Whistleblowers on US &lsquo;massacre&rsquo; fear CIA stalkers - Times Online


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ you are retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thass light years ahead of being CrimsonWhite.  Which reminds me....did you ever prove the claim about the longer version radioasswipe spoke of?  Or are you such a hypocrite you accept a source as fuxxed up as gawker when it suits your needs?
> 
> Since you whined so much about the edited video in the op will you please show us what is found in the 39 minute version that changes anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
Click to expand...



Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......


For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thass light years ahead of being CrimsonWhite.  Which reminds me....did you ever prove the claim about the longer version radioasswipe spoke of?  Or are you such a hypocrite you accept a source as fuxxed up as gawker when it suits your needs?
> 
> Since you whined so much about the edited video in the op will you please show us what is found in the 39 minute version that changes anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
Click to expand...


So instead, we are supposed to take the word of a known lying pussy like you?

Fuck you, asshole.

You may not grasp it yet, scumbag, but you have no credibility whatsofucking ever.

The reason nobody can discuss an issue honestly with you is because you are incapable of being honest.


----------



## CurveLight

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So instead, we are supposed to take the word of a known lying pussy like you?
> 
> Fuck you, asshole.
> 
> You may not grasp it yet, scumbag, but you have no credibility whatsofucking ever.
> 
> The reason nobody can discuss an issue honestly with you is because you are incapable of being honest.
Click to expand...



Show us all in my post you quoted where I asked anyone to take my word for it Snitch Bitch.  You can't.  Unlike you and some other punks I admit when I make an error but bitches like you tap dance down to your kneecaps.

I also don't give a fuk if some whiny ***** on a board think I have credibility or not.  If someone like you gave me a pat on the back that would be a neon sign I'm going in the wrong direction.  I support my claims with facts so I don't need to ask anyone to take my word for it.

This thread is a great example of the cancer of Nationalism.  If that video showed Iranian troops doing the same thing in Israel you fuksticks would be screaming bloody murder.  Hypocrites.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2199655 said:
			
		

> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2199312 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We saw them pick up a man. Please give me the time in the video where they approach or attempt to retrieve any weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's what the pilots perceived.  Other than that, you can read the 15-6 to see their feelings on the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the link was posted, I missed it.
> 
> Do you have it?
> 
> My complaint remains that the van was not a threat and did not appear hostile.
Click to expand...


5--1st Air Cavalry Brigade AR 15-6 Investigation

You can hunt around and find the CENTCOM portal where the other 15-6 over this was conducted as well as sworn statements.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thass light years ahead of being CrimsonWhite.  Which reminds me....did you ever prove the claim about the longer version radioasswipe spoke of?  Or are you such a hypocrite you accept a source as fuxxed up as gawker when it suits your needs?
> 
> Since you whined so much about the edited video in the op will you please show us what is found in the 39 minute version that changes anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
Click to expand...


The proof is the video itself you dumb shit.

Time code says something...fades to black...then video comes back and the time code says approximately 30 minutes have elapsed. Which were not shown.

But you go ahead and continue whining about Gawker and Jawa and trying to discredit them. It just makes you look even dumber for not realizing that the evidence has been in front of your fucking face the whole time


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof is the video itself you dumb shit.
> 
> Time code says something...fades to black...then video comes back and the time code says approximately 30 minutes have elapsed. Which were not shown.
> 
> But you go ahead and continue whining about Gawker and Jawa and trying to discredit them. It just makes you look even dumber for not realizing that the evidence has been in front of your fucking face the whole time
Click to expand...



Rotfl!  The military cannot locate the video but jawa report can?  How the fuk do nut licking jackasses like you even pretend to debate politics with any fictional version of sincerity?
Http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iraq_video

What I am pointing out is you are screaming about a video from one of the most biased blogs on the net but you don't question it's authenticity because you like what you see.  You're no different than troofers who quote alex jones as rock solid proof explosives were used on the towers.

When you have a credible source and/or independent verification of the video let us know but don't expect everyone else to fall for your gawking bullshit.


----------



## SFC Ollie

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infantry identified an RPG and RadiomanATL posted the link proving that their is an even longer version. But you go ahead and ignore facts. I'll stay over here in reality. And I am done with this fucking thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof is the video itself you dumb shit.
> 
> Time code says something...fades to black...then video comes back and the time code says approximately 30 minutes have elapsed. Which were not shown.
> 
> But you go ahead and continue whining about Gawker and Jawa and trying to discredit them. It just makes you look even dumber for not realizing that the evidence has been in front of your fucking face the whole time
Click to expand...


I guess I'm going to have to take Id-eots and bentlight off ignore. they are getting rather entertaining in a stupid twisted sort of way.


----------



## Sofus

Hello, is that you in your avatar, if I may ask and what are your doing!  I like the picture!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Sofus said:


> Hello, is that you in your avatar, if I may ask and what are your doing!  I like the picture!



If you are talking to me, that picture was taken last Memorial Day. I was in my American Legion posts Memorial Ceremony where we were doing the 21 gun salute. We do 2 Ceremonies each year in two local cemeteries.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us where that was cut out.  Or have you run like the whiny brat code you live by?  Then you cite radioasswipe's bullshit claim?  His source is the jawa report via the gawker.....and you find that as reliable?  The fuxxing jawa report!  Rotfl! You fuxxing ***** are pure entertainment and the belly laughter bells harder realizing you actually take yourselves seriously......
> 
> 
> For all your whining you got bullshit claims you can't support so all you can do is use the rep button to try and compensate for y
> our inability to discuss an issue honestly.  Rotfl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is the video itself you dumb shit.
> 
> Time code says something...fades to black...then video comes back and the time code says approximately 30 minutes have elapsed. Which were not shown.
> 
> But you go ahead and continue whining about Gawker and Jawa and trying to discredit them. It just makes you look even dumber for not realizing that the evidence has been in front of your fucking face the whole time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  The military cannot locate the video but jawa report can?  How the fuk do nut licking jackasses like you even pretend to debate politics with any fictional version of sincerity?
> Http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iraq_video
> 
> What I am pointing out is you are screaming about a video from one of the most biased blogs on the net but you don't question it's authenticity because you like what you see.  You're no different than troofers who quote alex jones as rock solid proof explosives were used on the towers.
> 
> When you have a credible source and/or independent verification of the video let us know but don't expect everyone else to fall for your gawking bullshit.
Click to expand...


Having problems with comprehension?

The proof is the video itself you stupid shit.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof is the video itself you dumb shit.
> 
> Time code says something...fades to black...then video comes back and the time code says approximately 30 minutes have elapsed. Which were not shown.
> 
> But you go ahead and continue whining about Gawker and Jawa and trying to discredit them. It just makes you look even dumber for not realizing that the evidence has been in front of your fucking face the whole time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  The military cannot locate the video but jawa report can?  How the fuk do nut licking jackasses like you even pretend to debate politics with any fictional version of sincerity?
> Http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iraq_video
> 
> What I am pointing out is you are screaming about a video from one of the most biased blogs on the net but you don't question it's authenticity because you like what you see.  You're no different than troofers who quote alex jones as rock solid proof explosives were used on the towers.
> 
> When you have a credible source and/or independent verification of the video let us know but don't expect everyone else to fall for your gawking bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having problems with comprehension?
> 
> The proof is the video itself you stupid shit.
Click to expand...


That must be why credible sources are reporting on it.  Shiggles!  That hasn't happened.  

Where did jawa get the video?  The saddest part of that question is you can't answer without research because you didn't even ask yourself that fundamental question.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197043 said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Am I the only one whose complaint still lies with the actions taken after the van showed up, clearly aiding an injured man and not appearing armed or otherwise a threat at the time it was fired upon? How did everyone end up arguing about the events prior?



Yes you are.  Especially when you don't take issue with the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those terrorists who were filmed with weapons in hand and were using their children as human shields hoping the Americans wouldn't fire on the heavily armed group.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

> the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those  terrorists




You've evidence of this claim?

What heavily armed group? It was two guys in a van.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197043 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Am I the only one whose complaint still lies with the actions taken after the van showed up, clearly aiding an injured man and not appearing armed or otherwise a threat at the time it was fired upon? How did everyone end up arguing about the events prior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are.  Especially when you don't take issue with the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those terrorists who were filmed with weapons in hand and were using their children as human shields hoping the Americans wouldn't fire on the heavily armed group.
Click to expand...



Lol.....is this a rusty audition for staff at freeper or hannityforums?  It's impossible to take punks like you seriously.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2203186 said:
			
		

> the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those  terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've evidence of this claim?
> 
> What heavily armed group? It was two guys in a van.
Click to expand...


Obviously you missed the first part of the video showing the group of men with their AK47's and RPG launcher and the part where they were shredded by 30mm cannon fire.  At which point the 2 observers and their children came in to pick up the several hundred body parts for a proper Muslim burial and then they themselves came under devastating fire...thus ushering them on to their supposed paradise.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2197043 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Am I the only one whose complaint still lies with the actions taken after the van showed up, clearly aiding an injured man and not appearing armed or otherwise a threat at the time it was fired upon? How did everyone end up arguing about the events prior?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are.  Especially when you don't take issue with the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those terrorists who were filmed with weapons in hand and were using their children as human shields hoping the Americans wouldn't fire on the heavily armed group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....is this a rusty audition for staff at freeper or hannityforums?  It's impossible to take punks like you seriously.
Click to expand...


This coming from the laughing stock of the usmb.....thanks doofus.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

PatekPhilippe said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2203186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those  terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> You've evidence of this claim?
> 
> What heavily armed group? It was two guys in a van.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you missed the first part of the video showing the group of men with their AK47's and RPG launcher and the part where they were shredded by 30mm cannon fire.  At which point the 2 observers and their children came in to pick up the several hundred body parts for a proper Muslim burial and then they themselves came under devastating fire...thus ushering them on to their supposed paradise.
Click to expand...


So you admit that the people in the van, who happened by later, were not arm and posed no threat?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are.  Especially when you don't take issue with the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those terrorists who were filmed with weapons in hand and were using their children as human shields hoping the Americans wouldn't fire on the heavily armed group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....is this a rusty audition for staff at freeper or hannityforums?  It's impossible to take punks like you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This coming from the laughing stock of the usmb.....thanks doofus.
Click to expand...


When Nationalistic ***** like you try to use peer pressure as a form of response it is only a waste of time.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Anybody know where I can find the Unedited version?


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.....is this a rusty audition for staff at freeper or hannityforums?  It's impossible to take punks like you seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from the laughing stock of the usmb.....thanks doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Nationalistic ***** like you try to use peer pressure as a form of response it is only a waste of time.
Click to expand...



Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.

War sucks.  

Move on.


----------



## CurveLight

Tom Clancy said:


> Anybody know where I can find the Unedited version?




Http://www.collateralmurder.com/


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This coming from the laughing stock of the usmb.....thanks doofus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Nationalistic ***** like you try to use peer pressure as a form of response it is only a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
Click to expand...



That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.

For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Nationalistic ***** like you try to use peer pressure as a form of response it is only a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
Click to expand...



I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.

Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.

The pilots were in a war zone. Sure, their language is shocking.  But they are fricken killing people... what does it matter what they say?  

Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.  

Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Nationalistic ***** like you try to use peer pressure as a form of response it is only a waste of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
Click to expand...



United States has gone out of its way to avoid killing as many civilians as possible.  Billions spent on accurate weapons.  However, mistakes happen and it does turn your stomach when innocents are killed.

These weren't innocents... except for the children, but the pilots had no idea.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
Click to expand...



What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.  

My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:

What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
Click to expand...



What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent unarmed people were killed and wounded.  

My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:

What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!  

How is it "emotional" to point out our invasion and occupation put all kids in iraq in a battle zone?


----------



## eots

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent unarmed people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> How is it "emotional" to point out our invasion and occupation put all kids in iraq in a battle zone?
Click to expand...


because they are not white Christians


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... just gracefully give up.  The investigation is over... there WERE multiple weapons, these werent' innocents.  Nothing more is going to happen... not should it.
> 
> War sucks.
> 
> Move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> United States has gone out of its way to avoid killing as many civilians as possible.  Billions spent on accurate weapons.  However, mistakes happen and it does turn your stomach when innocents are killed.
> 
> These weren't innocents... except for the children, but the pilots had no idea.
Click to expand...



Holy fuk this board is absolutely infested with idiotic Na
tionalists.  The name should be freeplite or hannityhome.  How can you be so damn blind?  What the fuk do you think Shock and Awe was about?  What do you think the US imposed no fly zones did?  Can you take Uncle Sam's dick out of your mouth long enough to learn?


----------



## CurveLight

eots said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent unarmed people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> How is it "emotional" to point out our invasion and occupation put all kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because they are not white Christians
Click to expand...



It's just so damn sad.


----------



## manu1959

AllieBaba said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to you and the other idiots trying to Monday morning quarterback actions that you know jack shit about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to the guys  you like to shit on, you don't have to go into a war zone, and you don't have to worry about it ever coming to you.
> 
> Piece of shit.
Click to expand...



i believe nesser is french.....they would have surrendered to the terrorists by now but they can't find obl....


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y_5vxM8PYM&feature=related]YouTube - Generation Kill - Iraq[/ame]


----------



## Kalam

manu1959 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetie, I know.  But the fact is, that applies much better to Terry than to any of 'us.'  None of 'us' really want to go into a war zone and shoot up bunch of kids.  However Terry here doesn't see anything wrong with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks to the guys  you like to shit on, you don't have to go into a war zone, and you don't have to worry about it ever coming to you.
> 
> Piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i believe nesser is french...
Click to expand...


Czech.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why you all who defend this deserve nothing less then what you will receive.  It takes a seriously sick fuxxing mind to witness what happened and just shrug your shoulders.
> 
> For all the dumbasses who keep echoing what the pilots said about bringing kids into a battle......what in the fuk is wrong with you?  How can you be so self absorbed to not realize it is our invasion and occupation that put ALL kids in iraq in a battle zone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
Click to expand...


I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't put those kids onto a battlefield... their parents... or someone else did.  It is tragic that the kids suffered due to the adults decision.  But, that is what you expect from people that are savage enough to sacrifice their own children for the purpose of killing others.
> 
> Your outrage should be at the people that put those kids in danger.  Not the pilots that had ZERO idea they were there.
> 
> Your argument keeps evolving.  First, they killed innocents.  Then you quit arguing that when your argument was destroyed with facts.
> 
> Now, you are emotionally argue about the kids and refuse to answer peoples questions.  War sucks.. don't bring your kids to the war... protect them like civilized human beings do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
Click to expand...



State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2203186 said:
			
		

> the parents of those children who clearly were associated with those  terrorists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've evidence of this claim?
> 
> What heavily armed group? It was two guys in a van.
Click to expand...


I don't think there is any substantial proof that the van was full of "bad guys" or had malicious intent.  It was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Like the RPG, the pilots perceived it to be and "enemy action" and from there it was "wrong place at the wrong time".

The pilots also didn't see the children in it until it was too late.  I sure as hell didn't either (until the edited version pointed the tops of their heads out to me).  

The reaction from the pilots sounds like a defense mechanism for "Oh fuck, we just blew away kids."

I can't get behind the "let's lynch the pilots, because they didn't act properly remorseful" mentality.  

Remorse and regret come after the adrenaline level falls.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
Click to expand...


As you cling to your asinine, and wrong, position that a unit has to be taking fire before they can engage...............


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
Click to expand...


Ah the van...I see, no I didn't see any weapons around the van. I did see adults attempting to remove a person believed to be a wounded enemy combatant. With no idea if they were armed or were attempting to pick up arms from the battlefield. Again the pilots fired because they had cause. Not that I would want to have to make that decision.


----------



## eots

really?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qSaVThaCnI&feature=related]YouTube - American Troops going Insane[/ame]


----------



## SFC Ollie

eots said:


> really?
> 
> YouTube - American Troops going Insane



We've all seen the videos of the selected assholes, and every time I see them I ask, Where the hell was their Sergeant. Hopefully the idiots have been identified and have faced justice for their stupidity in all these cases. I know that several of them have been charged.

But you assholes want the world to believe that this is the norm. And you know damn well it's not.

God Bless America?

Damned right.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you cling to your asinine, and wrong, position that a unit has to be taking fire before they can engage...............
Click to expand...



Quote the post where I said a unit "has to be taking fire" before they can engage.  This oughta be fun.....


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

SFC Ollie said:


> Again the pilots fired because they had cause


We've been asking for the cause for firing on the van and nobody has provided any.


----------



## eots

sfc ollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> youtube - american troops going insane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we've all seen the videos of the selected assholes, and every time i see them i ask, where the hell was their sergeant. Hopefully the idiots have been identified and have faced justice for their stupidity in all these cases. I know that several of them have been charged.
> 
> But you assholes want the world to believe that this is the norm. And you know damn well it's not.
> 
> God bless america?
> 
> Damned right.
Click to expand...


good soliders are not the concern


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah the van...I see, no I didn't see any weapons around the van. I did see adults attempting to remove a person believed to be a wounded enemy combatant. With no idea if they were armed or were attempting to pick up arms from the battlefield. Again the pilots fired because they had cause. Not that I would want to have to make that decision.
Click to expand...



They had cause to fire because unarmed people tried helping unarmed people?  You can hear a pilot beg for someone to pick up a weapon so what "cause" are you referencing?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2204591 said:
			
		

> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2203186 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've evidence of this claim?
> 
> What heavily armed group? It was two guys in a van.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you missed the first part of the video showing the group of men with their AK47's and RPG launcher and the part where they were shredded by 30mm cannon fire.  At which point the 2 observers and their children came in to pick up the several hundred body parts for a proper Muslim burial and then they themselves came under devastating fire...thus ushering them on to their supposed paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that the people in the van, who happened by later, were not arm and posed no threat?
Click to expand...


They didn't just happen by....they knew the terrorists who were giving an interview to those reporters then after their bodies were holed by 1 1/4 inch diameter exploding projectiles their unfortunate friend/relatives became one with them in paradise.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of fantasy do you live in to claim my argument was destroyed with facts you fuxxing bitch?  The video proves the slaughter was avoidable.  It proves innocent UNARMED people were killed and wounded.
> 
> My argument has not changed.  It is your spin that makes you so damn dizzy.  Ie:
> 
> What the fuck does your "savage" comment have to do with anything?  It was an unarmed man trying to help another unarmed man who just got shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the *apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit*.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
Click to expand...


Excellent shooting by the extremely professional Warrant Officer pilot and Weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a FREE FIRE zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2204591 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you missed the first part of the video showing the group of men with their AK47's and RPG launcher and the part where they were shredded by 30mm cannon fire.  At which point the 2 observers and their children came in to pick up the several hundred body parts for a proper Muslim burial and then they themselves came under devastating fire...thus ushering them on to their supposed paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the people in the van, who happened by later, were not arm and posed no threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't just happen by....they knew the terrorists who were giving an interview to those reporters then after their bodies were holed by 1 1/4 inch diameter exploding projectiles their unfortunate friend/relatives became one with them in paradise.
Click to expand...



You know this.....how?  You don't.  Iz prolly some bowlshit you read off a blog and you want to claim it as fact.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw AK's in the video. they were not unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the *apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit*.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent shooting by the extremely professional Warrant Officer pilot and Weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a FREE FIRE zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
Click to expand...


Your sickness actually transforms a bloody slaughter into your own personal pornography funhouse.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the *apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit*.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent shooting by the extremely professional Warrant Officer pilot and Weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a FREE FIRE zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your sickness actually transforms a bloody slaughter into your own personal pornography funhouse.
Click to expand...


Just as your utter stupidity and ignorance relegates you to the bottom rung of society's ladder.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

PatekPhilippe said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2204591 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you missed the first part of the video showing the group of men with their AK47's and RPG launcher and the part where they were shredded by 30mm cannon fire.  At which point the 2 observers and their children came in to pick up the several hundred body parts for a proper Muslim burial and then they themselves came under devastating fire...thus ushering them on to their supposed paradise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that the people in the van, who happened by later, were not arm and posed no threat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't just happen by....they knew the terrorists who were giving an interview to those reporters then after their bodies were holed by 1 1/4 inch diameter exploding projectiles their unfortunate friend/relatives became one with them in paradise.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the men who shot them had any reason to believe they knew the wounded man and posed any threat or were enemy combatants?


----------



## eots

patekphilippe said:


> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfc ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> i saw ak's in the video. They were not unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> state the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the *apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit*.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> excellent shooting by the extremely professional warrant officer pilot and weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a free fire zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
Click to expand...


nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  The military cannot locate the video but jawa report can?  How the fuk do nut licking jackasses like you even pretend to debate politics with any fictional version of sincerity?
> Http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iraq_video
> 
> What I am pointing out is you are screaming about a video from one of the most biased blogs on the net but you don't question it's authenticity because you like what you see.  You're no different than troofers who quote alex jones as rock solid proof explosives were used on the towers.
> 
> When you have a credible source and/or independent verification of the video let us know but don't expect everyone else to fall for your gawking bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having problems with comprehension?
> 
> The proof is the video itself you stupid shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must be why credible sources are reporting on it.  Shiggles!  That hasn't happened.
> 
> Where did jawa get the video?  The saddest part of that question is you can't answer without research because you didn't even ask yourself that fundamental question.
Click to expand...



HeyZEUS you are one stupid shit.

Jawa just looked at the exact same video that was posted and said "Hey, anyone notice the timecode discrepancy yet?"

What is this...3 posts...4? Showing that you are too dumb to accept the evidence that Wiki itself posted. 

But go ahead denying that a discrepancy exists...just makes you look dumber and dumber by the post. Either that or you realize that the evidence is undeniable, so you just choose to completely ignore it. 

Your choice. Either you are stupid, or you are just flat out ignoring it.

I'm voting for a combination of both.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> patekphilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> curvelight said:
> 
> 
> 
> state the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the *apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit*.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> excellent shooting by the extremely professional warrant officer pilot and weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a free fire zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
Click to expand...


This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.


----------



## eots

crimsonwhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patekphilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> excellent shooting by the extremely professional warrant officer pilot and weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a free fire zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
Click to expand...


*truth hurts*

*Military Training Is Just a Game
Associated Press  10.03.03 *



Hunched with his troops in a dusty, wind-swept courtyard, the squad leader signals the soldiers to line up against a wall. Clasping automatic weapons, they inch single-file toward a sandy road lined with swaying palm trees. 

The squad leader orders a point man to peer around the corner, his quick glance revealing several foes lying in wait behind a smoldering car. A few hand signals, a quick flash of gunfire, and it's over. 

The enemy is defeated, but no blood is spilled, no bullet casings spent: All the action is in an upcoming Xbox-based training simulator for the military, called Full Spectrum Warrior. 

Increasingly, the Pentagon is joining forces with the video-game industry to train and recruit soldiers. The Army considers such simulators vital for recruits who've been weaned on shoot'em-up games. 

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2003/10/60688


----------



## CrimsonWhite

eots said:


> crimsonwhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *truth hurts*
> 
> *Military Training Is Just a Game
> Associated Press  10.03.03 *
> 
> 
> 
> Hunched with his troops in a dusty, wind-swept courtyard, the squad leader signals the soldiers to line up against a wall. Clasping automatic weapons, they inch single-file toward a sandy road lined with swaying palm trees.
> 
> The squad leader orders a point man to peer around the corner, his quick glance revealing several foes lying in wait behind a smoldering car. A few hand signals, a quick flash of gunfire, and it's over.
> 
> The enemy is defeated, but no blood is spilled, no bullet casings spent: All the action is in an upcoming Xbox-based training simulator for the military, called Full Spectrum Warrior.
> 
> Increasingly, the Pentagon is joining forces with the video-game industry to train and recruit soldiers. The Army considers such simulators vital for recruits who've been weaned on shoot'em-up games.
> 
> Military Training Is Just a Game
Click to expand...


Yeah. Because a combat simulator is the same as Call of Duty on Xbox.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> crimsonwhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> this comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *truth hurts*
> 
> *Military Training Is Just a Game
> Associated Press  10.03.03 *
> 
> 
> 
> Hunched with his troops in a dusty, wind-swept courtyard, the squad leader signals the soldiers to line up against a wall. Clasping automatic weapons, they inch single-file toward a sandy road lined with swaying palm trees.
> 
> The squad leader orders a point man to peer around the corner, his quick glance revealing several foes lying in wait behind a smoldering car. A few hand signals, a quick flash of gunfire, and it's over.
> 
> The enemy is defeated, but no blood is spilled, no bullet casings spent: All the action is in an upcoming Xbox-based training simulator for the military, called Full Spectrum Warrior.
> 
> Increasingly, the Pentagon is joining forces with the video-game industry to train and recruit soldiers. The Army considers such simulators vital for recruits who've been weaned on shoot'em-up games.
> 
> Military Training Is Just a Game
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah. Because a combat simulator is the same as Call of Duty on Xbox.
Click to expand...

Full Spectrum Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Download Full Spectrum Warrior


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patekphilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> excellent shooting by the extremely professional warrant officer pilot and weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a free fire zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
Click to expand...


Then the scumbag eots negged me for that post...and had the gall to call me a loser...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA   eots must be one of those code pink psychos...


----------



## Liability

PatekPhilippe said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the scumbag eots negged me for that post...and had the gall to call me a loser...BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA   eots must be one of those code pink psychos...
Click to expand...




No worries.  Nobody with a functioning braincell takes seriously anything said or done by id-eots.


----------



## geauxtohell

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2205699 said:
			
		

> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again the pilots fired because they had cause
> 
> 
> 
> We've been asking for the cause for firing on the van and nobody has provided any.
Click to expand...


What did the 15-6 say?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> State the exact time you see anyone getting out of the van with a weapon.  You are also ignoring the fact that after the apaches opened fire they did not receive any return fire and neither did the ground unit.  There is no reasonable explanation why the apaches kept firing after the first time.  They did it because they could.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you cling to your asinine, and wrong, position that a unit has to be taking fire before they can engage...............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the post where I said a unit "has to be taking fire" before they can engage.  This oughta be fun.....
Click to expand...




> The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions.* Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views* but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.
> 
> One way to engage this group would have been to fire *warning shots* around them on the ground. *Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force.* With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.





> I didn't ask that. I asked for you* to show where our troops were engaged.* It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths. *Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?*



http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192025-post194.html

You'll continue to play your silly semantics games.  It's clear that you think, short of the helicopters or soldiers being engaged first, that there was no justification to fire.  As has been pointed out to you, numerous times, that is not, and has never been, a requirement for engagement.  You'll continue to ignore it, but the precedent you want to create puts our soldiers in un-necessary danger.  You can continue to piss and moan about this shit, I could care less.  I am just glad you are not in a position to make any actual decisions. 

BTW, if you think any insurgent with 1/2 a brain is going to engage an apache (that is probably 1.5 kilometers away), you are a real dumb fuck.  Further proof that you don't know shit about how it works on the ground. 


On that now, and just for fun, here are you claims of having been in "similar situations", which we know now is utter bullshit.  

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192005-post192.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2193165-post224.html

Finally, I am still laughing my ass off about "warning shots".


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having problems with comprehension?
> 
> The proof is the video itself you stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That must be why credible sources are reporting on it.  Shiggles!  That hasn't happened.
> 
> Where did jawa get the video?  The saddest part of that question is you can't answer without research because you didn't even ask yourself that fundamental question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HeyZEUS you are one stupid shit.
> 
> Jawa just looked at the exact same video that was posted and said "Hey, anyone notice the timecode discrepancy yet?"
> 
> What is this...3 posts...4? Showing that you are too dumb to accept the evidence that Wiki itself posted.
> 
> But go ahead denying that a discrepancy exists...just makes you look dumber and dumber by the post. Either that or you realize that the evidence is undeniable, so you just choose to completely ignore it.
> 
> Your choice. Either you are stupid, or you are just flat out ignoring it.
> 
> I'm voting for a combination of both.
Click to expand...



Finally!  Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.

Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.

Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me.  Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you cling to your asinine, and wrong, position that a unit has to be taking fire before they can engage...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote the post where I said a unit "has to be taking fire" before they can engage.  This oughta be fun.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The civilians were milling around in a very casual manner without taking defensive or offensive positions.* Had this been a situation where there was a firefight I would agree with your views* but it's obvious these pilots were saturated with a desire to shoot regardless of the facts or ROE.
> 
> One way to engage this group would have been to fire *warning shots* around them on the ground. *Had they been the enemy they would have responded with force.* With ground forces approaching there were reasonable ways to handle it without outright murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask that. I asked for you* to show where our troops were engaged.* It's also pretty damn difficult to mistake a camera for an rpg considering the obvious difference in lengths. *Even if he thought it was an rpg what actions were taken by the civilians that created a threat?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192025-post194.html
> 
> You'll continue to play your silly semantics games.  It's clear that you think, short of the helicopters or soldiers being engaged first, that there was no justification to fire.  As has been pointed out to you, numerous times, that is not, and has never been, a requirement for engagement.  You'll continue to ignore it, but the precedent you want to create puts our soldiers in un-necessary danger.  You can continue to piss and moan about this shit, I could care less.  I am just glad you are not in a position to make any actual decisions.
> 
> BTW, if you think any insurgent with 1/2 a brain is going to engage an apache (that is probably 1.5 kilometers away), you are a real dumb fuck.  Further proof that you don't know shit about how it works on the ground.
> 
> 
> On that now, and just for fun, here are you claims of having been in "similar situations", which we know now is utter bullshit.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2192005-post192.html
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/2193165-post224.html
> 
> Finally, I am still laughing my ass off about "warning shots".
Click to expand...


Even when you cannot prove your claim you pretend to.  What the fuk is wrong with ***** like you?  Obviously you put words in others mouths because you aren't bright enough for an honest debate.  And you ignore facts you do not like.  I already posted a link proving the apache gun can and has been used specifically to fire warning shots but you go on living in denial bitch.


----------



## EFoxwell

CrimsonWhite said:


> Sorry, but that looked to me like a successful engagement of insurgents. It sucks that the reporter was killed and it sucks even worse that they were trying to remove bodies and weapons in a hot zone with kids in the car. But when you bring your kids to war, what do you expect?
> 
> I feel for the guys that had to pull the trigger. They laughed in the video, but keep in mind where their adrenaline level was at that moment. They were pumped up. They have to be to pull the trigger. The problems start when they come down. I feel for these guys for they had to do. It is despicable, yes, but necessary.
> 
> BTW, I bet that douchenozzle armchair warrior in your video has the high score on Call of Duty 4.



Agreed. I love how people have totally turned on soldiers who fight an enemy that wears no uniform. It isn't pretty, but it is life.


----------



## CurveLight

EFoxwell said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that looked to me like a successful engagement of insurgents. It sucks that the reporter was killed and it sucks even worse that they were trying to remove bodies and weapons in a hot zone with kids in the car. But when you bring your kids to war, what do you expect?
> 
> I feel for the guys that had to pull the trigger. They laughed in the video, but keep in mind where their adrenaline level was at that moment. They were pumped up. They have to be to pull the trigger. The problems start when they come down. I feel for these guys for they had to do. It is despicable, yes, but necessary.
> 
> BTW, I bet that douchenozzle armchair warrior in your video has the high score on Call of Duty 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. I love how people have totally turned on soldiers who fight an enemy that wears no uniform. It isn't pretty, but it is life.
Click to expand...



Since when did valid criticism become "turning" on Soldiers?  You partisan fuks are absurd.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Even when you cannot prove your claim you pretend to.  What the fuk is wrong with ***** like you?



So, you don't claim the ROE was violated here?  You are a professional message board fence sitter, so I operated off the assumption that you felt rules had been violated here because the men that were engaged hadn't opened fire.

Clarification on your part, por favor.  



> Obviously you put words in others mouths because you aren't bright enough for an honest debate.



Ironic.  I already caught you doing that, and called you out on it, and it was much more blatant than anything you've attributed to me.  



> And you ignore facts you do not like.  I already posted a link proving the apache gun can and has been used specifically to fire warning shots but you go on living in denial bitch.



If you can find doctrine that supports that the Apache 30 mm cannon is authorized for "warning shots" by American pilots, I'll change my tune.  A single anecdote from a different Army isn't exactly conclusive proof that your Monday morning quarterback option was a viable option.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when you cannot prove your claim you pretend to.  What the fuk is wrong with ***** like you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you don't claim the ROE was violated here?  You are a professional message board fence sitter, so I operated off the assumption that you felt rules had been violated here because the men that were engaged hadn't opened fire.
> 
> Clarification on your part, por favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you put words in others mouths because you aren't bright enough for an honest debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic.  I already caught you doing that, and called you out on it, and it was much more blatant than anything you've attributed to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ignore facts you do not like.  I already posted a link proving the apache gun can and has been used specifically to fire warning shots but you go on living in denial bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can find doctrine that supports that the Apache 30 mm cannon is authorized for "warning shots" by American pilots, I'll change my tune.  A single anecdote from a different Army isn't exactly conclusive proof that your Monday morning quarterback option was a viable option.
Click to expand...



I've made my position clear from the beginning and it isn't my responsibility to keep track of what you read.  Either stop making assumptions and false accusations or read.

So after I show it is realistic to fire warning shots from the apache you now want "Doctrine?"  Rotfl....do you have any fuxxing clue about military life?  Hell, even if I wasted the time looking for a specific doctrine you'd try to dismiss it by claiming it is inaccurate because one of the editors had too much pocket lint.  Face it jackass, you tried to claim it was a silly or laughable idea of using the apache gun to fire warning shots and after I prove it has been used in that specific manner in an actual battle you ignore it because you're too fuxxing immature to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I've made my position clear from the beginning and it isn't my responsibility to keep track of what you read.  Either stop making assumptions and false accusations or read.



Like I said, you like to play semantics games on here and then cry foul when someone "misrepresents" you.  Your refusal to answer a simple question only affirms that.

It also prevents you from being put into a corner because you and I both know that the ROE wasn't violated here and the pilots committed no criminal or negligent act.

Upon reaching that conclusion, we are basically left with the fact that you disapprove of what they did.  Well whoop-de-fucking doo.  Your complaint is noted and is valued for what it is worth.  



> So after I show it is realistic to fire warning shots from the apache you now want "Doctrine?"  Rotfl....do you have any fuxxing clue about military life?



Yeah, the military I was in conducted operations to standards and doctrines that were in all those field manuals that you probably never read.  

The whining from you here is too funny.  You know as well as I that I never stated an Apache main gun couldn't (as in physically impossible) fire warning shots.  I stated we don't use it to do that, because it is fucking stupid considering that it is an area-kill weapon.  



> Hell, even if I wasted the time looking for a specific doctrine you'd try to dismiss it by claiming it is inaccurate because one of the editors had too much pocket lint.



You can't really argue with official military doctrine.  



> Face it jackass, you tried to claim it was a silly or laughable idea of using the apache gun to fire warning shots and after I prove it has been used in that specific manner in an actual battle you ignore it because you're too fuxxing immature to admit when you are wrong.



It is laughable.  

Most of your perceptions and claims on what should go on outside of the wire have been laughable.  Of course, I'd expect nothing less from such a fine rear echelon mother-fucker like yourself.  You are worse than the people who have never deployed, because you think you know something.  

You don't know shit.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill....if they move after you've shot them...shoot them again until they stop moving.


----------



## Kalam

PatekPhilippe said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill



I didn't see any engagement until the Crusaders opted to fire on non-threatening targets. Also, since when does carrying around a decades-old rifle in a war zone constitute being "heavily armed"? Seen many helicopters taken down by small arms fire, chief?


----------



## Gadawg73

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> patekphilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> excellent shooting by the extremely professional warrant officer pilot and weapo prevented any return fire....plus....when you're in a free fire zone anything that moves is subjected to come under fire for cause as determined by the pilot and the weapo....they are outstanding shots by the way....as evidenced by the plethora of body parts strewn over the field of battle.  War sucks...especially when you are on the losing side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
Click to expand...


My exact thoughts also when I saw that.
I always sit these out until after all of the 4th string rec league QBing comments come out. 
Tactics are taught and mastered but the root skill first reaction in all of our combat troops is Kill or Be Killed. When the other guy has the same thing on his mind WTF is wrong with our guys being first on the trigger? Friendlies, civies getting shot when it is on rock and roll? 
In a shooting war it is going to happen sooner or later. It is part of it. 
I am damn proud to live in a country where some young person goes ten thousand miles away and has the courage to do it. 
Next time you others are quick to judge remember these soldiers have families and are real people. You are always scared shitless when it starts. These soldiers are no different.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made my position clear from the beginning and it isn't my responsibility to keep track of what you read.  Either stop making assumptions and false accusations or read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you like to play semantics games on here and then cry foul when someone "misrepresents" you.  Your refusal to answer a simple question only affirms that.
> 
> It also prevents you from being put into a corner because you and I both know that the ROE wasn't violated here and the pilots committed no criminal or negligent act.
> 
> Upon reaching that conclusion, we are basically left with the fact that you disapprove of what they did.  Well whoop-de-fucking doo.  Your complaint is noted and is valued for what it is worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So after I show it is realistic to fire warning shots from the apache you now want "Doctrine?"  Rotfl....do you have any fuxxing clue about military life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, the military I was in conducted operations to standards and doctrines that were in all those field manuals that you probably never read.
> 
> The whining from you here is too funny.  You know as well as I that I never stated an Apache main gun couldn't (as in physically impossible) fire warning shots.  I stated we don't use it to do that, because it is fucking stupid considering that it is an area-kill weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, even if I wasted the time looking for a specific doctrine you'd try to dismiss it by claiming it is inaccurate because one of the editors had too much pocket lint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't really argue with official military doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it jackass, you tried to claim it was a silly or laughable idea of using the apache gun to fire warning shots and after I prove it has been used in that specific manner in an actual battle you ignore it because you're too fuxxing immature to admit when you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is laughable.
> 
> Most of your perceptions and claims on what should go on outside of the wire have been laughable.  Of course, I'd expect nothing less from such a fine rear echelon mother-fucker like yourself.  You are worse than the people who have never deployed, because you think you know something.
> 
> You don't know shit.
Click to expand...


You didn't say it was impossible but you made it clear you thought it was not possible:

P225
"Again.  Tell me you are fucking kidding.

The main gun on an Apache is an AREA-KILL weapon.  You don't fire "warning shots" with a belt fed weapon."

P321
"I couldn't think of a worse weapon to fire "warning shots" with."


Like I said, even after i've proven not only is it legit but actually done you do nothing but prance around like a little queen when you've been proven wrong.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill....if they move after you've shot them...shoot them again until they stop moving.




It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.


----------



## CurveLight

Gadawg73 said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My exact thoughts also when I saw that.
> I always sit these out until after all of the 4th string rec league QBing comments come out.
> Tactics are taught and mastered but the root skill first reaction in all of our combat troops is Kill or Be Killed. When the other guy has the same thing on his mind WTF is wrong with our guys being first on the trigger? Friendlies, civies getting shot when it is on rock and roll?
> In a shooting war it is going to happen sooner or later. It is part of it.
> I am damn proud to live in a country where some young person goes ten thousand miles away and has the courage to do it.
> Next time you others are quick to judge remember these soldiers have families and are real people. You are always scared shitless when it starts. These soldiers are no different.
Click to expand...


Did you watch the video at all?


----------



## eots

Gadawg73 said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> nothing any 12 yr old idiot child raised on video games couldn't do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My exact thoughts also when I saw that.
> I always sit these out until after all of the 4th string rec league QBing comments come out.
> Tactics are taught and mastered but the root skill first reaction in all of our combat troops is Kill or Be Killed. When the other guy has the same thing on his mind WTF is wrong with our guys being first on the trigger? Friendlies, civies getting shot when it is on rock and roll?
> In a shooting war it is going to happen sooner or later. It is part of it.
> I am damn proud to live in a country where some young person goes ten thousand miles away and has the courage to do it.
> Next time you others are quick to judge remember these soldiers have families and are real people. You are always scared shitless when it starts. These soldiers are no different.
Click to expand...


Yes indeed I feel for both the soldiers and the families and the years of anguish they will suffer as a result of  experiences such as these ,they also are victims


----------



## CurveLight

eots said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> This comment speaks volumes about you and your ilk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My exact thoughts also when I saw that.
> I always sit these out until after all of the 4th string rec league QBing comments come out.
> Tactics are taught and mastered but the root skill first reaction in all of our combat troops is Kill or Be Killed. When the other guy has the same thing on his mind WTF is wrong with our guys being first on the trigger? Friendlies, civies getting shot when it is on rock and roll?
> In a shooting war it is going to happen sooner or later. It is part of it.
> I am damn proud to live in a country where some young person goes ten thousand miles away and has the courage to do it.
> Next time you others are quick to judge remember these soldiers have families and are real people. You are always scared shitless when it starts. These soldiers are no different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed I feel for both the soldiers and the families and the years of anguish they will suffer as a result of  experiences such as these ,they also are victims
Click to expand...



While I stand by what I said earlier about them being prosecuted I am torn in how to approach solutions overall.  They did not follow the EOF within the ROE and this was not in a split second firefight like Haditha.  Anyone who has been in a combat zone can recognize stress levels in communications and these guys were not stressed.  They were not in a "kill or be killed" situation and the ground unit they were flying cover for were not under fire.

They did not make a positive enemy ID.  Early on we hear a pilot ask if there are any of our guys in that area and that was the deciding factor.  Why?  Because in that environment you can't tell who is enemy or friendly which is why the EOF in ROE needs the upmost respect.  There were Iraqi cops close enough to take the kids to the hospital and the ground unit was not on a time sensitive mission.  This was a patrol that got way out of hand and we can't keep excusing this behavior based on them being sent.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill....if they move after you've shot them...shoot them again until they stop moving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
Click to expand...


Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....

What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?

The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.


----------



## SFC Ollie

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill....if they move after you've shot them...shoot them again until they stop moving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
Click to expand...


I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.
Click to expand...


It's the new touchy feely military as envisioned by a stupid progressive....don't waste your time.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You didn't say it was impossible but you made it clear you thought it was not possible:



Does this statement make any fucking sense to anyone else?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My exact thoughts also when I saw that.
> I always sit these out until after all of the 4th string rec league QBing comments come out.
> Tactics are taught and mastered but the root skill first reaction in all of our combat troops is Kill or Be Killed. When the other guy has the same thing on his mind WTF is wrong with our guys being first on the trigger? Friendlies, civies getting shot when it is on rock and roll?
> In a shooting war it is going to happen sooner or later. It is part of it.
> I am damn proud to live in a country where some young person goes ten thousand miles away and has the courage to do it.
> Next time you others are quick to judge remember these soldiers have families and are real people. You are always scared shitless when it starts. These soldiers are no different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed I feel for both the soldiers and the families and the years of anguish they will suffer as a result of  experiences such as these ,they also are victims
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While I stand by what I said earlier about them being prosecuted I am torn in how to approach solutions overall.  They did not follow the EOF within the ROE and this was not in a split second firefight like Haditha.  Anyone who has been in a combat zone can recognize stress levels in communications and these guys were not stressed.  They were not in a "kill or be killed" situation and the ground unit they were flying cover for were not under fire.
> 
> They did not make a positive enemy ID.  Early on we hear a pilot ask if there are any of our guys in that area and that was the deciding factor.  Why?  Because in that environment you can't tell who is enemy or friendly which is why the EOF in ROE needs the upmost respect.  There were Iraqi cops close enough to take the kids to the hospital and the ground unit was not on a time sensitive mission.  This was a patrol that got way out of hand and we can't keep excusing this behavior based on them being sent.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you do think they violated the ROE and should be prosecuted?


----------



## SFC Ollie

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say it was impossible but you made it clear you thought it was not possible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this statement make any fucking sense to anyone else?
Click to expand...


It's from Bentlight, what do you think?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> 
> warning shots from a 30mm cannon.....typical left wing loon garbage.  When you're engaging a heavily armed enemy you shoot to kill....if they move after you've shot them...shoot them again until they stop moving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
Click to expand...



I already posted a link showing it has been used to fire warning shots you dumfuk.  What else you got?  If you look at the video you can see open areas around the group.....there was plenty of room to pop off a couple of shots.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.
Click to expand...


Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say it was impossible but you made it clear you thought it was not possible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this statement make any fucking sense to anyone else?
Click to expand...



Good job on editing my post to remove your own words that you are now running from like the pure cowardly **** you keep proving to be.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed I feel for both the soldiers and the families and the years of anguish they will suffer as a result of  experiences such as these ,they also are victims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I stand by what I said earlier about them being prosecuted I am torn in how to approach solutions overall.  They did not follow the EOF within the ROE and this was not in a split second firefight like Haditha.  Anyone who has been in a combat zone can recognize stress levels in communications and these guys were not stressed.  They were not in a "kill or be killed" situation and the ground unit they were flying cover for were not under fire.
> 
> They did not make a positive enemy ID.  Early on we hear a pilot ask if there are any of our guys in that area and that was the deciding factor.  Why?  Because in that environment you can't tell who is enemy or friendly which is why the EOF in ROE needs the upmost respect.  There were Iraqi cops close enough to take the kids to the hospital and the ground unit was not on a time sensitive mission.  This was a patrol that got way out of hand and we can't keep excusing this behavior based on them being sent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you do think they violated the ROE and should be prosecuted?
Click to expand...


I said that well over 300 posts ago.  Way to keep up dumass!


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.
Click to expand...


They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.

Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
Click to expand...



They did not positively ID them as enemies.  That is why this is such a huge issue. Dumfuk.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They did not positively ID them as enemies.  That is why this is such a huge issue. Dumfuk.
Click to expand...


Hey shit for brains, it's not a "huge" issue because the pilots were cleared in two 15-6 investigations.  

You can bitch about it all you want.  Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.  The matter doesn't suddenly become "criminal" because it's goes in front of the American public.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I stand by what I said earlier about them being prosecuted I am torn in how to approach solutions overall.  They did not follow the EOF within the ROE and this was not in a split second firefight like Haditha.  Anyone who has been in a combat zone can recognize stress levels in communications and these guys were not stressed.  They were not in a "kill or be killed" situation and the ground unit they were flying cover for were not under fire.
> 
> They did not make a positive enemy ID.  Early on we hear a pilot ask if there are any of our guys in that area and that was the deciding factor.  Why?  Because in that environment you can't tell who is enemy or friendly which is why the EOF in ROE needs the upmost respect.  There were Iraqi cops close enough to take the kids to the hospital and the ground unit was not on a time sensitive mission.  This was a patrol that got way out of hand and we can't keep excusing this behavior based on them being sent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you do think they violated the ROE and should be prosecuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that well over 300 posts ago.  Way to keep up dumass!
Click to expand...


How did they specifically violate the ROE?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't say it was impossible but you made it clear you thought it was not possible:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this statement make any fucking sense to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on editing my post to remove your own words that you are now running from like the pure cowardly **** you keep proving to be.
Click to expand...


My words are still there for anyone that cares to scroll back and see them.  I was just more amused at your idiotic statement.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this statement make any fucking sense to anyone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good job on editing my post to remove your own words that you are now running from like the pure cowardly **** you keep proving to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My words are still there for anyone that cares to scroll back and see them.  I was just more amused at your idiotic statement.
Click to expand...


Editing out your words changes the meaning of my post...but you knew that which is exactly why dishonest cowards like you are bitches.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you do think they violated the ROE and should be prosecuted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said that well over 300 posts ago.  Way to keep up dumass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did they specifically violate the ROE?
Click to expand...


You just proved you will edit my posts to suit your needs.  If an honest person asks I will gladly answer.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that well over 300 posts ago.  Way to keep up dumass!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did they specifically violate the ROE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just proved you will edit my posts to suit your needs.  If an honest person asks I will gladly answer.
Click to expand...


You are such a chickenshit.  Fine, I'll post around you.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did they specifically violate the ROE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you will edit my posts to suit your needs.  If an honest person asks I will gladly answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a chickenshit.  Fine, I'll post around you.
Click to expand...


Lol...it would be pretty stoopid to expect honesty from you after you just proved your dishonesty.  It's not being chickenshit to point out you're a dishonest ****.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not positively ID them as enemies.  That is why this is such a huge issue. Dumfuk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey shit for brains, it's not a "huge" issue because the pilots were cleared in two 15-6 investigations.
> 
> You can bitch about it all you want.  Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.  The matter doesn't suddenly become "criminal" because it's goes in front of the American public.
Click to expand...



My opinion carries enough weight that it scares you into rewriting my posts to fit your desires.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired right now , but for some reason I just can't think of any reason these pilots would have wanted to fire a warning shot? So the insurgents could take cover? WTF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
Click to expand...


This is like trying to explain quantum physics to a pre-schooler.  CL doesn't understand the ROE and continually makes idiotic statements that in no way reflect any sort of operational reality.  He seems to be under the illusions that the pilots have to wait for suspected insurgents to engage/kill soldiers before they can fire on them (thus negating the role of CAS) or that they should utilize their magic powers to discern who is and isn't bad.  He has failed to read/comprehend the 15-6 that fully explains the situation on the ground, that details that Bushmaster had been in contact and when crazyhorse checked on, they were actively looking for elements that were attacking bushmaster or might be trying to re-inforce.  

He has claims that he has some special knowledge of these types of situations, but in reality he was a REMF that has never remotely even been in a situation like this.  

He's an angry little man, so when his stupidity is pointed out, he responds in an angry manner.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not positively ID them as enemies.  That is why this is such a huge issue. Dumfuk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey shit for brains, it's not a "huge" issue because the pilots were cleared in two 15-6 investigations.
> 
> You can bitch about it all you want.  Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.  The matter doesn't suddenly become "criminal" because it's goes in front of the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion carries enough weight that it scares you into rewriting my posts to fit your desires.
Click to expand...


I didn't re-write shit, you fuck wit.  Nor did I change the context of your post by editing it.  

Your opinion is irrelevant on the matter.  (Just as it is on the 9-11 issue).  Thus, you are relegated to standing in the corner and throwing a hissy fit.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they couldn't positively ID them as the enemy you dumfuk.  I suppose in your twisted mind it's better to just kill people when you can't verify who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is like trying to explain quantum physics to a pre-schooler.  CL doesn't understand the ROE and continually makes idiotic statements that in no way reflect any sort of operational reality.  He seems to be under the illusions that the pilots have to wait for suspected insurgents to engage/kill soldiers before they can fire on them (thus negating the role of CAS) or that they should utilize their magic powers to discern who is and isn't bad.  He has failed to read/comprehend the 15-6 that fully explains the situation on the ground, that details that Bushmaster had been in contact and when crazyhorse checked on, they were actively looking for elements that were attacking bushmaster or might be trying to re-inforce.
> 
> He has claims that he has some special knowledge of these types of situations, but in reality he was a REMF that has never remotely even been in a situation like this.
> 
> He's an angry little man, so when his stupidity is pointed out, he responds in an angry manner.
Click to expand...




From my post #116

"I know it pisses people off they can't ignore my opinion based on the "you have not been there" defense and I'm guessing some are so desperately pathetic they will accuse me of lying.  It only shows the depths of your denial."

'nuff said.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just proved you will edit my posts to suit your needs.  If an honest person asks I will gladly answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a chickenshit.  Fine, I'll post around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol...it would be pretty stoopid to expect honesty from you after you just proved your dishonesty.  It's not being chickenshit to point out you're a dishonest ****.
Click to expand...


If you are going to ignore my posts, then be a man of your word and do it.

Refusing to acknowledge any of the substantive issues I post while taunting just makes you look like a pussy.  

BTW, long before you had to grasp at straws for a reason to dismiss what I am saying (without refuting it) I caught and called you on your dishonesty.  

I didn't whine about it incessantly, because I don't need rhetorical crutches. 

You obviously do.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey shit for brains, it's not a "huge" issue because the pilots were cleared in two 15-6 investigations.
> 
> You can bitch about it all you want.  Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.  The matter doesn't suddenly become "criminal" because it's goes in front of the American public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion carries enough weight that it scares you into rewriting my posts to fit your desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't re-write shit, you fuck wit.  Nor did I change the context of your post by editing it.
> 
> Your opinion is irrelevant on the matter.  (Just as it is on the 9-11 issue).  Thus, you are relegated to standing in the corner and throwing a hissy fit.
Click to expand...


Why keep proving you are dishonest?  You purposefully edited my post....that is rewriting it you useless twat.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> They positively identified at least 2 AK47's and identified one person crouching behind a building and pointing what appeared to be a RPG at infantry troops a block away. Sorry for them but that is as positive as you need to be when troops lives are in the balance.
> 
> Why is it everyone who disagrees with you is a dumfuk? And just what is a dumfuk anyway? I mean we understand that you are one dumb fucker, but ; never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is like trying to explain quantum physics to a pre-schooler.  CL doesn't understand the ROE and continually makes idiotic statements that in no way reflect any sort of operational reality.  He seems to be under the illusions that the pilots have to wait for suspected insurgents to engage/kill soldiers before they can fire on them (thus negating the role of CAS) or that they should utilize their magic powers to discern who is and isn't bad.  He has failed to read/comprehend the 15-6 that fully explains the situation on the ground, that details that Bushmaster had been in contact and when crazyhorse checked on, they were actively looking for elements that were attacking bushmaster or might be trying to re-inforce.
> 
> He has claims that he has some special knowledge of these types of situations, but in reality he was a REMF that has never remotely even been in a situation like this.
> 
> He's an angry little man, so when his stupidity is pointed out, he responds in an angry manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my post #116
> 
> "I know it pisses people off they can't ignore my opinion based on the "you have not been there" defense and I'm guessing some are so desperately pathetic they will accuse me of lying.  It only shows the depths of your denial."
> 
> 'nuff said.
Click to expand...


LMAO.  Which was only an issue, because you tried to embellish the details of your combat experience.  

You got called on it.

Now, ironically, you are running around and calling others liars.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Why keep proving you are dishonest?  You purposefully edited my post....that is rewriting it you useless twat.



Seriously.  It must be hard work to act so fucking retarded.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a chickenshit.  Fine, I'll post around you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...it would be pretty stoopid to expect honesty from you after you just proved your dishonesty.  It's not being chickenshit to point out you're a dishonest ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to ignore my posts, then be a man of your word and do it.
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge any of the substantive issues I post while taunting just makes you look like a pussy.
> 
> BTW, long before you had to grasp at straws for a reason to dismiss what I am saying (without refuting it) I caught and called you on your dishonesty.
> 
> I didn't whine about it incessantly, because I don't need rhetorical crutches.
> 
> You obviously do.
Click to expand...


Never said I was going to ignore your posts.  But I'm grateful for you repeatedly proving your dishonesty.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol...it would be pretty stoopid to expect honesty from you after you just proved your dishonesty.  It's not being chickenshit to point out you're a dishonest ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to ignore my posts, then be a man of your word and do it.
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge any of the substantive issues I post while taunting just makes you look like a pussy.
> 
> BTW, long before you had to grasp at straws for a reason to dismiss what I am saying (without refuting it) I caught and called you on your dishonesty.
> 
> I didn't whine about it incessantly, because I don't need rhetorical crutches.
> 
> You obviously do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I was going to ignore your posts.  But I'm grateful for you repeatedly proving your dishonesty.
Click to expand...


So why don't you tell us all about this "similar situation" that you were in, Curvelight?  

Since we are on the issue of honesty.

Because as it stands, weighing to decision to shoot or hand out MREs to surrendering Iraqi soldiers isn't quite the same thing.  

And you fucking know it.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like trying to explain quantum physics to a pre-schooler.  CL doesn't understand the ROE and continually makes idiotic statements that in no way reflect any sort of operational reality.  He seems to be under the illusions that the pilots have to wait for suspected insurgents to engage/kill soldiers before they can fire on them (thus negating the role of CAS) or that they should utilize their magic powers to discern who is and isn't bad.  He has failed to read/comprehend the 15-6 that fully explains the situation on the ground, that details that Bushmaster had been in contact and when crazyhorse checked on, they were actively looking for elements that were attacking bushmaster or might be trying to re-inforce.
> 
> He has claims that he has some special knowledge of these types of situations, but in reality he was a REMF that has never remotely even been in a situation like this.
> 
> He's an angry little man, so when his stupidity is pointed out, he responds in an angry manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my post #116
> 
> "I know it pisses people off they can't ignore my opinion based on the "you have not been there" defense and I'm guessing some are so desperately pathetic they will accuse me of lying.  It only shows the depths of your denial."
> 
> 'nuff said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  Which was only an issue, because you tried to embellish the details of your combat experience.
> 
> You got called on it.
> 
> Now, ironically, you are running around and calling others liars.
Click to expand...



Know what's sad?  People are so fuxxing immature they don't care combat vets are accused of lying if they don't like the Vet's opinions.  I'm at odds with ollie on a bunch of issues but when people tried to be dishonest about his service I smacked em down for that bullshit.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to ignore my posts, then be a man of your word and do it.
> 
> Refusing to acknowledge any of the substantive issues I post while taunting just makes you look like a pussy.
> 
> BTW, long before you had to grasp at straws for a reason to dismiss what I am saying (without refuting it) I caught and called you on your dishonesty.
> 
> I didn't whine about it incessantly, because I don't need rhetorical crutches.
> 
> You obviously do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I was going to ignore your posts.  But I'm grateful for you repeatedly proving your dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why don't you tell us all about this "similar situation" that you were in, Curvelight?
> 
> Since we are on the issue of honesty.
> 
> Because as it stands, weighing to decision to shoot or hand out MREs to surrendering Iraqi soldiers isn't quite the same thing.
> 
> And you fucking know it.
Click to expand...



Quote the post where I said I handed out mre's to surrendering iraqi troops you lying ****.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It gets done with the 30mm you dumfuk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted a link showing it has been used to fire warning shots you dumfuk.  What else you got?  If you look at the video you can see open areas around the group.....there was plenty of room to pop off a couple of shots.
Click to expand...

You fire warning shots to disperse an angry crowd, not at suspected enemy forces


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> So why don't you tell us all about this "similar situation" that you were in, Curvelight?


 This ought to be good.....


----------



## Nonelitist

Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled.... 

Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.

Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.

I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Nonelitist said:


> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?



It was either an Al Qaeda recruiting video being made or, knowing Reuters, they were making an anti-American/the evil military piece for some liberal MSM outlet in the U.S.A.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2210477 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong dumb ass bitch....those are exploding rounds filled with anti personnel shrapnel or specifically designed to fragment into many pieces to KILL ANYTHING within a certain range...that's why in the video you see a round hit about 5 feet away from the heavily armed terrorist and he dropped like a sack of potatos...more than likely caused by his head intercepting a large piece of lead....
> 
> What were they supposed to do when they fired a warning shot...shoot into a house a few blocks away?
> 
> The more you post...the stupider everyone thinks you are....just shut up until you come back into reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted a link showing it has been used to fire warning shots you dumfuk.  What else you got?  If you look at the video you can see open areas around the group.....there was plenty of room to pop off a couple of shots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You fire warning shots to disperse an angry crowd, not at suspected enemy forces
Click to expand...



Then you don't know the EOF protocol in Iraq.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2210477 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already posted a link showing it has been used to fire warning shots you dumfuk.  What else you got?  If you look at the video you can see open areas around the group.....there was plenty of room to pop off a couple of shots.
> 
> 
> 
> You fire warning shots to disperse an angry crowd, not at suspected enemy forces
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know the EOF protocol in Iraq.
Click to expand...



Curve... people are pretty much ignoring what you say now, so move on to another topic where you can hate America.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?




Where is the documentation showing who they were?


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
Click to expand...


I don't understand your question.  Who are you referring to?


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
Click to expand...


What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Liability

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand your question.  Who are you referring to?
Click to expand...

  bent tight hasn't mastered the use of the indefinite pronoun.

But I can translate some of his gibberish into English sometimes.

It looks like he's trying to ask you for some documentary evidence that the guys HE claims were just innocent civilians and/or journalists were, instead, guys in the middle of attempting to engage U.S. military forces.

He apparently thinks these guys carry passports and official I.D. cards.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2210477 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fire warning shots to disperse an angry crowd, not at suspected enemy forces
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know the EOF protocol in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... people are pretty much ignoring what you say now, so move on to another topic where you can hate America.
Click to expand...



Dikwad ***** like you ignore any information you don like and replace available facts with fantasies.  You just proved that by saying it is "likely these guys were engaging US military" when.....not only do you have no evidence of that...but while we have actual video showing they were casually walking around when they got shot!  You fuxxing dumass!  Keep ignoring that with your middle school tactics of "nobody likes you."


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know the EOF protocol in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... people are pretty much ignoring what you say now, so move on to another topic where you can hate America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dikwad ***** like you ignore any information you don like and replace available facts with fantasies.  You just proved that by saying it is "likely these guys were engaging US military" when.....not only do you have no evidence of that...but while we have actual video showing they were casually walking around when they got shot!  You fuxxing dumass!  Keep ignoring that with your middle school tactics of "nobody likes you."
Click to expand...


Are you really this stupid?

The investigation showed that the military in the area was being engaged.  These dudes had weapons and were acting in a manner that suggested they were about to engage.
They were carrying weapons.

So move on from that argument.  As a human being, you are embarassing me.  I know it is hard to admit that this incident isn't what you had hoped it would be.  Just admit it and move on.  There will be other instances where you can assume your fellow Americans are worse human beings that homocidal terrorists.


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... now that Curvelight has been totally schooled....
> 
> Something else is bothering me.  It is very likely that these dudes that got killed by the Apache were engaging United States military.
> 
> Why were Reuters photographers with them?  Does that bother anyone else?  The military investigation, I believe, found that they were not wearing anythign that identified them as photographers.
> 
> I am not claiming they deserved to die.  But are photographers and reporters photographing and reporting from the side of the enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...



Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
Click to expand...



Wow.. you truly are hopeless and ignorant.

I am done with this thread.  

You are a supporter of terrorists and have a dislike of America.  I truly feel sorry for you and hope that you haven't reproduced.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curve... people are pretty much ignoring what you say now, so move on to another topic where you can hate America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dikwad ***** like you ignore any information you don like and replace available facts with fantasies.  You just proved that by saying it is "likely these guys were engaging US military" when.....not only do you have no evidence of that...but while we have actual video showing they were casually walking around when they got shot!  You fuxxing dumass!  Keep ignoring that with your middle school tactics of "nobody likes you."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you really this stupid?
> 
> The investigation showed that the military in the area was being engaged.  These dudes had weapons and were acting in a manner that suggested they were about to engage.
> They were carrying weapons.
> 
> So move on from that argument.  As a human being, you are embarassing me.  I know it is hard to admit that this incident isn't what you had hoped it would be.  Just admit it and move on.  There will be other instances where you can assume your fellow Americans are worse human beings that homocidal terrorists.
Click to expand...



Where in the video are they making any tactical moves?  

How the fuk is a group of ten guys with a minimum of 7 unarmed going to engage anyone?


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. you truly are hopeless and ignorant.
> 
> I am done with this thread.
> 
> You are a supporter of terrorists and have a dislike of America.  I truly feel sorry for you and hope that you haven't reproduced.
Click to expand...



ROTFL!  When you know you cannot provide evidence for your claim you run like a bitch so nobody is surprised you're running.....


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Know what's sad?  People are so fuxxing immature they don't care combat vets are accused of lying if they don't like the Vet's opinions.  I'm at odds with ollie on a bunch of issues but when people tried to be dishonest about his service I smacked em down for that bullshit.



No, what's sad is that you felt the need to embellish in order to judge these pilots with you "I've been in similar situations" comment.

As I said, you brought it up, we called you on it.  

Now go off and rant again about how dishonest I am.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Quote the post where I said I handed out mre's to surrendering iraqi troops you lying ****.



You didn't.  I was being snarky.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
Click to expand...


You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.  

Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.

Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
Click to expand...


That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.


----------



## Liability

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.
Click to expand...




bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.


----------



## geauxtohell

Liability said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what bent-dick wants or is advocating for.  Does he want the pilots prosecuted?  Does he want all Apaches in Iraq permanently grounded?  Does he want to further restrict the ROE?

What?

The only thing I know is that he's really, really pissed off about this.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.
Click to expand...


If only they had fired warning shots, the guys with weapons would have automatically dropped them and surrendered and the other unarmed people would have been so grateful for our benevolence that they would have started shitting gold bricks that were stamped and addressed to the U.S. Treasury.  

And when CL was loading up AH-1s in the first Iraq War, he sprinkled his magic pixie dust on the rounds so they only hit bad guys.  The other errant rounds spontaneously turned into rose petals.


----------



## Liability

geauxtohell said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bent tight is bent so tight he curves back on himself forming a circle -- a hole, so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what bent-dick wants or is advocating for.  Does he want the pilots prosecuted?  Does he want all Apaches in Iraq permanently grounded?  Does he want to further restrict the ROE?
> 
> What?
> 
> The only thing I know is that he's really, really pissed off about this.
Click to expand...


I cannot tell you what's on _bent tight_'s "mind," precisely, since my ability to translate his gibberish into English is limited by the fact that he's really quite incoherent.

I agree he does appear to be worked up over the fact that sometimes innocents get killed in time of war.   

I can speculate that you will be on the receiving end, now, of one of his patented "*you stoopid fuxxing *****" messages.  Naturally, I'm even more likely to get one of those messages from him, now.  

Oh, the horror.  The horror.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Know what's sad?  People are so fuxxing immature they don't care combat vets are accused of lying if they don't like the Vet's opinions.  I'm at odds with ollie on a bunch of issues but when people tried to be dishonest about his service I smacked em down for that bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what's sad is that you felt the need to embellish in order to judge these pilots with you "I've been in similar situations" comment.
> 
> As I said, you brought it up, we called you on it.
> 
> Now go off and rant again about how dishonest I am.
Click to expand...


Someone forgot to send me the memo that says I'm supposed to get all upset by your repeated accusations.  I said what needed to be said on that in 116.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.
> 
> Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.
> 
> Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.
Click to expand...


These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk.  How can you make such a bowlshit statement?


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even correlate to the question you asked. You have spent this entire thread talking yourself in circles and haven't convinced anyone of anything.
Click to expand...


It speaks directly to the point you reetarwd.  We know at best there were 3 weapons, and I've yet to see any solid evidence weapons were present.  (We know the camera equipment was blamed for the mistake). So think about it dumfuk....even giving your argument the benefit of the doubt and saying there were three weapons for the group of civilians, what is the evidence they were all insurgents?  Did you even think to ask that? Minus the reuters journalists you've got more than 50% of unarmed civilians on the scene.  What were they going to do?  Throw hummus?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.
> 
> Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.
> 
> Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk.  How can you make such a bowlshit statement?
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension is your friend.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, shit-for-brains, that's why you don't use an area kill weapon to engage point targets.
> 
> Or maybe you just think the American forces should have miracled a fuckign sniper up on the roof to selectively engage the guys with weapons.
> 
> Or maybe you can just get it through your dense skull that innocent people are inadvertently killed in combat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These people were not inadvertently killed you dumfuk.  How can you make such a bowlshit statement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend.
Click to expand...


The pilots targeted every single person in their sights you reetawrded spunk funk.  What in the hell is "inadvertent" about putting your crosshairs on people and pulling the trigger.

I understand you have this adolescent undertow compelling you to try and convince yourself you were correct when you said the apache gun can't be used to fire warning shots but that does not change nor dismiss the fact I've already proven it has been used in a similar situation where civilians were present and the pilots didn't know if they were friendly or not.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me.  Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.



So you whine that you made a mistake and admitted it, but I don't admit mine?

If you were mistaken, that means I was CORRECT you dumb shit. There is no mistake of mine to admit.

But congrats on embracing your stupidity wholeheartedly.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally!  Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me.  Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you whine that you made a mistake and admitted it, but I don't admit mine?
> 
> If you were mistaken, that means I was CORRECT you dumb shit. There is no mistake of mine to admit.
> 
> But congrats on embracing your stupidity wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...


I could point out your fuk ups but whatz the point?  You'd ignore them and whine like the stoopid bitch you love to be.

You have not proven your claim dipfuk.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the documentation showing who they were?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
Click to expand...



When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.

Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212468 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.
> 
> Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?
Click to expand...



Did you stretch first?  Reaching that far can tear tendons unless you properly warm up.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...


----------



## eots

PatekPhilippe said:


> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...



more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...



Gosh you are so cool.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

eots said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
Click to expand...


Whatever bossy bottom.


----------



## CurveLight

eots said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
Click to expand...


This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
Click to expand...


EEEEWWWWWWW.....shoot over there...we want to warn the terrorists.... EEEEEEWWWWWWW...I just hate all that blood...EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever bossy bottom.
Click to expand...


I can't believe someone with your genius let's others read your posts for free.  It is so generous and kind.


----------



## CrimsonWhite

CurveLight said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> If CurveLight was in charge of recruiting this is what the Armed Forces would look like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
Click to expand...


Fuck off. You have been bested all over this thread. You are simply too fucking stupid to realize it.


----------



## eots

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EEEEWWWWWWW.....shoot over there...we want to warn the terrorists.... EEEEEEWWWWWWW...I just hate all that blood...EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!
Click to expand...


*freak*


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EEEEWWWWWWW.....shoot over there...we want to warn the terrorists.... EEEEEEWWWWWWW...I just hate all that blood...EEEEWWWWWW!!!!!
Click to expand...



Even your strawmen are mentally challenged.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212468 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the fuk you think Einstein?  There isn't much evidence for weapons and from what we know there were possibly 3 identified.  That means out of a group of 12 people that got shot 75% were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.
> 
> Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stretch first?  Reaching that far can tear tendons unless you properly warm up.
Click to expand...


So being among a group of armed insurgents with nothing to identify yourself as anything but another insurgent ready to pick up the next man's rifle doesn't mean that you're also liable to get shot when the group is fired upon?


----------



## CurveLight

CrimsonWhite said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> more of patackophillas homosexual projections I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off. You have been bested all over this thread. You are simply too fucking stupid to realize it.
Click to expand...


Really?  You whined early on about an unedited version so I posted the 38 minute version and you.....kept on whining.  You haven't done anything in this thread but suck dick, make false claims, backpedal on claims, and ignored all the facts as we know them.  You have the fuxxing video smack in your face but you choose to hide behind bullshit blogs that make absurd claims.  I'm sure it pisses you off that I pwn Nationalists like yourself on a regular basis and while the pom pom crowd eases the burn nothing can reach deep enough to assuage the anguish of your honesty on permanent vacation.


----------



## Liability

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212653 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212468 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.
> 
> Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stretch first?  Reaching that far can tear tendons unless you properly warm up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being among a group of armed insurgents with nothing to identify yourself as anything but another insurgent ready to pick up the next man's rifle doesn't mean that you're also liable to get shot when the group is fired upon?
Click to expand...


You just earned yourself a red card, Mister.

Don't you grasp that _bent tight_ cannot digest such obvious, clear, honest and reasonable logic?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where all threads end for punks like pp, radioasswipe and crimsoncunt because at the end of the day that is all they have to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off. You have been bested all over this thread. You are simply too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You whined early on about an unedited version so I posted the 38 minute version and you.....kept on whining.  You haven't done anything in this thread but suck dick, make false claims, backpedal on claims, and ignored all the facts as we know them.  You have the fuxxing video smack in your face but you choose to hide behind bullshit blogs that make absurd claims.  I'm sure it pisses you off that I pwn Nationalists like yourself on a regular basis and while the pom pom crowd eases the burn nothing can reach deep enough to assuage the anguish of your honesty on permanent vacation.
Click to expand...


Translation from tardspeak to english...WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHH I'm a whiny Code Pink fat ass who can't get laid!!!!!  I moved back in with my momma because I can't make it in the real world!!!!!  Please be nice to me because the internet is the nexus of my social life.  Without any of you I will be all alone.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrimsonWhite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck off. You have been bested all over this thread. You simply too fucking stupid to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You whined early on about an unedited version so I posted the 38 minute version and you.....kept on whining.  You haven't done anything in this thread but suck dick, make false claims, backpedal on claims, and ignored all the facts as we know them.  You have the fuxxing video smack in your face but you choose to hide behind bullshit blogs that make absurd claims.  I'm sure it pisses you off that I pwn Nationalists like yourself on a regular basis and while the pom pom crowd eases the burn nothing can reach deep enough to assuage the anguish of your honesty on permanent vacation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation from tardspeak to english...WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHH I'm a whiny Code Pink fat ass who can't get laid!!!!!  I moved back in with my momma because I can't make it in the real world!!!!!  Please be nice to me because the internet is the nexus of my social life.  Without any of you I will be all alone.
Click to expand...


Very mature and well-spoken...


----------



## PatekPhilippe

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212697 said:
			
		

> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You whined early on about an unedited version so I posted the 38 minute version and you.....kept on whining.  You haven't done anything in this thread but suck dick, make false claims, backpedal on claims, and ignored all the facts as we know them.  You have the fuxxing video smack in your face but you choose to hide behind bullshit blogs that make absurd claims.  I'm sure it pisses you off that I pwn Nationalists like yourself on a regular basis and while the pom pom crowd eases the burn nothing can reach deep enough to assuage the anguish of your honesty on permanent vacation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation from tardspeak to english...WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHH I'm a whiny Code Pink fat ass who can't get laid!!!!!  I moved back in with my momma because I can't make it in the real world!!!!!  Please be nice to me because the internet is the nexus of my social life.  Without any of you I will be all alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very mature and well-spoken...
Click to expand...


Why thank you ... I strive for accurate translations.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212653 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212468 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Mao fought his revolution, most of his soldiers were unarmed. It was said that there was one rifle for every 3-5 men.
> 
> Does that mean that the men waiting to pick up the weapon, who were shot during fights against the KMT, were murdered innocents as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stretch first?  Reaching that far can tear tendons unless you properly warm up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So being among a group of armed insurgents with nothing to identify yourself as anything but another insurgent ready to pick up the next man's rifle doesn't mean that you're also liable to get shot when the group is fired upon?
Click to expand...



From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.  Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?

What is the evidence the group was a threat?  I have yet to see any solid evidence they had weapons.  We already know a camera was mistaken for a rpg.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212653 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stretch first?  Reaching that far can tear tendons unless you properly warm up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So being among a group of armed insurgents with nothing to identify yourself as anything but another insurgent ready to pick up the next man's rifle doesn't mean that you're also liable to get shot when the group is fired upon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.  *Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?
> 
> What is the evidence the group was a threat?  I have yet to see any solid evidence they had weapons.  We already know a camera was mistaken for a rpg.
Click to expand...


Yeah...the terrorists fighting against the U.S. were just magical little creatures that popped out of little holes in the ground from time to time...and hit our soldiers with their shillelagh's.

You've got bats in your fucking bellfry ass wipe!!!!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773;

CurveLight said:


> From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.



...



are you daft?



> Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?




WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help 
 Word to search for:    Display Options:  (Select option to change) Hide Example Sentences Hide Glosses Show Frequency Counts Show Database Locations Show Lexical File Info Show Lexical File Numbers Show Sense Keys Show Sense Numbers   Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" =  Show Word (lexical) relations
*Noun*



S: (n) *insurgent*, insurrectionist,  freedom  fighter, rebel  (a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted  authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions))
S: (n) guerrilla,  guerilla,  irregular,  *insurgent* (a member of an irregular armed force that fights a  stronger force by sabotage and harassment)
*Adjective*



S: (adj) *insurgent*, seditious,  subversive  (in opposition to a civil authority or government)
 WordNet home page 


> What is the evidence the group was a threat?



They were believed to be in possession of automatic weapons (and later, before shooting, they were believed to have an RPG) in close proximity to US troops in a warzone.


> I have yet to see any solid evidence they had weapons.



I don't care whether they had weapons or not. In examining the actions of the crew, you must examine the actions they took with the information available to them. The best information available was that they appeared armed and traveling together in a war zone in close proximity to US ground forces in an area where guerrilla attacks by groups of such description are quite common.



> We already know a camera was mistaken for a rpg.


So the information somehow travels back in time so the gun crew knows that it's a camera? 

If a man shoots a masked man in his house at night because he has a knife in his hand and is standing over hi,, is he just?

Now it turns out that it was his brother and it was actually a pie cutter and he was about to surprise him with a birthday party.  

Do the man's actions somehow become unjust and inexcusable or must they be considered in light of what information was available to the man at the time?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> You have not proven your claim dipfuk.



Just a minute ago you said that you made a mistake and that I was correct.

Now you say I haven't proven the claim.

Do you even realize how much of a moran you look like? Every damn person in this thread, from the left, right, middle, anti-war and pro war have stomped mudholes in your ass, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I can't hear yoooooo", and the zoom off on another wild tangent to try and distract everyone from the beating you've taken.

You know what your main problem is? You just can't help yourself and HAVE to respond, which makes it so much easier for everyone on here to keep putting your dick in the dirt.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nStVHVrbpo]YouTube - Immortal Technique - Cause Of Death(lyrics)[/ame]


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally!  Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me.  Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a minute ago you said that you made a mistake and that I was correct.
> 
> Now you say I haven't proven the claim.
> 
> Do you even realize how much of a moran you look like? Every damn person in this thread, from the left, right, middle, anti-war and pro war have stomped mudholes in your ass, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I can't hear yoooooo", and the zoom off on another wild tangent to try and distract everyone from the beating you've taken.
> 
> You know what your main problem is? You just can't help yourself and HAVE to respond, which makes it so much easier for everyone on here to keep putting your dick in the dirt.
Click to expand...



I admitted I made a mistake by misunderstanding what you were claiming.  I thought you were saying there is footage of the video actually available but all you are claiming is the jackasses at jawa have proven 20 minutes is missing.  I clearly explained it but twice your cowardly **** skank ass edited my post when you quoted specifically to remove that part to try avoiding addressing it.  Ignore it again ****.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.  Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?



Wow.

No wonder you are so confused.


----------



## CurveLight

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;2212755 said:
			
		

> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> are you daft?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
> Word to search for:    Display Options:  (Select option to change) Hide Example Sentences Hide Glosses Show Frequency Counts Show Database Locations Show Lexical File Info Show Lexical File Numbers Show Sense Keys Show Sense Numbers   Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" =  Show Word (lexical) relations
> *Noun*
> 
> 
> 
> S: (n) *insurgent*, insurrectionist,  freedom  fighter, rebel  (a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted  authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions))
> S: (n) guerrilla,  guerilla,  irregular,  *insurgent* (a member of an irregular armed force that fights a  stronger force by sabotage and harassment)
> *Adjective*
> 
> 
> 
> S: (adj) *insurgent*, seditious,  subversive  (in opposition to a civil authority or government)
> WordNet home page
> 
> 
> They were believed to be in possession of automatic weapons (and later, before shooting, they were believed to have an RPG) in close proximity to US troops in a warzone.
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to see any solid evidence they had weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care whether they had weapons or not. In examining the actions of the crew, you must examine the actions they took with the information available to them. The best information available was that they appeared armed and traveling together in a war zone in close proximity to US ground forces in an area where guerrilla attacks by groups of such description are quite common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already know a camera was mistaken for a rpg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the information somehow travels back in time so the gun crew knows that it's a camera?
> 
> If a man shoots a masked man in his house at night because he has a knife in his hand and is standing over hi,, is he just?
> 
> Now it turns out that it was his brother and it was actually a pie cutter and he was about to surprise him with a birthday party.
> 
> Do the man's actions somehow become unjust and inexcusable or must they be considered in light of what information was available to the man at the time?
Click to expand...



Wow.....not too bright eh?  You can't have insurgents in a country where a foreign military invaded, overthrew the government, used that military to install a new government (in this case an Islamic Theocracy), and continues to occupy that nation.  If Russia invaded the US would you consider yourself an insurgent in fighting back?


You say you don't care whether they had weapons or not but earlier you were demanding an explanation for shooting the van based on.........they didn't have weapons.  Got consistency?


My point on the rpg was misunderstood.  I was saying they only identified one rpg prior to shooting. We now know the camera was mistaken for the rpg so we know they did not have an rpg.  

Your claims about their presence as an indicator of a threat is pretty laughable.  Look at the video genius.  They were casually walking around in very wide open spaces and making no tactical moves.

Have you or anyone found out who they were or do you automatically label them as bad on the sole basis they were killed?


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the time we invaded iraq there have never been insurgents.  Do you know what the definition is or have you allowed the MSM to sell you a dishonest term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> No wonder you are so confused.
Click to expand...



Coming from you I'm flattered.  Did you ever once stop to look up the meaning of that word or did you simply accept the spoon fed bowlshit? It automatically tries to demonize any iraqi that fought our invasion.  If we were invaded would you just bow down to the invading forces or fight back?  For the moment let's say you actually have courage and you would fight back.  Would you see yourself as an insurgent or someone defending your home?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> My point on the rpg was misunderstood. I was saying they only identified one rpg prior to shooting. *We now know the camera was mistaken for the rpg so we know they did not have an rpg.*



Who is we....you and one of your multiple personalities?  It was CLEARLY stated in the after action report that an RPG WAS FOUND on one of the dead terrorists.

You should really try to post facts instead of distortions, lies and code pink crap.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> My point on the rpg was misunderstood. I was saying they only identified one rpg prior to shooting. *We now know the camera was mistaken for the rpg so we know they did not have an rpg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is we....you and one of your multiple personalities?  It was CLEARLY stated in the after action report that an RPG WAS FOUND on one of the dead terrorists.
> 
> You should really try to post facts instead of distortions, lies and code pink crap.
Click to expand...



Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point on the rpg was misunderstood. I was saying they only identified one rpg prior to shooting. *We now know the camera was mistaken for the rpg so we know they did not have an rpg.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is we....you and one of your multiple personalities?  It was CLEARLY stated in the after action report that an RPG WAS FOUND on one of the dead terrorists.
> 
> You should really try to post facts instead of distortions, lies and code pink crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?
Click to expand...


Ya....right.  Choose an onsite, up close and personal survey of the area of engagement which found weapons and an rpg launcher over a grainy video that turned out to be correct.....yep...I'll take the after action report any day.

You see....when our soldiers see grainy video day after day after day it's easier to understand what shapes and shadows represent.  You on the other hand, being a Code Pink anti-military type, aren't qualified to do anything other than shine my boots compared to our extremely professional soldiers.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is we....you and one of your multiple personalities?  It was CLEARLY stated in the after action report that an RPG WAS FOUND on one of the dead terrorists.
> 
> You should really try to post facts instead of distortions, lies and code pink crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya....right.  Choose an onsite, up close and personal survey of the area of engagement which found weapons and an rpg launcher over a grainy video that turned out to be correct.....yep...I'll take the after action report any day.
> 
> You see....when our soldiers see grainy video day after day after day it's easier to understand what shapes and shadows represent.  You on the other hand, being a Code Pink anti-military type, aren't qualified to do anything other than shine my boots compared to our extremely professional soldiers.
Click to expand...



That's what I thought.  You have nothing but crimson quality jabs.


----------



## geauxtohell

PatekPhilippe said:


> Who is we....you and one of your multiple personalities?  It was CLEARLY stated in the after action report that an RPG WAS FOUND on one of the dead terrorists.



He hasn't bothered to read any of the 15-6 reports.  That's why he is so confused.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Coming from you I'm flattered.  Did you ever once stop to look up the meaning of that word or did you simply accept the spoon fed bowlshit? It automatically tries to demonize any iraqi that fought our invasion.  If we were invaded would you just bow down to the invading forces or fight back?  For the moment let's say you actually have courage and you would fight back.  Would you see yourself as an insurgent or someone defending your home?



Wow, so not are you a master of all things tactical, but you also command the power to change the english language at will.

I don't find the term "insurgent" to be perjorative.  I find the term "terrorist" to be so.  I don't assume every iraqi fighting against us is a "terrorist", but they utilize insurgent tactics so they are an insurgent.  

I don't really see any fucking distinction between the two in your last sentence.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?



Are you so "fuxxing" stupid that you are going to split hairs over subjective interpretation of a cylinder object pointed at American forces on a black and white video from multiple different sets of eyes versus the official Army investigation?

Or do you just choose to ignore the Army reports because they are inconvenient to your position?

Let me guess, you are ignoring the official Army documentation because it's all a "cover-up".  Right?


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so "fuxxing" stupid that you are going to split hairs over subjective interpretation of a cylinder object pointed at American forces on a black and white video from multiple different sets of eyes versus the official Army investigation?
> 
> Or do you just choose to ignore the Army reports because they are inconvenient to your position?
> 
> Let me guess, you are ignoring the official Army documentation because it's all a "cover-up".  Right?
Click to expand...


You're such a fuxxing whiner.  You have the actual video showing what happened but you prefer to ignore the real time facts and point only to a report.  I haven't ignored any reports...I'm pointing out they don't line up with the a/v facts in front of our faces.


----------



## JWBooth

Unconscionable


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally!  Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> Unlike you, I admit my errors and rely on valid information so no wonder you are constantly whining about me.  Maybe one day you too can learn to admit mistakes.....but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a minute ago you said that you made a mistake and that I was correct.
> 
> Now you say I haven't proven the claim.
> 
> Do you even realize how much of a moran you look like? Every damn person in this thread, from the left, right, middle, anti-war and pro war have stomped mudholes in your ass, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I can't hear yoooooo", and the zoom off on another wild tangent to try and distract everyone from the beating you've taken.
> 
> You know what your main problem is? You just can't help yourself and HAVE to respond, which makes it so much easier for everyone on here to keep putting your dick in the dirt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted I made a mistake by misunderstanding what you were claiming.  I thought you were saying there is footage of the video actually available but all you are claiming is the jackasses at jawa have proven 20 minutes is missing.  I clearly explained it but twice your cowardly **** skank ass edited my post when you quoted specifically to remove that part to try avoiding addressing it.  Ignore it again ****.
Click to expand...



One more time you dumb shit...

THE VIDEO ITSELF, WITH IT'S TIME STAMPS IS THE PROOF THAT AROUND 20 MINUTES IS MISSING.

I have said this at least three times in plain English, but you keep ignoring it. LOL. And the accusing others of ignoring a something that no one was arguing against in the first place.

You 

Are 

Fucking

Looney

Tunes.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so "fuxxing" stupid that you are going to split hairs over subjective interpretation of a cylinder object pointed at American forces on a black and white video from multiple different sets of eyes versus the official Army investigation?
> 
> Or do you just choose to ignore the Army reports because they are inconvenient to your position?
> 
> Let me guess, you are ignoring the official Army documentation because it's all a "cover-up".  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such a fuxxing whiner.  You have the actual video showing what happened but you prefer to ignore the real time facts and point only to a report.  I haven't ignored any reports...I'm pointing out they don't line up with the a/v facts in front of our faces.
Click to expand...


Better check your six again...your about to get shot down!!!!

The report and the video DO IN FACT match up...that's why there are ZERO charges filed against ANYONE!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a minute ago you said that you made a mistake and that I was correct.
> 
> Now you say I haven't proven the claim.
> 
> Do you even realize how much of a moran you look like? Every damn person in this thread, from the left, right, middle, anti-war and pro war have stomped mudholes in your ass, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I can't hear yoooooo", and the zoom off on another wild tangent to try and distract everyone from the beating you've taken.
> 
> You know what your main problem is? You just can't help yourself and HAVE to respond, which makes it so much easier for everyone on here to keep putting your dick in the dirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted I made a mistake by misunderstanding what you were claiming.  I thought you were saying there is footage of the video actually available but all you are claiming is the jackasses at jawa have proven 20 minutes is missing.  I clearly explained it but twice your cowardly **** skank ass edited my post when you quoted specifically to remove that part to try avoiding addressing it.  Ignore it again ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One more time you dumb shit...
> 
> THE VIDEO ITSELF, WITH IT'S TIME STAMPS IS THE PROOF THAT AROUND 20 MINUTES IS MISSING.
> 
> I have said this at least three times in plain English, but you keep ignoring it. LOL. And the accusing others of ignoring a something that no one was arguing against in the first place.
> 
> You
> 
> Are
> 
> Fucking
> 
> Looney
> 
> Tunes.
Click to expand...


Some people just like any attention....be it negative or positive.  It's becoming increasingly clear that CurveLight is all alone in the world and uses the internet as the nexus of her interaction with what she deems normal society.  I bet she has an anxiety disorder, feels uncomfortable interacting with live humans and is more than likely on some sort of psychiatric drug...sad indeed....but on the bright side at least she's not out doing a "Thelma and Louise" on society.  At least she has an outlet for her pent up rage.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the other rpg in the video.  Or are you so fuxxing stoopid you would choose a report over actual video evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so "fuxxing" stupid that you are going to split hairs over subjective interpretation of a cylinder object pointed at American forces on a black and white video from multiple different sets of eyes versus the official Army investigation?
> 
> Or do you just choose to ignore the Army reports because they are inconvenient to your position?
> 
> Let me guess, you are ignoring the official Army documentation because it's all a "cover-up".  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're such a fuxxing whiner.  You have the actual video showing what happened but you prefer to ignore the real time facts and point only to a report.  I haven't ignored any reports...I'm pointing out they don't line up with the a/v facts in front of our faces.
Click to expand...


The real time facts include the situation on the ground, which you are desperately trying to ignore. 

If you want to just get enraged about the video, then whatever, but there is a fact pattern that is germane to why the people on the ground were engaged.  

So, if you aren't ignoring the 15-6, what is your opinion of the matter?


----------



## geauxtohell

JWBooth said:


> Unconscionable



War is unconscionable.  Why do you guys act surprised about that?

BTW, speaking of, why are you such a fan of John Wilkes Booth.  An assassin?


----------



## geauxtohell

PatekPhilippe said:


> Some people just like any attention....be it negative or positive.  It's becoming increasingly clear that CurveLight is all alone in the world and uses the internet as the nexus of her interaction with what she deems normal society.  I bet she has an anxiety disorder, feels uncomfortable interacting with live humans and is more than likely on some sort of psychiatric drug...sad indeed....but on the bright side at least she's not out doing a "Thelma and Louise" on society.  At least she has an outlet for her pent up rage.



Throwing out psych diagnosis on the internet makes you look silly.  

Most people with anxiety issues don't seek confrontation, be it real or on the internet.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a minute ago you said that you made a mistake and that I was correct.
> 
> Now you say I haven't proven the claim.
> 
> Do you even realize how much of a moran you look like? Every damn person in this thread, from the left, right, middle, anti-war and pro war have stomped mudholes in your ass, and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and go "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA I can't hear yoooooo", and the zoom off on another wild tangent to try and distract everyone from the beating you've taken.
> 
> You know what your main problem is? You just can't help yourself and HAVE to respond, which makes it so much easier for everyone on here to keep putting your dick in the dirt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admitted I made a mistake by misunderstanding what you were claiming.  I thought you were saying there is footage of the video actually available but all you are claiming is the jackasses at jawa have proven 20 minutes is missing.  I clearly explained it but twice your cowardly **** skank ass edited my post when you quoted specifically to remove that part to try avoiding addressing it.  Ignore it again ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> One more time you dumb shit...
> 
> THE VIDEO ITSELF, WITH IT'S TIME STAMPS IS THE PROOF THAT AROUND 20 MINUTES IS MISSING.
> 
> I have said this at least three times in plain English, but you keep ignoring it. LOL. And the accusing others of ignoring a something that no one was arguing against in the first place.
> 
> You
> 
> Are
> 
> Fucking
> 
> Looney
> 
> Tunes.
Click to expand...



Finally!  Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.

Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.



Maybe one day you will actually respond.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so "fuxxing" stupid that you are going to split hairs over subjective interpretation of a cylinder object pointed at American forces on a black and white video from multiple different sets of eyes versus the official Army investigation?
> 
> Or do you just choose to ignore the Army reports because they are inconvenient to your position?
> 
> Let me guess, you are ignoring the official Army documentation because it's all a "cover-up".  Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a fuxxing whiner.  You have the actual video showing what happened but you prefer to ignore the real time facts and point only to a report.  I haven't ignored any reports...I'm pointing out they don't line up with the a/v facts in front of our faces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The real time facts include the situation on the ground, which you are desperately trying to ignore.
> 
> If you want to just get enraged about the video, then whatever, but there is a fact pattern that is germane to why the people on the ground were engaged.
> 
> So, if you aren't ignoring the 15-6, what is your opinion of the matter?
Click to expand...


What are the real time facts on the ground I am ignoring?


----------



## Liability

geauxtohell said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconscionable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War is unconscionable.  Why do you guys act surprised about that?
> 
> BTW, speaking of, why are you such a fan of John Wilkes Booth.  An assassin?
Click to expand...


He approves of what Booth did because he believes that President Lincoln was a tyrant.  

JW is a turd.  Lincoln MAY actually have done some things which we rightly would condemn in almost any other context.  It _may_ even be _arguable_ that what President Lincoln did is worthy of some condemnation even in the dire circumstances he faced.

But I fucking detest anybody who applauds an assassin in our Republic -- especially when political power at the ballot is usually quite effective.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

geauxtohell said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people just like any attention....be it negative or positive.  It's becoming increasingly clear that CurveLight is all alone in the world and uses the internet as the nexus of her interaction with what she deems normal society.  I bet she has an anxiety disorder, feels uncomfortable interacting with live humans and is more than likely on some sort of psychiatric drug...sad indeed....but on the bright side at least she's not out doing a "Thelma and Louise" on society.  At least she has an outlet for her pent up rage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing out psych diagnosis on the internet makes you look silly.
> 
> Most people with anxiety issues don't seek confrontation, be it real or on the internet.
Click to expand...


Who's throwing out a diagnosis...I'm not qualified to do that...I just voiced my opinion.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond.



I've responded each time you fucking looney tunes. It was you who couldn't grasp simple English.

The video itself is proof that the versions leaked on wiki were edited. Stop with the strawman Jawa and Gawker arguments. Flight cameras don't fade to black and then come back 20-30 minutes later on their own you stupid shit.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded each time you fucking looney tunes. It was you who couldn't grasp simple English.
> 
> The video itself is proof that the versions leaked on wiki were edited. Stop with the strawman Jawa and Gawker arguments. Flight cameras don't fade to black and then come back 20-30 minutes later on their own you stupid shit.
Click to expand...



Maybe one day you will actually respond......guess today isn't that day.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache works? 

You're also ignoring the fact you wouldn't be so desperately searching for alternate versions if what we have exonerates the pilots.  Keep dancing.....


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, my apologies for my misunderstanding.  There are some problems with the claim. Gawker says 30 minutes is missing while jawa says 20.  While I've tried I cannot clearly see the time stamp on the video.  How does this system work?  Is it Zulu? Mission? Looped? Jawa is claiming the segment was purposefully edited but with no evidence.  From all available evidence the 38 minute version is all the contents leaked from the Pentagon so wiki has not edited.  Jawa plucks a sworn statement and claims that was cut out from the video....but has absolutely no evidence the statement fits with the missing 20 minutes....if 20 minutes is actually missing.  Jawa is a fuxxing joke of a source.....it's the extreme Right version of prison planet and is clearly partisan driven.  These bozos make claims without anything to back it up.
> 
> Unfortunately the constant harping of "edited" versions all send the same message: your ilk is looking for justification because if what the available video shows exonerates the pilots then an edited version would be irrelevant.  You can't have it both ways.  You know the video shows an abuse of power and that is why you guys are desperately searching for different versions.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded each time you fucking looney tunes. It was you who couldn't grasp simple English.
> 
> The video itself is proof that the versions leaked on wiki were edited. Stop with the strawman Jawa and Gawker arguments. Flight cameras don't fade to black and then come back 20-30 minutes later on their own you stupid shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond......guess today isn't that day.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache works?
> 
> You're also ignoring the fact you wouldn't be so desperately searching for alternate versions if what we have exonerates the pilots.  Keep dancing.....
Click to expand...



Keep ignoring the proof looney tunes.

Only makes you look dumber than you really are.


----------



## Liability

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded each time you fucking looney tunes. It was you who couldn't grasp simple English.
> 
> The video itself is proof that the versions leaked on wiki were edited. Stop with the strawman Jawa and Gawker arguments. Flight cameras don't fade to black and then come back 20-30 minutes later on their own you stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond......guess today isn't that day.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache works?
> 
> You're also ignoring the fact you wouldn't be so desperately searching for alternate versions if what we have exonerates the pilots.  Keep dancing.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring the proof looney tunes.
> 
> Only makes you look dumber than you really are.
Click to expand...



The only thing dumber than _bent tight_ really is would be his asshole buddy scumbag lying sack of shit idiot and mentally disturbed fellow Troofer, CriscoFEARa.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've responded each time you fucking looney tunes. It was you who couldn't grasp simple English.
> 
> The video itself is proof that the versions leaked on wiki were edited. Stop with the strawman Jawa and Gawker arguments. Flight cameras don't fade to black and then come back 20-30 minutes later on their own you stupid shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond......guess today isn't that day.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache works?
> 
> You're also ignoring the fact you wouldn't be so desperately searching for alternate versions if what we have exonerates the pilots.  Keep dancing.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring the proof looney tunes.
> 
> Only makes you look dumber than you really are.
Click to expand...



It's a good thing your buddies are as immature as you because otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep hiding like the **** you love to be.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache work?

Way back in post 313 you tried ignoring info because a website I linked had a typo that said the apache uses a 33mm.  You jumped all over that and made a fool of yourself because I knew it used a 30mm so how does that go you whiny bitch?  You got two bowlshit sources giving different times for what is missing in the video yet it's back to the fact you cannot provide a simple fact.

Crimsoncunt says 30 minutes is missing.....you can't make up your mind so you say 20-30 minutes is missing.  And you still ignore the fact if the video we saw justified the slaughter then you would care if there was an edited version or not.  Keep doing your hypocritical dancing bitch.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe one day you will actually respond......guess today isn't that day.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache works?
> 
> You're also ignoring the fact you wouldn't be so desperately searching for alternate versions if what we have exonerates the pilots.  Keep dancing.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring the proof looney tunes.
> 
> Only makes you look dumber than you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing your buddies are as immature as you because otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep hiding like the **** you love to be.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache work?
> 
> Way back in post 313 you tried ignoring info because a website I linked had a typo that said the apache uses a 33mm.  You jumped all over that and made a fool of yourself because I knew it used a 30mm so how does that go you whiny bitch?  You got two bowlshit sources giving different times for what is missing in the video yet it's back to the fact you cannot provide a simple fact.
> 
> Crimsoncunt says 30 minutes is missing.....you can't make up your mind so you say 20-30 minutes is missing.  And you still ignore the fact if the video we saw justified the slaughter then you would care if there was an edited version or not.  Keep doing your hypocritical dancing bitch.
Click to expand...



3 paragraphs...

all of them ignoring that the video was edited. 

Keep going


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring the proof looney tunes.
> 
> Only makes you look dumber than you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing your buddies are as immature as you because otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep hiding like the **** you love to be.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache work?
> 
> Way back in post 313 you tried ignoring info because a website I linked had a typo that said the apache uses a 33mm.  You jumped all over that and made a fool of yourself because I knew it used a 30mm so how does that go you whiny bitch?  You got two bowlshit sources giving different times for what is missing in the video yet it's back to the fact you cannot provide a simple fact.
> 
> Crimsoncunt says 30 minutes is missing.....you can't make up your mind so you say 20-30 minutes is missing.  And you still ignore the fact if the video we saw justified the slaughter then you would care if there was an edited version or not.  Keep doing your hypocritical dancing bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 paragraphs...
> 
> all of them ignoring that the video was edited.
> 
> Keep going
Click to expand...



You're the cowardly hypocrite that can't address the fact both your shit sources give contradictory claims.  You can only hide behind the "curvelight is an asshole" deflection for so long you dumfuk.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good thing your buddies are as immature as you because otherwise you wouldn't be able to keep hiding like the **** you love to be.  It's hilarious you say cameras don't go off then come back on "20-30 minutes later."  Is that because your two sources give different times?  If the time stamps are so clear why can't you give a definitive time for what is missing?  Do you even know how the recording system on the apache work?
> 
> Way back in post 313 you tried ignoring info because a website I linked had a typo that said the apache uses a 33mm.  You jumped all over that and made a fool of yourself because I knew it used a 30mm so how does that go you whiny bitch?  You got two bowlshit sources giving different times for what is missing in the video yet it's back to the fact you cannot provide a simple fact.
> 
> Crimsoncunt says 30 minutes is missing.....you can't make up your mind so you say 20-30 minutes is missing.  And you still ignore the fact if the video we saw justified the slaughter then you would care if there was an edited version or not.  Keep doing your hypocritical dancing bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 paragraphs...
> 
> all of them ignoring that the video was edited.
> 
> Keep going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can only hide behind the "curvelight is an asshole" deflection for so long you dumfuk.
Click to expand...



Nope.

Still ignoring the evidence I see. Keep it up


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 paragraphs...
> 
> all of them ignoring that the video was edited.
> 
> Keep going
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the cowardly hypocrite that can't address the fact both your shit sources give contradictory claims.  You can only hide behind the "curvelight is an asshole" deflection for so long you dumfuk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Still ignoring the evidence I see. Keep it up
Click to expand...


How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the cowardly hypocrite that can't address the fact both your shit sources give contradictory claims.  You can only hide behind the "curvelight is an asshole" deflection for so long you dumfuk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Still ignoring the evidence I see. Keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?
Click to expand...


Moved on from ignoring to denying.

Keep it up


----------



## PatekPhilippe

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Still ignoring the evidence I see. Keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
Click to expand...


CurveLight's psychosis is quite entertaining.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Still ignoring the evidence I see. Keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
Click to expand...



Useless whiny ****.  When you have actual evidence then post it.  And this time try to decide how much is supposed to be missing before you start your deflections.....


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Useless whiny ****.  When you have actual evidence then post it.  And this time try to decide how much is supposed to be missing before you start your deflections.....
Click to expand...



Keep denying....


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can I be ignoring what you have not provided?  You got two shit sources giving contradictory claims you dumfuk.  So which is it bitch?  Is it 20 or 30 minutes missing?  If the time stamp is so clear why can't you show which it is?  Isn't it time for one of your **** buddies to try and help bail you out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CurveLight's psychosis is quite entertaining.
Click to expand...



What's wrong with you bitches that you actually focus on posters so much?  He claims footage is missing but can't decide if it's 20 or 30 minutes and he cannot provide the clear evidence.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight's psychosis is quite entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you bitches that you actually focus on posters so much?  He claims footage is missing but can't decide if it's 20 or 30 minutes and he cannot provide the clear evidence.
Click to expand...


Is that your whiny ass, crybaby, final answer?


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moved on from ignoring to denying.
> 
> Keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Useless whiny ****.  When you have actual evidence then post it.  And this time try to decide how much is supposed to be missing before you start your deflections.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying....
Click to expand...



So what's missing you hypocritical sell-out twat? 20 or 30 minutes?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight's psychosis is quite entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you bitches that you actually focus on posters so much?  He claims footage is missing but can't decide if it's 20 or 30 minutes and he cannot provide the clear evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that your whiny ass, crybaby, final answer?
Click to expand...



So you ignore his bowlshit sources and contradictory claims.....hypocrite.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Useless whiny ****.  When you have actual evidence then post it.  And this time try to decide how much is supposed to be missing before you start your deflections.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying....
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So what's missing you hypocritical sell-out twat? 20 or 30 minutes?
Click to expand...



31 minutes and 3 seconds.

Before the break, 6:49:06 :







After the break 709  :








Keep denying, twisting and ignoring


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with you bitches that you actually focus on posters so much?  He claims footage is missing but can't decide if it's 20 or 30 minutes and he cannot provide the clear evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your whiny ass, crybaby, final answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you ignore his bowlshit sources and contradictory claims.....hypocrite.
Click to expand...


They're only "bowlshit" to you because they don't support your lies and distortions of factual evidence.  How fucked up is that?


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's missing you hypocritical sell-out twat? 20 or 30 minutes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 31 minutes and 3 seconds.
> 
> Before the break, 6:49:06 :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the break 709  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying, twisting and ignoring
Click to expand...


So the jawareport was incorrect by your claim here.  Is that correct?  Are you sticking with this claim?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's missing you hypocritical sell-out twat? 20 or 30 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 31 minutes and 3 seconds.
> 
> Before the break, 6:49:06 :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the break 709  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying, twisting and ignoring
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the jawareport was incorrect by your claim here.  Is that correct?  Are you sticking with this claim?
Click to expand...



Continue ignoring the evidence


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 31 minutes and 3 seconds.
> 
> Before the break, 6:49:06 :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the break 709  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep denying, twisting and ignoring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the jawareport was incorrect by your claim here.  Is that correct?  Are you sticking with this claim?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Continue ignoring the evidence
Click to expand...


Asking if this is your final claim = ignoring evidence?  Lol....keep dodging bitch.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the jawareport was incorrect by your claim here.  Is that correct?  Are you sticking with this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Continue ignoring the evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if this is your final claim = ignoring evidence
Click to expand...


Yup, pretty much.

Glad to see you admit it.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Continue ignoring the evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if this is your final claim = ignoring evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, pretty much.
> 
> Glad to see you admit it.
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asking if this is your final claim = ignoring evidence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, pretty much.
> 
> Glad to see you admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.
Click to expand...



Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.

Keep on ignoring it


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, pretty much.
> 
> Glad to see you admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
Click to expand...



You've given contradictory times for how much footage is missing but it's okay...I know you don't have the integrity required to admit your errors.  So back to the video......is the missing footage before or after the apaches shot the journalists?  Do you even know?


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've given contradictory times for how much footage is missing but it's okay...I know you don't have the integrity required to admit your errors.
Click to expand...


I asked for proof. Not rhetoric. Back it up or STFU.




CurveLight said:


> So back to the video......is the missing footage before or after the apaches shot the journalists?  Do you even know?



I know where it is in the timeline of events, but I guess you don't. The fact that you even have to ask because you don't know proves that you are less interested in learning the truth than you are of continuing to make yourself look like a fool on an MB.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've given contradictory times for how much footage is missing but it's okay...I know you don't have the integrity required to admit your errors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked for proof. Not rhetoric. Back it up or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So back to the video......is the missing footage before or after the apaches shot the journalists?  Do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know where it is in the timeline of events, but I guess you don't. The fact that you even have to ask because you don't know proves that you are less interested in learning the truth than you are of continuing to make yourself look like a fool on an MB.
Click to expand...



You're a pure hypocrite.  You whined like a little bitch when a link said the apache uses a 33mm gun but when you give different times for missing footage....thass perfectly fine.  What a useless ****.

If you know where it is in the timeline of events then why try to keep whining?  I notice you've never bitched about the edited 15-6 but you got your panties in a twist over a video you claim is edited yet does not change the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.  It was such a fuk up the Master Gunner was ordered to keep the Apache footage for training to help prevent unarmed people from getting killed in the future.  Now dance some more you whiny punk and ask crimsonbitch for help as usual.


----------



## Samson

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, pretty much.
> 
> Glad to see you admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
Click to expand...


Yep, Curvey Pwnd himself again....


----------



## CurveLight

Samson said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring anything but asking if this is your final claim.  You've changed it a few times so before I totally pwn your punk ass again I want to see if you will change it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Curvey Pwnd himself again....
Click to expand...


At first he said there was thirty minutes missing...then twenty minutes.....then 20-30 minutes....then seems to have settled on 31 minutes and 3 seconds.  But keep his dick in your mouth for a few more posts because ***** like you go by high school prom scoobies instead of ya know....facts.


----------



## Liability

Poor widdle pussy-puddle, _bent tight_.  

You know he knows he's been trounced, bounced,  pwnd and otherwise shredded, folded, bent and mutilated whenever his form of "argument" gets to the point where the shrillness of his cries of "****" or "bitch"  or or "_stoopid_" or "_fuxxing_" or "dick in your mouth" registers in the _high to extreme_ range. 



And since that's pretty much constant with that pathetic menstrual-mess, it is clear that _bent tight_ knows that he has never succeeded in offering even one coherent, honest, effective, persuasive post.


----------



## CurveLight

You're acting like a stalker Snitch Bitch.  You don't anything to say so you lie and hope to jump on the bandwagon.....you even whine about how I spell words....lol!


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've given contradictory times for how much footage is missing but it's okay...I know you don't have the integrity required to admit your errors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof. Not rhetoric. Back it up or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> So back to the video......is the missing footage before or after the apaches shot the journalists?  Do you even know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know where it is in the timeline of events, but I guess you don't. The fact that you even have to ask because you don't know proves that you are less interested in learning the truth than you are of continuing to make yourself look like a fool on an MB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're a pure hypocrite.  You whined like a little bitch when a link said the apache uses a 33mm gun but when you give different times for missing footage....thass perfectly fine.  What a useless ****.
> 
> If you know where it is in the timeline of events then why try to keep whining?  I notice you've never bitched about the edited 15-6 but you got your panties in a twist over a video you claim is edited yet does not change the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.  It was such a fuk up the Master Gunner was ordered to keep the Apache footage for training to help prevent unarmed people from getting killed in the future.  Now dance some more you whiny punk and ask crimsonbitch for help as usual.
Click to expand...



So you continue to ignore the evidence and refuse to post proof.

Dance monkey, dance!


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm...I haven't changed anything. Go read the thread doofus and prove it before you pwn yourself again.
> 
> Keep on ignoring it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Curvey Pwnd himself again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At first he said there was thirty minutes missing...then twenty minutes.....then 20-30 minutes....then seems to have settled on 31 minutes and 3 seconds.  But keep his dick in your mouth for a few more posts because ***** like you go by high school prom scoobies instead of ya know....facts.
Click to expand...


I actually said approximately 20-30 minutes because anyone with more than 2 braincells that have not been destroyed by meth use knows that it doesn't really matter how MUCH was edited, but the fact that it was _*edited at all*_. So I never bothered to do the math down to the second. It didn't matter how much time was removed. The fact that ANY was removed is the crux of the argument, and everyone but you knows this. But since it became abundantly clear to all that you are incapable of looking at time stamps and determining the amount of time missing using 2nd grade math, I went ahead and did it for you to get it out of the way. Thus removing one more excuse on why you can't admit that it was selectively edited by people with a political axe to grind.

Your focus on the minutiae and your ignoring of the facts pretty much confirms that you got nothing to come back with.

Thread over, bitch. You lose. Again.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof. Not rhetoric. Back it up or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know where it is in the timeline of events, but I guess you don't. The fact that you even have to ask because you don't know proves that you are less interested in learning the truth than you are of continuing to make yourself look like a fool on an MB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a pure hypocrite.  You whined like a little bitch when a link said the apache uses a 33mm gun but when you give different times for missing footage....thass perfectly fine.  What a useless ****.
> 
> If you know where it is in the timeline of events then why try to keep whining?  I notice you've never bitched about the edited 15-6 but you got your panties in a twist over a video you claim is edited yet does not change the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.  It was such a fuk up the Master Gunner was ordered to keep the Apache footage for training to help prevent unarmed people from getting killed in the future.  Now dance some more you whiny punk and ask crimsonbitch for help as usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the evidence and refuse to post proof.
> 
> Dance monkey, dance!
Click to expand...


Haven't ignored anything.  I asked you a simple question that you dodged like the pure bitch you love to be.  The missing footage you keep whining about doesn't change anything.  It's a red herring but you keep on pretending that it changes the fact those pilots killed unarmed civilians when it was totally avoidable.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a pure hypocrite.  You whined like a little bitch when a link said the apache uses a 33mm gun but when you give different times for missing footage....thass perfectly fine.  What a useless ****.
> 
> If you know where it is in the timeline of events then why try to keep whining?  I notice you've never bitched about the edited 15-6 but you got your panties in a twist over a video you claim is edited yet does not change the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.  It was such a fuk up the Master Gunner was ordered to keep the Apache footage for training to help prevent unarmed people from getting killed in the future.  Now dance some more you whiny punk and ask crimsonbitch for help as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the evidence and refuse to post proof.
> 
> Dance monkey, dance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haven't ignored anything.  I asked you a simple question that you dodged like the pure bitch you love to be.  The missing footage you keep whining about doesn't change anything.  It's a red herring but you keep on pretending that it changes the fact those pilots killed unarmed civilians when it was totally avoidable.
Click to expand...



Keep ignoring = Keep losing.

But you are used to being a loser.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you continue to ignore the evidence and refuse to post proof.
> 
> Dance monkey, dance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't ignored anything.  I asked you a simple question that you dodged like the pure bitch you love to be.  The missing footage you keep whining about doesn't change anything.  It's a red herring but you keep on pretending that it changes the fact those pilots killed unarmed civilians when it was totally avoidable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep ignoring = Keep losing.
> 
> But you are used to being a loser.
Click to expand...



How can you say I'm ignoring after I pointed out your whiny missing footage doesn't change anything?  You're the one who is doing the ignoring so keep on whining you little bitch.


----------



## RadiomanATL

You lose.

Move on.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> You lose.
> 
> Move on.



The only ones who lost are the dead iraqis and pilots who pulled the trigger.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

What exactly is a "pure bitch" as opposed to an impure bitch?


----------



## SFC Ollie

Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.


----------



## Liability

SFC Ollie said:


> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.



Indeed.  And when the fact that he is hiding behind the paper-thin pretense of "only asking questions" is noted as the cowardly, dishonest, evasive, ball-less, dickless, gutless and spineless thing it is, the pussy then immediately resorts to his famed rhetorical device:  "oh yeah?  well, you are a stoopid fuxxing ****!"  

You nailed it Ollie.  _bent tight_, a/k/a _menstrual mess_, is just an assclown poseur.  Nothing more.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SFC Ollie said:


> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.



Just like Starkey...only here to sow hate and discontent...nothing more and nothing less is expected from their ilk.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.



Once again you focus on a poster instead of the topic.  You also straight up lie as I made my position on this issue very clear early on.  What does it help for ***** like you to ignore the facts and lie about what people state?  Is it really worth whatever microscopic dignity you have left to pull such stoopid shit?  Bitches like you are here to look for petty congrats from other Nationalists because you can't debate, live in stoopidity that rivals an eggplant, and you hate every fuxxing thing America was founded upon.

Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.





Liability said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And when the fact that he is hiding behind the paper-thin pretense of "only asking questions" is noted as the cowardly, dishonest, evasive, ball-less, dickless, gutless and spineless thing it is, the pussy then immediately resorts to his famed rhetorical device:  "oh yeah?  well, you are a stoopid fuxxing ****!"
> 
> You nailed it Ollie.  _bent tight_, a/k/a _menstrual mess_, is just an assclown poseur.  Nothing more.
Click to expand...


I stated my exact position on this issue almost five hundred posts ago you fuxxing Snitch Bitch.  Now try to dance your way out of another strawman you useless Snitch Bitch.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you focus on a poster instead of the topic.  You also straight up lie as I made my position on this issue very clear early on.  What does it help for ***** like you to ignore the facts and lie about what people state?  Is it really worth whatever microscopic dignity you have left to pull such stoopid shit?  Bitches like you are here to look for petty congrats from other Nationalists because you can't debate, live in stoopidity that rivals an eggplant, and you hate every fuxxing thing America was founded upon.
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...


STFU Bitch, the 15-6 clearly shows that there were offensive weapons being carried by the group which was fired upon. Including AK47 and RPG. Tough fucking shit that you want Americans to be the bad guys. The pilots performed their jobs and attacked a valid target. Like it or not!

God Bless America


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we all figured out that Bentdick is only here to argue, and it doesn't matter much to him what he argues about as long as he can be against the USA....Oh and don't forget he isn't really taking a stand but only asking questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you focus on a poster instead of the topic.  You also straight up lie as I made my position on this issue very clear early on.  What does it help for ***** like you to ignore the facts and lie about what people state?  Is it really worth whatever microscopic dignity you have left to pull such stoopid shit?  Bitches like you are here to look for petty congrats from other Nationalists because you can't debate, live in stoopidity that rivals an eggplant, and you hate every fuxxing thing America was founded upon.
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STFU Bitch, the 15-6 clearly shows that there were offensive weapons being carried by the group which was fired upon. Including AK47 and RPG. Tough fucking shit that you want Americans to be the bad guys. The pilots performed their jobs and attacked a valid target. Like it or not!
> 
> God Bless America
Click to expand...



Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?




Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.

You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
Click to expand...


Everything you do or say is based on a lie or distortion of facts.  So by your own logic...you must be a LYING ASS BITCH!!!!!


----------



## Liability

MenstrualMess said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
Click to expand...


pussy puddle is lying again.    He must have a pulse.  

In reality, I didn't "bait" anybody.  I responded to a couple of total turd scumbags in some very crude ways, not all that different than the way the aforementioned scumbags addressed me.  They could dish it out, but apparently lack the balls to take it.  

Unlike them, however, I saw no reason to violate some very well established ground rules for this place (very basic TOS stuff).

Like them, _menstrual mess_ is simply unable to come to grips with the quite ordinary concept of accepting responsibility for one's own conduct.  Ho hum.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you do or say is based on a lie or distortion of facts.  So by your own logic...you must be a LYING ASS BITCH!!!!!
Click to expand...



Your response will help show that to be true....


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you focus on a poster instead of the topic.  You also straight up lie as I made my position on this issue very clear early on.  What does it help for ***** like you to ignore the facts and lie about what people state?  Is it really worth whatever microscopic dignity you have left to pull such stoopid shit?  Bitches like you are here to look for petty congrats from other Nationalists because you can't debate, live in stoopidity that rivals an eggplant, and you hate every fuxxing thing America was founded upon.
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STFU Bitch, the 15-6 clearly shows that there were offensive weapons being carried by the group which was fired upon. Including AK47 and RPG. Tough fucking shit that you want Americans to be the bad guys. The pilots performed their jobs and attacked a valid target. Like it or not!
> 
> God Bless America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...


Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?

You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you do or say is based on a lie or distortion of facts.  So by your own logic...you must be a LYING ASS BITCH!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your response will help show that to be true....
Click to expand...


Finally....glad to see you are no longer in denial.  That's the first step to getting the help you need.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> STFU Bitch, the 15-6 clearly shows that there were offensive weapons being carried by the group which was fired upon. Including AK47 and RPG. Tough fucking shit that you want Americans to be the bad guys. The pilots performed their jobs and attacked a valid target. Like it or not!
> 
> God Bless America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?
> 
> You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.
Click to expand...


So CL now acknowledges that the insurgents had RPGs (instant engagement criteria) and the new complaint is that civilians got hurt too?

Wow, we've really made strides here.

As for the problem, I've got a solution that I mentioned earlier:  CL can re-enlist and go back to spraying his magic pixie dust on CAS rounds so that the bullets magically find their target and innocents are spared.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?
> 
> You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So CL now acknowledges that the insurgents had RPGs (instant engagement criteria) and the new complaint is that civilians got hurt too?
> 
> Wow, we've really made strides here.
> 
> As for the problem, I've got a solution that I mentioned earlier:  CL can re-enlist and go back to spraying his magic pixie dust on CAS rounds so that the bullets magically find their target and innocents are spared.
Click to expand...


Don't put words in my mouth you lying useless bitch.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> STFU Bitch, the 15-6 clearly shows that there were offensive weapons being carried by the group which was fired upon. Including AK47 and RPG. Tough fucking shit that you want Americans to be the bad guys. The pilots performed their jobs and attacked a valid target. Like it or not!
> 
> God Bless America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?
> 
> You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.
Click to expand...


There isn't a single weapon visible in the video.  The only shooting happening is the pilots killing unarmed civilians.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?
> 
> You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So CL now acknowledges that the insurgents had RPGs (instant engagement criteria) and the new complaint is that civilians got hurt too?
> 
> Wow, we've really made strides here.
> 
> As for the problem, I've got a solution that I mentioned earlier:  CL can re-enlist and go back to spraying his magic pixie dust on CAS rounds so that the bullets magically find their target and innocents are spared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth you lying useless bitch.
Click to expand...


Or what?  You are going to whine some more?  

You've exceeded my threshold for caring about your whiney snits on this thread.

Furthermore, when I ask you direct questions to clarify times when you whine about me "putting words in your mouth" you refuse to answer them.

So, what words have I put in your mouth and what is right or wrong about them?

Or more directly:  do you concur with the Army's findings that there were RPGs on the site?

I won't expect an answer from you.  You are the lady that doth protest too much.  You run around and accuse everyone else of being dishonest and lying, and yet you are the most dishonest broker on this thread.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> There isn't a single weapon visible in the video.  The only shooting happening is the pilots killing unarmed civilians.



There certainly is.  You can clearly see a guy holding an AK without a stock by the handle early on.

But the investigation jacknuts, what do you say to the investigation where the Infantry found the weapons after they cleared the site?


----------



## Liability

PatekPhilippe said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you do or say is based on a lie or distortion of facts.  So by your own logic...you must be a LYING ASS BITCH!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response will help show that to be true....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Finally....glad to see you are no longer in denial.  That's the first step to getting the help you need.
Click to expand...


10 to 1 the lying pussypuddle still hasn't figured out why his reply was mock worthy!


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
Click to expand...



I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.

You are a lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "snitch bitch" as opposed to a "pure bitch"?  Is a snitch bitch impure and therefore incapable of becoming a pure bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.
> 
> You are a lying fuck.
Click to expand...


You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't a single weapon visible in the video.  The only shooting happening is the pilots killing unarmed civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There certainly is.  You can clearly see a guy holding an AK without a stock by the handle early on.
> 
> But the investigation jacknuts, what do you say to the investigation where the Infantry found the weapons after they cleared the site?
Click to expand...



You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!  Could you also tell what kind of gum he was chewing?  Why not also say his shoe size?  If you're going to reach.....reach big!

I'm going by the live video that shows no weapons at all.  I will believe a live video over an AAR any day of the week.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So CL now acknowledges that the insurgents had RPGs (instant engagement criteria) and the new complaint is that civilians got hurt too?
> 
> Wow, we've really made strides here.
> 
> As for the problem, I've got a solution that I mentioned earlier:  CL can re-enlist and go back to spraying his magic pixie dust on CAS rounds so that the bullets magically find their target and innocents are spared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't put words in my mouth you lying useless bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or what?  You are going to whine some more?
> 
> You've exceeded my threshold for caring about your whiney snits on this thread.
> 
> Furthermore, when I ask you direct questions to clarify times when you whine about me "putting words in your mouth" you refuse to answer them.
> 
> So, what words have I put in your mouth and what is right or wrong about them?
> 
> Or more directly:  do you concur with the Army's findings that there were RPGs on the site?
> 
> I won't expect an answer from you.  You are the lady that doth protest too much.  You run around and accuse everyone else of being dishonest and lying, and yet you are the most dishonest broker on this thread.
Click to expand...



Don't put words in my mouth and there won't be a reason to call you a bitch.  It's pretty simple.

The reports don't line up with the video so I don't give a fuck what they say.  You may choose to ignore the fact there are no weapons in the video and that is your right.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liability is a Snitch Bitch because he tries to bait people to break the rules then runs to staff for help....much like radioasswipe.
> 
> You're pure bitch because everything you do and say is determined by fear.  Your response will help show that to be true.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.
> 
> You are a lying fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?
Click to expand...


So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit. 

I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.


----------



## geauxtohell

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.
> 
> You are a lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
Click to expand...


There's a report button on this mother?

Wow, that feature must be disabled on my system.  Not that I'd use it anyways........


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.
> 
> You are a lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
Click to expand...



Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.  As for your missing footag
e......you haven't proven much of anything because it doesn't change the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.  Were you really hoping your red herring was going to work?  Lol......what else you got besides being a crybaby?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!



At 53 seconds into this video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo]YouTube - WikiLeaks raw US Apache footage[/ame]

The pilots ID'd it too, you know those guys whose job you think you can do a better job than?  

In fact, you can see two people with AKs.  If you can't see it, then you need to get your eyes checked. 

That would tend to support what the guys on the ground found. 



> Could you also tell what kind of gum he was chewing?  Why not also say his shoe size?  If you're going to reach.....reach big!



Hey, jackass, you can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "I am only going to go with what's on the video!" and then mock people for pointing out what is on the video to you.  



> I'm going by the live video that shows no weapons at all.  I will believe a live video over an AAR any day of the week.



Only it does.  I can't ID an RPG in the video clearly, but you can clearly see Ak-47s.

Of course, it only makes sense that you'd dismiss the Army report as a conspiracy.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Don't put words in my mouth and there won't be a reason to call you a bitch.  It's pretty simple.



Oh, okay.  "Don't put words in my mouth, or I'll call you a bitch!"

Guess what?  I could gives a shit about what you call me on here.  Your fucking clown-ass is three steps away from joining the circus and going pro.  



> The reports don't line up with the video so I don't give a fuck what they say.  You may choose to ignore the fact there are no weapons in the video and that is your right.



Here, allow me to put some more words in your mouth:

"I know what I believe and don't care what the facts say!"


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 53 seconds into this video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo]YouTube - WikiLeaks raw US Apache footage[/ame]
> 
> The pilots ID'd it too, you know those guys whose job you think you can do a better job than?
> 
> In fact, you can see two people with AKs.  If you can't see it, then you need to get your eyes checked.
> 
> That would tend to support what the guys on the ground found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you also tell what kind of gum he was chewing?  Why not also say his shoe size?  If you're going to reach.....reach big!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, jackass, you can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "I am only going to go with what's on the video!" and then mock people for pointing out what is on the video to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by the live video that shows no weapons at all.  I will believe a live video over an AAR any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only it does.  I can't ID an RPG in the video clearly, but you can clearly see Ak-47s.
> 
> Of course, it only makes sense that you'd dismiss the Army report as a conspiracy.
Click to expand...



You think that is an ak minus the stock? Rotfl!  Do the measurements you dumfuk.

The pilots could positively id an ak but not an rpg?  What a fuxxing joke.  Keep spinning you whiny ****.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't a single weapon visible in the video.  The only shooting happening is the pilots killing unarmed civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There certainly is.  You can clearly see a guy holding an AK without a stock by the handle early on.
> 
> But the investigation jacknuts, what do you say to the investigation where the Infantry found the weapons after they cleared the site?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!
Click to expand...


Yeah...who ever heard of one of those!!!! Duhhhhhh


----------



## PatekPhilippe

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 53 seconds into this video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo]YouTube - WikiLeaks raw US Apache footage[/ame]
> 
> The pilots ID'd it too, you know those guys whose job you think you can do a better job than?
> 
> In fact, you can see two people with AKs.  If you can't see it, then you need to get your eyes checked.
> 
> That would tend to support what the guys on the ground found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you also tell what kind of gum he was chewing?  Why not also say his shoe size?  If you're going to reach.....reach big!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, jackass, you can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "I am only going to go with what's on the video!" and then mock people for pointing out what is on the video to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by the live video that shows no weapons at all.  I will believe a live video over an AAR any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only it does.  I can't ID an RPG in the video clearly, but you can clearly see Ak-47s.
> 
> Of course, it only makes sense that you'd dismiss the Army report as a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


53 seconds in...irrefutable proof there is an AK 47 folder...no doubt.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can clearly see a guy holding an ak w/o the stock? Rotfl!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 53 seconds into this video.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25EWUUBjPMo]YouTube - WikiLeaks raw US Apache footage[/ame]
> 
> The pilots ID'd it too, you know those guys whose job you think you can do a better job than?
> 
> In fact, you can see two people with AKs.  If you can't see it, then you need to get your eyes checked.
> 
> That would tend to support what the guys on the ground found.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, jackass, you can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "I am only going to go with what's on the video!" and then mock people for pointing out what is on the video to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going by the live video that shows no weapons at all.  I will believe a live video over an AAR any day of the week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only it does.  I can't ID an RPG in the video clearly, but you can clearly see Ak-47s.
> 
> Of course, it only makes sense that you'd dismiss the Army report as a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 53 seconds in...irrefutable proof there is an AK 47 folder...no doubt.
Click to expand...


Oh well if you say so.........lol.

Radioasswipe and crimsoncunt has been whining endlessly about the video being edited.  After they post some evidence of missing footage they fail to address the fact the break in the video doesn't happen until long after the civilians had already been shot and killed.

So tell us you fuxxing **** whiners....what does missing footage have to do with the civilians being shot since the video doesn't break until after 15 minutes of Bravo company walking around their dead bodies?


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You think that is an ak minus the stock? Rotfl!  Do the measurements you dumfuk.



Yeah.  Kind of like the one I am holding in the following picture from Afghanistan you frigging pogue.



> The pilots could positively id an ak but not an rpg?  What a fuxxing joke.  Keep spinning you whiny ****.



That's not what I said.


----------



## geauxtohell

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never ever have reported a member to staff, nor have I ever reported a post. I want you to prove otherwise. All staff reading the thread is welcome to chime in.
> 
> You are a lying fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
Click to expand...


My God, by Bentdick's standards, he a dishonest little fucking bitch who is lying out of his damned mouth.

Of course, bentdick doesn't do nuance very well.  

Well, he doesn't do nuance when he's responding to another poster.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Oh well if you say so.........lol.



You just saw it too, didn't you?

BTW, the pilots requested, and were cleared, to fire upon seeing the AK-47.  Whatever their ROE was, it allowed for that.

It wasn't until they saw what they thought was an RPG (but was most likely a camera lens) that the issue became urgent.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now do the painfully predictable and ignore the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what dipshit? Those unarmed civilians were in the company of armed insurgents in an area that was being cleared by infantry troops who had been receiving small arms fire and was supported by 2 attack helicopters. Too bad for them that they wanted to run with the bad boys that day. It's called war and if you are going to be that stupid then pay the consequences. Can you understand S H I T - H A P P E N S ?
> 
> You can paint it and twist it and spin it any way you want but the group was armed with offensive weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a single weapon visible in the video.  The only shooting happening is the pilots killing unarmed civilians.
Click to expand...


Now my eyes may not be as sharp as they used to be but I saw weapons in the video, and weapons were reported found among the bodies by the infantry troops who cleared the area. So again twist it and spin it any way you want, you are wrong.
And everyone on this thread knows that you are wrong.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> Now my eyes may not be as sharp as they used to be but I saw weapons in the video, and weapons were reported found among the bodies by the infantry troops who cleared the area. So again twist it and spin it any way you want, you are wrong.
> And everyone on this thread knows that you are wrong.



It's impossible to miss the guys with AK 47s in the beginning of the video (right after the camera is highlighted on the reporter).

Even the untrained eye can easily spot them.  I can even tell the guy is carrying it by the handle with the muzzle pointed at his foot.

Bentdick, no doubt, sees them too.  But admitting that you are wrong is painful on the internet.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to use the report button bitch.  Did you ever figure out your missing footage or are you still hoping you can use that to hide behind the fact the pilots killed unarmed civilians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.

Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.


----------



## geauxtohell

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
Click to expand...


Wow.  Now bentdick has reduced himself to lying about lying.  That's like a lie^2.


----------



## RadiomanATL

geauxtohell said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  Now bentdick has reduced himself to lying about lying.  That's like a lie^2.
Click to expand...


The dumbshit lies about lying so much that he can't keep straight what he hasn't lied about which lies he has lied about.


----------



## geauxtohell

RadiomanATL said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Now bentdick has reduced himself to lying about lying.  That's like a lie^2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dumbshit lies about lying so much that he can't keep straight what he hasn't lied about which lies he has lied about.
Click to expand...


I am not a big fan of cheering sections, but it's been a long time since I've seen someone get so assed up in a thread.  

It would take a normal person a special sort of talent to keep this kind of idiocy running.


----------



## RadiomanATL

geauxtohell said:


> I would take a normal person a special sort of talent to keep this kind of idiocy running.




CL isn't normal.

He'll keep the stupidity coming, no fear. He doesn't know when to shut up and bow out.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> At 53 seconds into this video.
> 
> YouTube - WikiLeaks raw US Apache footage
> 
> The pilots ID'd it too, you know those guys whose job you think you can do a better job than?
> 
> In fact, you can see two people with AKs.  If you can't see it, then you need to get your eyes checked.
> 
> That would tend to support what the guys on the ground found.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, jackass, you can't have it both ways.  You can't claim "I am only going to go with what's on the video!" and then mock people for pointing out what is on the video to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Only it does.  I can't ID an RPG in the video clearly, but you can clearly see Ak-47s.
> 
> Of course, it only makes sense that you'd dismiss the Army report as a conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 53 seconds in...irrefutable proof there is an AK 47 folder...no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well if you say so.........lol.
> 
> Radioasswipe and crimsoncunt has been whining endlessly about the video being edited.  After they post some evidence of missing footage they fail to address the fact the break in the video doesn't happen until long after the civilians had already been shot and killed.
> 
> So tell us you fuxxing **** whiners....what does missing footage have to do with the civilians being shot since the video doesn't break until after 15 minutes of Bravo company walking around their dead bodies?
Click to expand...


Yes I say so.....and I'm right.  Thanks for agreeing finally.


----------



## DiveCon

CrimsonWhite said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Wikileaks video shows eager-to-kill troops firing on Reuters reporters and children
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that looked to me like a successful engagement of insurgents. It sucks that the reporter was killed and it sucks even worse that they were trying to remove bodies and weapons in a hot zone with kids in the car. But when you bring your kids to war, what do you expect?
> 
> I feel for the guys that had to pull the trigger. They laughed in the video, but keep in mind where their adrenaline level was at that moment. They were pumped up. They have to be to pull the trigger. The problems start when they come down. I feel for these guys for they had to do. It is despicable, yes, but necessary.
> 
> BTW, I bet *that douchenozzle armchair warrior *in your video has the high score on Call of Duty 4.
Click to expand...

thats Alex Jones


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So backed into putting up proof or shutting the fuck up, you decide to backpedal like a motherfucker. Figures you lying sack of shit.
> 
> I proved that there was missing footage repeatedly. Putting your fingers in your ears and denying it does not constitute counter-proof. You lose. Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
Click to expand...



You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.

So tell us what difference the missing footage makes since the break in the video wasn't until after the civilians were killed?  Surely there must be something really important about it since you spent so much time whining.  So what is it dumfuk?  What's the big tamale?


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now my eyes may not be as sharp as they used to be but I saw weapons in the video, and weapons were reported found among the bodies by the infantry troops who cleared the area. So again twist it and spin it any way you want, you are wrong.
> And everyone on this thread knows that you are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to miss the guys with AK 47s in the beginning of the video (right after the camera is highlighted on the reporter).
> 
> Even the untrained eye can easily spot them.  I can even tell the guy is carrying it by the handle with the muzzle pointed at his foot.
> 
> Bentdick, no doubt, sees them too.  But admitting that you are wrong is painful on the internet.
Click to expand...



Did you do the measurements you dumfuk?  Do you even know how to do that?  Of course not.  You can lie and whine you see an ak and you've got no shortage of dumfuk liars in your ilk but that doesn't change the fact there is not a single weapon visible in the video.  (gee...it will be so shocking when the responses will be nothing but name calling and accusations of lying....but that's what punks like you love to do)


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Did you do the measurements you dumfuk?  Do you even know how to do that?  Of course not.



Is this more mystical military magic that only you know how to do?  Were you trained in it?  Strange that the Corps would train you in something that you would never do, since your job gave you zero blade time.

What do your magical measurements tell you they are?  Let me guess:  camera tripods.

I think I'll go with what I see and the pilot's trained eyes on the matter.  



> You can lie and whine you see an ak and you've got no shortage of dumfuk liars in your ilk but that doesn't change the fact there is not a single weapon visible in the video.



Oh, so now it's a "lie".  Sorry jerkoff, I know what a fucking AK looks like.  If you don't see two AKs, you need to get your fucking eyes fixed.  Or your brain, as I suspect that's where the defect lies.



> (gee...it will be so shocking when the responses will be nothing but name calling and accusations of lying....but that's what punks like you love to do)



You lost any high ground on name calling a long time ago, so stop whining about it now you fucking pogue.  

No one on here takes anything you say seriously.  Frankly, I have no clue what your position is anymore.  First it was that this was a slaughter, then it was that "well, they had guns, but 75% of the people they engaged were innocent!" and now it's I never saw any guns on the video, that means their were no guns!"  I honestly don't think you give a fuck about the incident at large, you are just one of those people that can't admit fault or being wrong in any degree.  

You are a fucking joke.  Like I said, thank God you aren't in a position to get soldiers and Marines fucking killed with you dumb-assed notions.  

BTW, notice how this incident has died down?  I suspect that the journalists started to investigate the entire thing (and not just the tape) and realized that this was a legitimate engagement.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you do the measurements you dumfuk?  Do you even know how to do that?  Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this more mystical military magic that only you know how to do?  Were you trained in it?  Strange that the Corps would train you in something that you would never do, since your job gave you zero blade time.
> 
> What do your magical measurements tell you they are?  Let me guess:  camera tripods.
> 
> I think I'll go with what I see and the pilot's trained eyes on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can lie and whine you see an ak and you've got no shortage of dumfuk liars in your ilk but that doesn't change the fact there is not a single weapon visible in the video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so now it's a "lie".  Sorry jerkoff, I know what a fucking AK looks like.  If you don't see two AKs, you need to get your fucking eyes fixed.  Or your brain, as I suspect that's where the defect lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (gee...it will be so shocking when the responses will be nothing but name calling and accusations of lying....but that's what punks like you love to do)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost any high ground on name calling a long time ago, so stop whining about it now you fucking pogue.
> 
> No one on here takes anything you say seriously.  Frankly, I have no clue what your position is anymore.  First it was that this was a slaughter, then it was that "well, they had guns, but 75% of the people they engaged were innocent!" and now it's I never saw any guns on the video, that means their were no guns!"  I honestly don't think you give a fuck about the incident at large, you are just one of those people that can't admit fault or being wrong in any degree.
> 
> You are a fucking joke.  Like I said, thank God you aren't in a position to get soldiers and Marines fucking killed with you dumb-assed notions.
> 
> BTW, notice how this incident has died down?  I suspect that the journalists started to investigate the entire thing (and not just the tape) and realized that this was a legitimate engagement.
Click to expand...



You're a stoopid whiny dishonest ****.  What I said was "even if it is correct there were weapons......"  Predictably pathetic you would ignore that to try and score points you ate up dikwad.  

The measurements can be done with common sense but since you don't know how then you hype up a strawman to compensate for your stoopidity.  Your pic matches perfectly with your whiny posts and we regularly bitch slapped punks like you for a hobby because you always needed a babysitter.  Keep on lying, keep on whining, and keep on pretending you know my experiences strictly from my mos you fuxxing useless ****.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You're a stoopid whiny dishonest ****.  What I said was "even if it is correct there were weapons......"  Predictably pathetic you would ignore that to try and score points you ate up dikwad.



Blah, blah, fucking blah.



> The measurements can be done with common sense but since you don't know how then you hype up a strawman to compensate for your stoopidity.



Oh, so is this a real thing or just another military tactic that you made up but the pilots should have done?  By my eye, the weapon looks to be the exact shape and measurement of an AK-47 without a stock being held be the handle.  



> Your pic matches perfectly with your whiny posts and we regularly bitch slapped punks like you for a hobby because you always needed a babysitter.  Keep on lying, keep on whining, and keep on pretending you know my experiences strictly from my mos you fuxxing useless ****.



Who is the "we"?  You already gave us your MOS.  We already know you were a REMF.  Nothing more needs to be said about the matter.  You conveniently backed off given any information about "similar situations" that you were in.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a stoopid whiny dishonest ****.  What I said was "even if it is correct there were weapons......"  Predictably pathetic you would ignore that to try and score points you ate up dikwad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, fucking blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The measurements can be done with common sense but since you don't know how then you hype up a strawman to compensate for your stoopidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so is this a real thing or just another military tactic that you made up but the pilots should have done?  By my eye, the weapon looks to be the exact shape and measurement of an AK-47 without a stock being held be the handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pic matches perfectly with your whiny posts and we regularly bitch slapped punks like you for a hobby because you always needed a babysitter.  Keep on lying, keep on whining, and keep on pretending you know my experiences strictly from my mos you fuxxing useless ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the "we"?  You already gave us your MOS.  We already know you were a REMF.  Nothing more needs to be said about the matter.  You conveniently backed off given any information about "similar situations" that you were in.
Click to expand...



Are you late for a tampon change bitch?  Arrogant punks like you are a fuxxing joke.  You've never addressed basic facts like the EOF nor the situation itself.  You're paralyzed by fear which is why dickheads like you can watch unarmed people being needlessly killed because you don't have the courage to look at the situation and say "We totally fucked up."  You actually blame iraqi for being in iraq for being killed by extremely poor judgment calls.  You look at this shit then wonder why the US has had such a hard time settling into a semi-fucked up occupation.


----------



## Nonelitist

They were armed.

Army investigation found multiple weapons.

Innocents sometimes die in war

pilots had no idea children were in van

you are an idiot.


----------



## germanguy

Perhaps just step back everybody:

After watching the video I can say the following:

1. What you see is - more or less -  a gunship opening fire on people on the ground.
2. What you not see is the situation on the ground and the background of the whole situation.

Conclusion:
We see what we want:
Either a slaughter of trigger-happy GIs or the responsible use of gunpower in a dangerous suurounding.

The whole problem is and will ever be in any military operation against combattants without any regular military structure, that you can not properly separate friend and foe.
Therefore any anti-terror operation will never smell of roses.

We either accept this, or shall shut up and go home and let other people do this kind of job.

The other side is, that we have to expect, that we do not send our sons and daughters in unhonorable wars.

Or to put it otherwise: Are we doing the right thing and are we doing the right thing right.

Regards
ze germanguy


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a stoopid whiny dishonest ****.  What I said was "even if it is correct there were weapons......"  Predictably pathetic you would ignore that to try and score points you ate up dikwad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, fucking blah.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so is this a real thing or just another military tactic that you made up but the pilots should have done?  By my eye, the weapon looks to be the exact shape and measurement of an AK-47 without a stock being held be the handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pic matches perfectly with your whiny posts and we regularly bitch slapped punks like you for a hobby because you always needed a babysitter.  Keep on lying, keep on whining, and keep on pretending you know my experiences strictly from my mos you fuxxing useless ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the "we"?  You already gave us your MOS.  We already know you were a REMF.  Nothing more needs to be said about the matter.  You conveniently backed off given any information about "similar situations" that you were in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you late for a tampon change bitch?  Arrogant punks like you are a fuxxing joke.  You've never addressed basic facts like the EOF nor the situation itself.  You're paralyzed by fear which is why dickheads like you can watch unarmed people being needlessly killed because you don't have the courage to look at the situation and say "We totally fucked up."  You actually blame iraqi for being in iraq for being killed by extremely poor judgment calls.  You look at this shit then wonder why the US has had such a hard time settling into a semi-fucked up occupation.
Click to expand...


----------



## CurveLight

germanguy said:


> Perhaps just step back everybody:
> 
> After watching the video I can say the following:
> 
> 1. What you see is - more or less -  a gunship opening fire on people on the ground.
> 2. What you not see is the situation on the ground and the background of the whole situation.
> 
> Conclusion:
> We see what we want:
> Either a slaughter of trigger-happy GIs or the responsible use of gunpower in a dangerous suurounding.
> 
> The whole problem is and will ever be in any military operation against combattants without any regular military structure, that you can not properly separate friend and foe.
> Therefore any anti-terror operation will never smell of roses.
> 
> We either accept this, or shall shut up and go home and let other people do this kind of job.
> 
> The other side is, that we have to expect, that we do not send our sons and daughters in unhonorable wars.
> 
> Or to put it otherwise: Are we doing the right thing and are we doing the right thing right.
> 
> Regards
> ze germanguy





The pilots did not follow EOF.

Our troops were not under fire.

The only shooters were the pilots.

The civilians made no hostile moves at all.

There were other options available but were ignored because of trigger happy pilots.  Ie.  One pilot was begging to engage....


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol....I didn't backpedal on anything you whiny bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.
Click to expand...


And yet you can't seem to point it out. At all. Liar. You lose, again.


----------



## germanguy

Perhaps I have not made myself clear:

These were not police helicopters, circling a neighborhood. These are gunships over a hostile area in a war. I do not necessarily expect the pilots to be overly sensitive or reluctant in using firepower. This is not their training and a 20 mm gun is not necessarily a sniper rifle.

That is how it is: 
Armed soldiers are something different than policemen. Different training, different approach to a problem. 
A police unit would have called reinforcements, perhaps a SWAT team, put up roadblocks etc.
A military unit would strike as hard as necessary to - err - solve the problem.

I would rather say, that the problem might be, that we see US military in a general dilemma in Iraq:
The war in Iraq is no classic war, it seems to me more a struggle to implement a kind of order. This is more a police task, than a task for an army.
If you use any kind of heavier weapon for this kind of job, things get messy. 

This is one of the reasons, why the Brits in Northern Ireland never used something heavier than an armoured troop carrier. And they had a very competent police force in place, well-connected with the locals. The Army was there rather to assist. Totally different situation than in Iraq, but you still get the idea about the difference.

What I wholehearted concede is, that this video is a propaganda nightmare.
I see from the reaction from the US, that it is different from i.e. Germany.
Here most people shrugged and saw a proof for what they expected. If this is a justified and correct reaction we can debate. 

So still, if you back your troops, you see what you want, if you are critical, you do the same.

My personal view is, that the whole war was and is a total mess from the beginning on till now. Nobody in the Bush administration had an effing clue what to do after the military victory. And now everybody has to cope with a self-created chaos.

If these pilots acted overly brutal or not is not the question. Even if they messed up, what we have seen in this video is the result of a certain policy and therefore a symptom, not the problem itself.


Regards
ze germanguy


----------



## CurveLight

RadiomanATL said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You complained about me going and whining to the mods. I said prove it, you have yet to do so because it has never happened.
> 
> Keep backpedaling you dumb shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you can't seem to point it out. At all. Liar. You lose, again.
Click to expand...



You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.  Lol......


----------



## CurveLight

(8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/


Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> (8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
> Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?




The pilots made the request to fire because they saw the threat only 100 meters from the infantry unit they were in support of. They identified offensive weapons (which have been confirmed by ground forces) and were given permission to engage.

They did everything by the book. Just because you are a REMF who has never seen an AK or a RPG and you refuse to believe the 15-6; is no reason to demonize these fine pilots.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

> If time and circumstances permit...



What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
FAIL!


----------



## SFC Ollie

PatekPhilippe said:


> If time and circumstances permit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
Click to expand...


She has never taken such a beating on any thread. She just doesn't understand when to surrender.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> (8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
> Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pilots made the request to fire because they saw the threat only 100 meters from the infantry unit they were in support of. They identified offensive weapons (which have been confirmed by ground forces) and were given permission to engage.
> 
> They did everything by the book. Just because you are a REMF who has never seen an AK or a RPG and you refuse to believe the 15-6; is no reason to demonize these fine pilots.
Click to expand...



Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....


----------



## PatekPhilippe

SFC Ollie said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If time and circumstances permit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has never taken such a beating on any thread. She just doesn't understand when to surrender.
Click to expand...


I wonder if she's Tokyo Rose reincarnated....


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> If time and circumstances permit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
Click to expand...



You're way too stoopid to even try and keep up....my "no weapons" argument has not failed.  I'm showing even if you are correct it does not justify what the pilots did.  This is also not the first time I've brought up the ROE.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> (8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
> Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pilots made the request to fire because they saw the threat only 100 meters from the infantry unit they were in support of. They identified offensive weapons (which have been confirmed by ground forces) and were given permission to engage.
> 
> They did everything by the book. Just because you are a REMF who has never seen an AK or a RPG and you refuse to believe the 15-6; is no reason to demonize these fine pilots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....
Click to expand...


Shit the fuck up little one. A partial list of the Units i was assigned to over the years is in my profile. Anyone with any military knowledge can figure out I wasn't sitting in a mail room. And you have done nothing this past 2 weeks that I have seen except get owned by about everyone you have disagreed with. I believe it to be rather funny. Now grow a pair and admit you are totally fucking wrong. Or as i said shut the fuck up.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If time and circumstances permit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're way too stoopid to even try and keep up....my "no weapons" argument has not failed.  I'm showing even if you are correct it does not justify what the pilots did.  This is also not the first time I've brought up the ROE.
Click to expand...


Oh yes it did...you even admitted as much when you said that there were weapons present.


----------



## RadiomanATL

CurveLight said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you can't seem to point it out. At all. Liar. You lose, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You proved it in your first response you dumfuk.  It's sad you are too stoopid to even realize you did it.  Lol......
Click to expand...



Once again, no post number, no link.

Keep digging that hole you lying fuck.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pilots made the request to fire because they saw the threat only 100 meters from the infantry unit they were in support of. They identified offensive weapons (which have been confirmed by ground forces) and were given permission to engage.
> 
> They did everything by the book. Just because you are a REMF who has never seen an AK or a RPG and you refuse to believe the 15-6; is no reason to demonize these fine pilots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit the fuck up little one. A partial list of the Units i was assigned to over the years is in my profile. Anyone with any military knowledge can figure out I wasn't sitting in a mail room. And you have done nothing this past 2 weeks that I have seen except get owned by about everyone you have disagreed with. I believe it to be rather funny. Now grow a pair and admit you are totally fucking wrong. Or as i said shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...



You're the dumfuk that claimed we invaded iraq on the genuine threat of wmd because the US had nothing to gain otherwise........so don't mind if I take your observation summaries with a mountain of salt.

Yes we all know what's in your profile because you manage to remind everyone at least five times on any thread you post in.  You're so fuxxing sad you do not realize your bullhorn tactics about your military time on the net is the manifestation of the insecurities from your end of life despair because y
ou've never done anything in your life that couldn't be accomplished with a malibu barbie thimble sized set of balls.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit the fuck up little one. A partial list of the Units i was assigned to over the years is in my profile. Anyone with any military knowledge can figure out I wasn't sitting in a mail room. And you have done nothing this past 2 weeks that I have seen except get owned by about everyone you have disagreed with. I believe it to be rather funny. Now grow a pair and admit you are totally fucking wrong. Or as i said shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're the dumfuk that claimed we invaded iraq on the genuine threat of wmd because the US had nothing to gain otherwise........so don't mind if I take your observation summaries with a mountain of salt.
> 
> Yes we all know what's in your profile because you manage to remind everyone at least five times on any thread you post in.  You're so fuxxing sad you do not realize your bullhorn tactics about your military time on the net is the manifestation of the insecurities from your end of life despair because y
> ou've never done anything in your life that couldn't be accomplished with a malibu barbie thimble sized set of balls.
Click to expand...


Boring

Is that all you've got?

Facts are a real bitch to you aren't they. Fact is that the 15-6 has proved you are totally wrong and you can't handle it. Now shut the fuck up little girl.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're way too stoopid to even try and keep up....my "no weapons" argument has not failed.  I'm showing even if you are correct it does not justify what the pilots did.  This is also not the first time I've brought up the ROE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes it did...you even admitted as much when you said that there were weapons present.
Click to expand...


Geauxforfaux already tried that bullshit......


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit the fuck up little one. A partial list of the Units i was assigned to over the years is in my profile. Anyone with any military knowledge can figure out I wasn't sitting in a mail room. And you have done nothing this past 2 weeks that I have seen except get owned by about everyone you have disagreed with. I believe it to be rather funny. Now grow a pair and admit you are totally fucking wrong. Or as i said shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the dumfuk that claimed we invaded iraq on the genuine threat of wmd because the US had nothing to gain otherwise........so don't mind if I take your observation summaries with a mountain of salt.
> 
> Yes we all know what's in your profile because you manage to remind everyone at least five times on any thread you post in.  You're so fuxxing sad you do not realize your bullhorn tactics about your military time on the net is the manifestation of the insecurities from your end of life despair because y
> ou've never done anything in your life that couldn't be accomplished with a malibu barbie thimble sized set of balls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boring
> 
> Is that all you've got?
> 
> Facts are a real bitch to you aren't they. Fact is that the 15-6 has proved you are totally wrong and you can't handle it. Now shut the fuck up little girl.
Click to expand...



Hey!  Glad to see you got some tutoring done!  

Fact is you are ignoring the video and focusing on the 15-6 because you carefully choose your Nationalistic avenues.  The video shows there was no immediate threat and shows no hostile intent.  But you go on thinking American bullets always only kill the bad and if innocents get killed...so what?  Your kind will give the best gift to America when you have been antiquated.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> (8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
> Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?



God you are a shit for brains.  Let's just ignore the whole irrefutable fact that, per two separate Army investigations, the ROE was *not* violated (Yeah, the senior commander, and not some bent dick disgrace like yourself, is the final word on that) and examine your claims.

"If time and circumstances permit".

The pilots were responding to a unit's request for CAS after they had been in contact (which you dispute, but which every other source, to include the original Reuters stories concurs with).  The pilots identified an armed ground unit within small arms fire distance of the American forces.  The pilots perceived the force to be hostile, this was escalated when the pointed a canister at the American forces, which the pilots perceived to be an RPG (thought I suspect it was a camera lens).  The pilots had reason to believe this was a hostile force due to the fact that they were in close proximity to an engagement and were armed (which you deny, but which everyone else can clearly see).  The audio by the pilots clearly supports this.

So how much more time should the pilots have given these guys?  Until they zapped American forces with an RPG?  Would that make you happy?  Maybe or maybe that wouldn't have happened here, but creating that precedent (which you erroneously believe is or should be our ROE) would, in the long run, get more soldiers killed.  

So guess what, jackass?  It was the estimation of the pilots that time did not permit.  The commander, and now the SECDEF has concurred.  Looks like you are SOL. 

BTW, you also never addressed "proportionality" also covered under the EOF.  If the pilots had opened up with hellfire missiles, that would be a violation of the EOF.  They initiated with the least casualty producing weapon.  They did everything right, you just want to hang them out to dry now with the benefit of hindsight.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> The pilots did not follow EOF.
> 
> Our troops were not under fire.



The troops don't have to be under fucking fire for CAS to engage you worthless waste of carbon.  I don't know how many more times you have to be told that.

You don't understand the ROE, let alone set it.

Thank God.  You would be a fucking flaming disaster in any sort of tactical role.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the dumfuk that claimed we invaded iraq on the genuine threat of wmd because the US had nothing to gain otherwise........so don't mind if I take your observation summaries with a mountain of salt.
> 
> Yes we all know what's in your profile because you manage to remind everyone at least five times on any thread you post in.  You're so fuxxing sad you do not realize your bullhorn tactics about your military time on the net is the manifestation of the insecurities from your end of life despair because y
> ou've never done anything in your life that couldn't be accomplished with a malibu barbie thimble sized set of balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boring
> 
> Is that all you've got?
> 
> Facts are a real bitch to you aren't they. Fact is that the 15-6 has proved you are totally wrong and you can't handle it. Now shut the fuck up little girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey!  Glad to see you got some tutoring done!
> 
> Fact is you are ignoring the video and focusing on the 15-6 because you carefully choose your Nationalistic avenues.  The video shows there was no immediate threat and shows no hostile intent.  But you go on thinking American bullets always only kill the bad and if innocents get killed...so what?  Your kind will give the best gift to America when you have been antiquated.
Click to expand...


Wrong answer, I saw the weapons in the video, and I read that the ground units had been taking fire that day. You want to forget or dismiss the hard cold facts. I'm sorry every time some innocent gets hurt. But I will not fault these pilots for doing their job and doing it correctly.  And it's my kind that, thank God, will keep America free.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> (8) Multi-National Corps-Iraq ROE card (Unclassified) (30 May 2007) [hereinafter MNC-I ROE card] ("2. Escalation of Force (EOF). If time and circumstances permit, use EOF to determine whether hostile act/intent exists.")
> Http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6052/is_2008_April/ai_n27912216/
> 
> 
> Can anyone explain why that could not have been used by these pilots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pilots made the request to fire because they saw the threat only 100 meters from the infantry unit they were in support of. They identified offensive weapons (which have been confirmed by ground forces) and were given permission to engage.
> 
> They did everything by the book. Just because you are a REMF who has never seen an AK or a RPG and you refuse to believe the 15-6; is no reason to demonize these fine pilots.
Click to expand...


I'd want these guys flying for me.

Ironically, Marine AH-1's flew our CAS, and those guys were amazing. 

Probably because they didn't let bentdick inside the cockpit.


----------



## geauxtohell

PatekPhilippe said:


> If time and circumstances permit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of this, as stated in plain english, are you having trouble understanding?  Notice how CurveLight's weapons argument has failed so now she attempts an ROE argument.....
> FAIL!
Click to expand...


Which would be fine, except bentdick doesn't understand the fucking ROE, so listening to him argue it is like trying listen to a preschooler explain calculus.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....



Except you are a REMF.  Even worse, you are a REMF that doesn't know their damned role and thinks they know something about being an infantryman.

My days as in infantryman are over, but when I was a grunt in combat, I can tell you this:  we didn't want guys like you anywhere near us when we were working.  

"Oh Jee Sally!  I see three guys with RPGs pointing right at one of our Patrols!"  

"Don't worry Nancy!  As soon as they fire, we'll smoke them all and then go home and drink hot cocoa!"

And then in the not-so-distant future, some poor woman is about to get the knock she most fears and finds out she's a widow now because you don't have the balls for the job like these pilots do.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> You're way too stoopid to even try and keep up....my "no weapons" argument has not failed.  I'm showing even if you are correct it does not justify what the pilots did.



Bull-fucking-shit junior.

Eyes on an RPG = instant engagement criteria.

Apparently in this scenario, eyes on an AK = instant engagement criteria too, because that's when the pilots were cleared to fire.  

You know, but for the fact that these pilots were twice found to have acted in accordance with the ROE, you might actually have a point.  



> This is also not the first time I've brought up the ROE.



You've yet to bring up the actual ROE.  What you have brought up is you misunderstanding of the ROE.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> Wrong answer, I saw the weapons in the video, and I read that the ground units had been taking fire that day. You want to forget or dismiss the hard cold facts. I'm sorry every time some innocent gets hurt. But I will not fault these pilots for doing their job and doing it correctly.  And it's my kind that, thank God, will keep America free.



But did you do the "measurements" on the weapons? 

Like Bentdick's magic pixie dust, that's the only true way to know if they were weapons or not.

I don't know what the fuck a weapons "measurement" is, but obviously it's so super classified that even the Apache pilots didn't know to do it.

Probably like firing a "warning" shot with a cannon.


----------



## SFC Ollie

geauxtohell said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, I saw the weapons in the video, and I read that the ground units had been taking fire that day. You want to forget or dismiss the hard cold facts. I'm sorry every time some innocent gets hurt. But I will not fault these pilots for doing their job and doing it correctly.  And it's my kind that, thank God, will keep America free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did you do the "measurements" on the weapons?
> 
> Like Bentdick's magic pixie dust, that's the only true way to know if they were weapons or not.
> 
> I don't know what the fuck a weapons "measurement" is, but obviously it's so super classified that even the Apache pilots didn't know to do it.
> 
> Probably like firing a "warning" shot with a cannon.
Click to expand...


All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.


----------



## geauxtohell

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, I saw the weapons in the video, and I read that the ground units had been taking fire that day. You want to forget or dismiss the hard cold facts. I'm sorry every time some innocent gets hurt. But I will not fault these pilots for doing their job and doing it correctly.  And it's my kind that, thank God, will keep America free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did you do the "measurements" on the weapons?
> 
> Like Bentdick's magic pixie dust, that's the only true way to know if they were weapons or not.
> 
> I don't know what the fuck a weapons "measurement" is, but obviously it's so super classified that even the Apache pilots didn't know to do it.
> 
> Probably like firing a "warning" shot with a cannon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.
Click to expand...


I can't clearly see the RPG (unlike Bentdick, I can admit when something on the video doesn't support my position), however, that doesn't mean they weren't there.  Obviously they were since the Infantry found them.  

However, if all we are going to operate off of is the video (which I refuse to do, but I'll humor bentdick, then I can clearly see two AK-47s.  The guy on the lower right is holding it by the handle and the stock is collapsed.  Not-so-magically, right when you see the  AK's the pilots ID them too.  

I mean, it's beyond any doubt to me.

So, If I am a pilot, responding to a call for CAS, and I see guys with weapons moving towards a friendly position and one of them point a cannister in the direction of the patrol, I logically conclude that it's re-enforcements and act accordingly to preserve the force on the ground, which is my mission.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a fat broken down mailroom boy to try and call someone else a REMF.  Take your pathetic whiny punk ass back to your rubber stamp glory days you pure fucking ****.  You ignored the EOF because the closest thing to honesty you have ever been near is a broken clock.  The best thing you looked forward in retirement was not getting intimidated by E-1 females anymore.  Don't try to fuck with me or I'll put you down on a wet pillow again then you'll cry like a little **** about why you had to put me on ignore again....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you are a REMF.  Even worse, you are a REMF that doesn't know their damned role and thinks they know something about being an infantryman.
> 
> My days as in infantryman are over, but when I was a grunt in combat, I can tell you this:  we didn't want guys like you anywhere near us when we were working.
> 
> "Oh Jee Sally!  I see three guys with RPGs pointing right at one of our Patrols!"
> 
> "Don't worry Nancy!  As soon as they fire, we'll smoke them all and then go home and drink hot cocoa!"
> 
> And then in the not-so-distant future, some poor woman is about to get the knock she most fears and finds out she's a widow now because you don't have the balls for the job like these pilots do.
Click to expand...



Why do you keep calling me a REMF?  Do you hope to score points by lying?  Sure, you've got **** buddies in the bitch cheering section but what does it really accomplish?  Btw dumfuk....you don't have to be an 11B to know ROE.  Of course diptwats like you live in a very tiny tunnel so you cannot fathom the depths of your ignorance.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're way too stoopid to even try and keep up....my "no weapons" argument has not failed.  I'm showing even if you are correct it does not justify what the pilots did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull-fucking-shit junior.
> 
> Eyes on an RPG = instant engagement criteria.
> 
> Apparently in this scenario, eyes on an AK = instant engagement criteria too, because that's when the pilots were cleared to fire.
> 
> You know, but for the fact that these pilots were twice found to have acted in accordance with the ROE, you might actually have a point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is also not the first time I've brought up the ROE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've yet to bring up the actual ROE.  What you have brought up is you misunderstanding of the ROE.
Click to expand...



1. You may engage the following individuals based on their conduct:

a. Persons who are committing hostile acts against CF. [Coalition Forces? - ed.]

b. Persons who are exhibiting hostile intent towards CF.

2. These persons may be engaged subject to the following instructions:

a. Positive Identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact you next higher commander for a decision.

b. Use Graduated Measures of Force. When time and circumstance permit, use the following degrees of graduated force when responding to hostile act/intent: 

(1) shout verbal warnings to halt; 

(2) show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it; 
(3) block access or detain; 

(4) fire a warning shot; 

(5) shoot to eliminate threat.

c. Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds. 
Http://www.file.wikileaks.org/file/rules_of_engagement_appendix1.pdf

Obviously not all are applicable but there are options between waving your hands and the slaughter they committed.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong answer, I saw the weapons in the video, and I read that the ground units had been taking fire that day. You want to forget or dismiss the hard cold facts. I'm sorry every time some innocent gets hurt. But I will not fault these pilots for doing their job and doing it correctly.  And it's my kind that, thank God, will keep America free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But did you do the "measurements" on the weapons?
> 
> Like Bentdick's magic pixie dust, that's the only true way to know if they were weapons or not.
> 
> I don't know what the fuck a weapons "measurement" is, but obviously it's so super classified that even the Apache pilots didn't know to do it.
> 
> Probably like firing a "warning" shot with a cannon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.
Click to expand...


Is there any thread where you posted more than three times and didn't find a way to squeeze in the "I served 22 years!" song and dance?

As for me being too set in my ways....I've admitted to being wrong several times.....so what else ya got because your Miss Cleo starter kit is broken.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Why do you keep calling me a REMF?  Do you hope to score points by lying?  Sure, you've got **** buddies in the bitch cheering section but what does it really accomplish?  Btw dumfuk....you don't have to be an 11B to know ROE.  Of course diptwats like you live in a very tiny tunnel so you cannot fathom the depths of your ignorance.



Because you are a REMF.

You don't have to be an 11B or an 11A to get the ROE, but apparently you have to be someone different than Curvelight who perpetually makes statements that indicates he doesn't get the ROE.  

The worst part?  I've specifically demonstrated where and how you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## geauxtohell

Before I correct you latest inane post, I'd like to applaud you for posting something substantial about the ROE.  Now we can agree that soldiers don't have to be fired on before they engage.  Case in point:



CurveLight said:


> b. Persons who are exhibiting hostile intent towards CF.



Criteria met by the pilots.  Which is why they weren't found to have violated the ROE.



> a. Positive Identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact you next higher commander for a decision.



RPG = PID.  Apparently in this AO and under these circumstances, so does an AK 47, as that is when the pilots requested clearance to go hot.  



> b. Use Graduated Measures of Force. When time and circumstance permit, use the following degrees of graduated force when responding to hostile act/intent:
> 
> (1) shout verbal warnings to halt;
> 
> (2) show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
> (3) block access or detain;
> 
> (4) fire a warning shot;



Applicable to the infantry.  Not to CAS.



> c. Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.



which, as I pointed out to you, is why the pilot didn't re-engage the person crawling on the ground.  He was begging for him to pick up a weapon so he'd have an excuse, but he didn't re-engage him.  

The pilots followed the ROE to the letter. 

You are welcome for the free lesson.


----------



## Terry




----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep calling me a REMF?  Do you hope to score points by lying?  Sure, you've got **** buddies in the bitch cheering section but what does it really accomplish?  Btw dumfuk....you don't have to be an 11B to know ROE.  Of course diptwats like you live in a very tiny tunnel so you cannot fathom the depths of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are a REMF.
> 
> You don't have to be an 11B or an 11A to get the ROE, but apparently you have to be someone different than Curvelight who perpetually makes statements that indicates he doesn't get the ROE.
> 
> The worst part?  I've specifically demonstrated where and how you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Click to expand...





I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> Before I correct you latest inane post, I'd like to applaud you for posting something substantial about the ROE.  Now we can agree that soldiers don't have to be fired on before they engage.  Case in point:
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> b. Persons who are exhibiting hostile intent towards CF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criteria met by the pilots.  Which is why they weren't found to have violated the ROE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. Positive Identification (PID) is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the proposed target is a legitimate military target. If no PID, contact you next higher commander for a decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RPG = PID.  Apparently in this AO and under these circumstances, so does an AK 47, as that is when the pilots requested clearance to go hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. Use Graduated Measures of Force. When time and circumstance permit, use the following degrees of graduated force when responding to hostile act/intent:
> 
> (1) shout verbal warnings to halt;
> 
> (2) show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
> (3) block access or detain;
> 
> (4) fire a warning shot;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Applicable to the infantry.  Not to CAS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. Do not target or strike anyone who has surrendered or is out of combat due to sickness or wounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which, as I pointed out to you, is why the pilot didn't re-engage the person crawling on the ground.  He was begging for him to pick up a weapon so he'd have an excuse, but he didn't re-engage him.
> 
> The pilots followed the ROE to the letter.
> 
> You are welcome for the free lesson.
Click to expand...



Holy shit you're a pathetic ****.  I never said soldiers had to be fired on and that was pointed out a long time ago you fuxxing reetawrd. 

How did the group exhibit hostile intent you wormy punk?

The saddest part is you try to pat yourself on the back about saying the wounded man was not shot again because he didn't go for a weapon.  First, read the ROE dumfuk......he was clearly wounded beyond combat capabilities.  By your glorious idiocy if his hand had accidentally touched an object that could be perceived as a weapon the pilot could have shot him again....and that is you rewriting the ROE for your personal desires.

I'll give you one chance to watch the video again to reevaluate what you said about the wounded not being shot you dumfuk.


----------



## CurveLight

Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument.  Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)

In the interview he does state: 

"I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. You just dont walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/

He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered.  With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.  I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE.  They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot.  They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell.  For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass.  Now dance.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument.  Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)
> 
> In the interview he does state:
> 
> "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there&#8230;. You just don&#8217;t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight&#8230;. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don &#8217;t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
> Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
> 
> He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered.  With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.  I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE.  They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot.  They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell.  For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass.  Now dance.




I appreciate your more reasoned response above.

 I may agree that it wasn't necessary to engage the van.  However, I would disagree that it violated any "rule".  An ambulance is supposed to be clearly marked as such by internatinoal law (Geneva?).  I cannot comment as to ROE due to the fact that I am not former military and don't know the ROE for this instance.

But also please keep in mind... the pilots had no idea that there were children in the van.  At least give credit to the soldiers on the ground for having compassion enough to literally run to get the children help... as can be seen in the video.  Libs don't often give credit to soldiers for compassion, so please at least admit that.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But did you do the "measurements" on the weapons?
> 
> Like Bentdick's magic pixie dust, that's the only true way to know if they were weapons or not.
> 
> I don't know what the fuck a weapons "measurement" is, but obviously it's so super classified that even the Apache pilots didn't know to do it.
> 
> Probably like firing a "warning" shot with a cannon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there any thread where you posted more than three times and didn't find a way to squeeze in the "I served 22 years!" song and dance?
> 
> As for me being too set in my ways....I've admitted to being wrong several times.....so what else ya got because your Miss Cleo starter kit is broken.
Click to expand...


Yes there are hundreds of threads where i do not mention it. But when my military experience has a direct link to the subject I don't see why you would complain about someone stating their credentials. After all,  I am not the one who claimed to have been in similar circumstances. Song and dance? No.  Facts? Yes. 

But you go ahead and keep on dissing my service, it proves your worth.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.



Wow.  You "spearheaded" into Iraq?  You and several thousand other men of various jobs.  If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it.  It was your job to keep the choppers flying.  Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield.  We both know it's B.S.

Funny joke, BTW.  I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics.  Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.

BTW, I was an 11A.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Holy shit you're a pathetic ****.  I never said soldiers had to be fired on and that was pointed out a long time ago you fuxxing reetawrd.



Then why in the fuck do keep whining that the guys on the ground were engaged when the soldiers weren't being fired on by them?  



> How did the group exhibit hostile intent you wormy punk?



By being armed, moving towards an American unit on the ground that had just called for CAS due to being in contact, and then kneeling at a corner and pointing something at them.  I agree that it was probably a camera lens.  What is relevant is that the pilots thought it was an RPG.  



> The saddest part is you try to pat yourself on the back about saying the wounded man was not shot again because he didn't go for a weapon.  First, read the ROE dumfuk......



I lived the ROE shit-for-brains.  Do you think we didn't have to deal with the "shoot/don't shoot" issue in Afghanistan?  



> he was clearly wounded beyond combat capabilities.



Absolutely right.  He was "out of the fight" and not engagable by the ROE.  That's why the pilot didn't re-engage him.  He was following the ROE.



> By your glorious idiocy if his hand had accidentally touched an object that could be perceived as a weapon the pilot could have shot him again....and that is you rewriting the ROE for your personal desires.



Yeah, under the ROE, having a weapon would have allowed the pilot to re-engage him.  You're hypothetical is useless, btw.  The only relevant thing is if the pilots perceived him as having a weapon.  If he picked up a brick, they wouldn't have shot him.  If he picked up an AK, the would have.   

Again, I am not re-writing the ROE, I fully understand what it says and doesn't say.  You don't have a fucking clue about it.  

Not that I would expect you too.  You are a decade+ removed from combat, and even when you were there, you weren't a trigger puller.



> I'll give you one chance to watch the video again to reevaluate what you said about the wounded not being shot you dumfuk.



First, take your ultimatums and shove them up your ass.  If the best you can do is toss out lame ass insults that look like they came off a LOL cat poster, I am completely un-impressed with your "do this or" statements.

I've reviewed the tape.  I've given you time marks and explained what my perception is and why what happened  happened.  I doubt another look for your sake is going to change anything.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument.  Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)
> 
> In the interview he does state:
> 
> "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. You just dont walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
> Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
> 
> He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered.  With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.  I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE.  They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot.  They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell.  For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass.  Now dance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your more reasoned response above.
> 
> I may agree that it wasn't necessary to engage the van.  However, I would disagree that it violated any "rule".  An ambulance is supposed to be clearly marked as such by internatinoal law (Geneva?).  I cannot comment as to ROE due to the fact that I am not former military and don't know the ROE for this instance.
> 
> But also please keep in mind... the pilots had no idea that there were children in the van.  At least give credit to the soldiers on the ground for having compassion enough to literally run to get the children help... as can be seen in the video.  Libs don't often give credit to soldiers for compassion, so please at least admit that.
Click to expand...



I already posted the ROE in effect at the time and the vehicle did not need to be marked as an ambulance and it didn't matter if there were kids inside or not.  They violated the ROE because the wounded was out of combat capabilities and the civilians who showed up had no weapons and made no hostile moves towards anyone.

I'm not a liberal....thass for another thread.....but if I read it correct you want open acknowledgment of the soldiers responding with medical aid.  Why demand special acknowledgment for them doing their job?  Of course the clear majority of soldiers show compassion.....that's a priori knowledge.  The EOF within the ROE is specifically designed to address the tactical hurdles of an urban occupation.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shit you're a pathetic ****.  I never said soldiers had to be fired on and that was pointed out a long time ago you fuxxing reetawrd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why in the fuck do keep whining that the guys on the ground were engaged when the soldiers weren't being fired on by them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the group exhibit hostile intent you wormy punk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By being armed, moving towards an American unit on the ground that had just called for CAS due to being in contact, and then kneeling at a corner and pointing something at them.  I agree that it was probably a camera lens.  What is relevant is that the pilots thought it was an RPG.
> 
> 
> 
> I lived the ROE shit-for-brains.  Do you think we didn't have to deal with the "shoot/don't shoot" issue in Afghanistan?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely right.  He was "out of the fight" and not engagable by the ROE.  That's why the pilot didn't re-engage him.  He was following the ROE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your glorious idiocy if his hand had accidentally touched an object that could be perceived as a weapon the pilot could have shot him again....and that is you rewriting the ROE for your personal desires.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, under the ROE, having a weapon would have allowed the pilot to re-engage him.  You're hypothetical is useless, btw.  The only relevant thing is if the pilots perceived him as having a weapon.  If he picked up a brick, they wouldn't have shot him.  If he picked up an AK, the would have.
> 
> Again, I am not re-writing the ROE, I fully understand what it says and doesn't say.  You don't have a fucking clue about it.
> 
> Not that I would expect you too.  You are a decade+ removed from combat, and even when you were there, you weren't a trigger puller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you one chance to watch the video again to reevaluate what you said about the wounded not being shot you dumfuk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, take your ultimatums and shove them up your ass.  If the best you can do is toss out lame ass insults that look like they came off a LOL cat poster, I am completely un-impressed with your "do this or" statements.
> 
> I've reviewed the tape.  I've given you time marks and explained what my perception is and why what happened  happened.  I doubt another look for your sake is going to change anything.
Click to expand...



The pilots shot unarmed wounded you dumfuxxing ****.  Then you continue to pretend to know what I did in iraq.....you're a joke and a dishonest bitch.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument.  Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)
> 
> In the interview he does state:
> 
> "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. You just dont walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
> Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/



So now we have proof that there was an RPG and AK-47s on the scene?  

"Game over, man."

You still want to tell me I didn't see two AK-47s in the video?  I guess I didn't need your magical measurement system after all, huh slap-dick?

The question of the van engagement is shaky.  However, you haven't been whining about that.  If the van was going int to pull out weapons, and now we know there was an RPG there, then it was a legit engagement.  Keeping weapons out of the hands of the insurgency is a legitimate use of force.    



> He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered.  With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.



Wow.  Imagine that.  It's almost like you now agree with everything we've been saying.



> I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE.  They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot.  They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell.  For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass.  Now dance.



So now we are switching to the van?  Fine.  Go petition the chain of command to prosecute these pilots, because you would have done such a bang-up job if only you were running the show.  

Otherwise, all your previous claims have been shot to shit.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You "spearheaded" into Iraq?  You and several thousand other men of various jobs.  If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it.  It was your job to keep the choppers flying.  Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield.  We both know it's B.S.
> 
> Funny joke, BTW.  I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics.  Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.
> 
> BTW, I was an 11A.
Click to expand...



This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.

"On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm


Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> The pilots shot unarmed wounded you dumfuxxing ****.  Then you continue to pretend to know what I did in iraq.....you're a joke and a dishonest bitch.



You told me what you did in Iraq.  Did you moonlight as Force Recon?

Otherwise STFU.  

None of this would be an issue if you hadn't claimed that you had been in "similar situations" (which you refuse to recount) that gave you some sort of special dispensation on this matter.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.



So fucking what?  You were support for an aviation unit that went into Iraq.  Good for you.  That still doesn't make you a trigger puller and it still doesn't put you in "similar situations".  Unless your unit made the habit of sending their Helicopter Ground crews on infantry missions.

BTW, apologies.  I thought you were USMC.  I didn't know the Army was still flying the AH-1 in the first gulf war.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike many crybaby bitches I look for all available information and not simply what I think will help my argument.  Found an interview by the soldier who pulled kids out of the van and put out a letter of apology. (which some dikfuks here tried to dismiss as not genuine in one form or another.)
> 
> In the interview he does state:
> 
> "I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there. You just dont walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. However, I don t feel that the attack on the [rescue] van was necessary."
> Http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/2007-iraq-apache-attack-as-seen-from-the-ground/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now we have proof that there was an RPG and AK-47s on the scene?
> 
> "Game over, man."
> 
> You still want to tell me I didn't see two AK-47s in the video?  I guess I didn't need your magical measurement system after all, huh slap-dick?
> 
> The question of the van engagement is shaky.  However, you haven't been whining about that.  If the van was going int to pull out weapons, and now we know there was an RPG there, then it was a legit engagement.  Keeping weapons out of the hands of the insurgency is a legitimate use of force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also says there was random sniper fire but it appears that was after the civilians were slaughtered.  With the firefight a few blocks away and his interview I do agree the pilots were in a predicament and they shouldn't be prosecuted for shooting the first time, even though there was no hostile actions by the group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  Imagine that.  It's almost like you now agree with everything we've been saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still hold the position they should be prosecuted for firing on the van as it didn't meet any of the ROE.  They were non-combatants trying to help civilians that just got shot.  They posed no threat and with the ground unit so close they could have secured the area without the van being shot to hell.  For all you bitches that claim I am not honest.....you can kiss my ass.  Now dance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now we are switching to the van?  Fine.  Go petition the chain of command to prosecute these pilots, because you would have done such a bang-up job if only you were running the show.
> 
> Otherwise, all your previous claims have been shot to shit.
Click to expand...



No.  You really are a dishonest whiny twat.  I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying bitch.....


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  You were support for an aviation unit that went into Iraq.  Good for you.  That still doesn't make you a trigger puller and it still doesn't put you in "similar situations".  Unless your unit made the habit of sending their Helicopter Ground crews on infantry missions.
> 
> BTW, apologies.  I thought you were USMC.  I didn't know the Army was still flying the AH-1 in the first gulf war.
Click to expand...


Holy fuk you aren't even worth it.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> No.  You really are a dishonest whiny twat.  I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying bitch.....



You've whined about the whole incident.  Mostly though, you've whined about the first engagement of "unarmed" men because you didn't "see weapons in the video".  Then you mocked those of us who clearly did.

Now we know there were not only AK-47s, but an RPG on site.  

But with your magical powers, you are just going to act like you never said anything about that.


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Holy fuk you aren't even worth it.



Like I said, it wouldn't be an issue if you hadn't claimed to be in "similar situations".

Did you ever co-ordinate with CAS during an engagement?

And you have the moxie to call us all dishonest.


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is that though I was never infantry nor Airborne (though I served in several ABN Units) I did spend 22 years on active duty (mostly fwd area Signal) and I do know an AK when I see one. and looking back at the video I'm almost certain I have also picked out at least one RPG. I don't expect little Miss bentdick to ever see it or to accept the official 15-6 as proof though. She's just too set in her ways as always being right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any thread where you posted more than three times and didn't find a way to squeeze in the "I served 22 years!" song and dance?
> 
> As for me being too set in my ways....I've admitted to being wrong several times.....so what else ya got because your Miss Cleo starter kit is broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there are hundreds of threads where i do not mention it. But when my military experience has a direct link to the subject I don't see why you would complain about someone stating their credentials. After all,  I am not the one who claimed to have been in similar circumstances. Song and dance? No.  Facts? Yes.
> 
> But you go ahead and keep on dissing my service, it proves your worth.
Click to expand...



Even people who usually agree with your views know you bring it up out of glory hound lust you dumfuk.  I'm also not dissing your service but merely pointed out you bring it up at every possible chance.  Keep trying to play the victim though....bitches like you are good at it.


----------



## CurveLight

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  You really are a dishonest whiny twat.  I've always pointed out it was wrong to shoot the van. Keep trying bitch.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've whined about the whole incident.  Mostly though, you've whined about the first engagement of "unarmed" men because you didn't "see weapons in the video".  Then you mocked those of us who clearly did.
> 
> Now we know there were not only AK-47s, but an RPG on site.
> 
> But with your magical powers, you are just going to act like you never said anything about that.
Click to expand...



Is that why I acknowledged I was wrong to say the pilots should be prosecuted for the first engagement you dikidiot?  Keep squirming ****...


----------



## geauxtohell

CurveLight said:


> Is that why I acknowledged I was wrong to say the pilots should be prosecuted for the first engagement you dikidiot?  Keep squirming ****...



Really?

Then my work here is done, I figured you'd come around to a reasonable position once you got over your rage-a-thon and looked at the complete set of facts. 

It's been fun.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in one of the units that spearheaded into iraq you dum fuxxing grunt....there used to be a joke that grunts like you chose 11B because it was the highest letter you knew on the alphabet.....you're one of the reasons why that joke exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You "spearheaded" into Iraq?  You and several thousand other men of various jobs.  If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it.  It was your job to keep the choppers flying.  Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield.  We both know it's B.S.
> 
> Funny joke, BTW.  I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics.  Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.
> 
> BTW, I was an 11A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
Click to expand...



I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.

I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.


----------



## geauxtohell

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You "spearheaded" into Iraq?  You and several thousand other men of various jobs.  If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it.  It was your job to keep the choppers flying.  Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield.  We both know it's B.S.
> 
> Funny joke, BTW.  I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics.  Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.
> 
> BTW, I was an 11A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
Click to expand...


N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.

I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.  

Case in point, my battalion was an infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.


----------



## Nonelitist

geauxtohell said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.
> 
> I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.
> 
> Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.
Click to expand...


Ya, you are probably right.

Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.
> 
> I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.
> 
> Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
Click to expand...


No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.


----------



## Nonelitist

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.
> 
> I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.
> 
> Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
Click to expand...



Again my apologies... I just expected better manners and more respect from former military.  I forgot that, just like other professional, there are people like you.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  You "spearheaded" into Iraq?  You and several thousand other men of various jobs.  If you were the "spearhead", then you were pretty damn far away from the tippy point of the spear, and we both know it.  It was your job to keep the choppers flying.  Certainly a necessary job, just stop acting like you were Johnny Rambo and were in the shit and saw these kind of CAS moral delimmas play out on the battlefield.  We both know it's B.S.
> 
> Funny joke, BTW.  I can't say we had jokes about helicopter mechanics.  Mostly because we didn't care enough to make fun of you, and I am sure you kept your jokes to yourself around the infantry.
> 
> BTW, I was an 11A.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
Click to expand...


I made this claim a long time ago as well.  What kind of vet looks for something about his "Unit" in globalsecurity.org.  One would think being a member of that unit they would have access to or know where to find the unit's website.  If I'm wrong...sorry.


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.
> 
> I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.
> 
> Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....*blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears* and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
Click to expand...


You have to understand it from a real Vet's point of view....nearly ALL of the anti-war vets have been outted as fake Vets.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Squadron you arrogant ****.
> 
> "On the morning of 24 February 1991, the Squadron
> crossed the border into Iraq and commenced offensive operations in support of the Regiment, attacking deep into Iraqi territory, moving more than 350 kilometers in less then 72 hours."
> Http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/4-3acr.htm
> 
> 
> Don't even waste time trying to back pedal you useless crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I made this claim a long time ago as well.  What kind of vet looks for something about his "Unit" in globalsecurity.org.  One would think being a member of that unit they would have access to or know where to find the unit's website.  If I'm wrong...sorry.
Click to expand...



I provided an independent source you dumfuk.  If I linked something from a website I'm active on you would accuse me of changing it so no matter what bitches like you always find something to cry about.


----------



## CurveLight

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....*blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears* and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand it from a real Vet's point of view....nearly ALL of the anti-war vets have been outted as fake Vets.
Click to expand...



Lol.....without using google name five since we invaded iraq.  (that was in march of 03')


----------



## PatekPhilippe

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hesitate to do this.... but I say BS.
> 
> I don't believe you.  Your comments about various things make me doubt your claim.  If wrong, I sincerely apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I made this claim a long time ago as well.  What kind of vet looks for something about his "Unit" in globalsecurity.org.  One would think being a member of that unit they would have access to or know where to find the unit's website.  If I'm wrong...sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I provided an independent source you dumfuk.  If I linked something from a website I'm active on you would accuse me of changing it so no matter what bitches like you always find something to cry about.
Click to expand...


Yeah...what's your next excuse?


----------



## CurveLight

Nonelitist said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again my apologies... I just expected better manners and more respect from former military.  I forgot that, just like other professional, there are people like you.
Click to expand...



Oh.  I should have been more clear.  I don't care if sanctimonious asswipes like you believe me.


----------



## SFC Ollie

CurveLight said:


> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> N'ah.  Fakers don't claim to be ground crew for helicopters.  They always go with "Special Forces" or "Rangers" or "Force Recon" or "SEALs" and usually have some bullshit war stories to boot.
> 
> I believe CL is exactly what he says he is/was.  That doesn't make his MOS tactical and it doesn't put him in the fight.
> 
> Case in point, my battalion was in infantry battalion, but we had all sorts of support guys.  They were great.  We couldn't get our shit done without the mechanics.  However, they weren't out on patrol either.  Which is fair, they didn't sign up to be infantrymen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
Click to expand...


Don't take it personal, but it's personal. It's not veterans who I don't like, it's you. And some of us actually do support the troops and our veterans. Notice the avatar photo......


----------



## CurveLight

SFC Ollie said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonelitist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are probably right.
> 
> Curve... I apologize.  I was out of line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't take it personal, but it's personal. It's not veterans who I don't like, it's you. And some of us actually do support the troops and our veterans. Notice the avatar photo......
Click to expand...



Damn.  My cuntinese translator just crashed so I have no idea what you are whining about this time and I don't care.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> No apology needed....I wasn't offended because I don't care if you or anyone else on here believes me.  What I find curious is the amount of arrogance among some Vets to be able to claim intimate knowledge of other Vet's experiences based on their MOS or things that don't "sound right."  What is really sickening is the amount of hypocrisy in waving the yellow ribbon support our troops bowlshit.  (not saying you personally) There is an undeniable pattern in the pro war camp where they scream about supporting troops and respecting Vets....blah blah but when an anti war combat Vet comes along suddenly their reverence for Vets disappears and the accusations of lying fly like Clinton's saliva in explaining a blue dress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take it personal, but it's personal. It's not veterans who I don't like, it's you. And some of us actually do support the troops and our veterans. Notice the avatar photo......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Damn.  My cuntinese translator just crashed so I have no idea what you are whining about this time and I don't care.
Click to expand...

yeah, you need something to translate into cuntinese for YOU to understand it


----------



## Liability

Seer Travis said:


> This video shows you the Forbidden Truth of what war entails, should you have the Superior mindset to embrace Truth.
> 
> Wars are simply societally-sponsered mass-murder events that are designed to allow citizen-slaves to :-
> 1. Be used as weapon-slaves by the societal leaders to murder other human beings.
> 2. Allow the individual slaves to gain cathartic  release by taking any suppressed rage and hate out via legal murder acts that do not endanger the societal leaders.
> 3. To assuage the average citizen-slaves need to cathartically revel in the mass murder of human being all the while keeping up their illusion of decency via various spoon-fed societal lies.
> 
> The *whole primary* point why societal leaders start wars is simply to commit the acts of mass murder that they crave. The claims made that wars are started to provide "freedom", "security" and peace are so obviously false as to be laudable. It comes as no surprise to Me that all ages and sexes of human beings are being murdered by american society. However, the point is moot, because whether or not an an individual who is murdered is a soldier or not makes zero difference to the Truth that he was brutally and malevolently murdered by the other society.
> 
> There is a good article on wars on My website.




LOL!

According to Seersucker Travisty, governmental leaders "crave" to commit mass murder.


----------



## Liability

Seer Travis said:


> This video shows you the Forbidden Truth of what war entails, should you have the Superior mindset to embrace Truth.
> 
> Wars are simply societally-sponsered mass-murder events that are designed to allow citizen-slaves to :-
> 1. Be used as weapon-slaves by the societal leaders to murder other human beings.
> 2. Allow the individual slaves to gain cathartic  release by taking any suppressed rage and hate out via legal murder acts that do not endanger the societal leaders.
> 3. To assuage the average citizen-slaves need to cathartically revel in the mass murder of human being all the while keeping up their illusion of decency via various spoon-fed societal lies.
> 
> The *whole primary* point why societal leaders start wars is simply to commit the acts of mass murder that they crave. The claims made that wars are started to provide "freedom", "security" and peace are so obviously false as to be laudable. It comes as no surprise to Me that all ages and sexes of human beings are being murdered by american society. However, the point is moot, because whether or not an an individual who is murdered is a soldier or not makes zero difference to the Truth that he was brutally and malevolently murdered by the other society.
> 
> There is a good article on wars on My website.




LOL!

According to Seersucker Travisty, governmental leaders "crave" to commit mass murder.



Why are you still linking to your illiterate and extremely unintelligible web site, stupid?  Did you not comprehend the directive you got from an Administrator?  Did you LIE when you agreed to the TOS, ass breath?


----------



## Colin

Seer Travis said:


> This video shows you the Forbidden Truth of what war entails, should you have the Superior mindset to embrace Truth.
> 
> Wars are simply societally-sponsered mass-murder events that are designed to allow citizen-slaves to :-
> 1. Be used as weapon-slaves by the societal leaders to murder other human beings.
> 2. Allow the individual slaves to gain cathartic  release by taking any suppressed rage and hate out via legal murder acts that do not endanger the societal leaders.
> 3. To assuage the average citizen-slaves need to cathartically revel in the mass murder of human being all the while keeping up their illusion of decency via various spoon-fed societal lies.
> 
> The whole primary point why societal leaders start wars is simply to commit the acts of mass murder that they crave. The claims made that wars are started to provide "freedom", "security" and peace are so obviously false as to be laudable. It comes as no surprise to Me that all ages and sexes of human beings are being murdered by american society. However, the point is moot, because whether or not an an individual who is murdered is a soldier or not makes zero difference to the Truth that he was brutally and malevolently murdered by the other society.
> 
> There is a good article on wars on My website.



Another fucking armchair expert who wouldn't know a front line from a dog turd. Do carry on old chap. I really enjoy laughing at you. Seems everyone else does too!


----------



## CurveLight

Colin said:


> Seer Travis said:
> 
> 
> 
> This video shows you the Forbidden Truth of what war entails, should you have the Superior mindset to embrace Truth.
> 
> Wars are simply societally-sponsered mass-murder events that are designed to allow citizen-slaves to :-
> 1. Be used as weapon-slaves by the societal leaders to murder other human beings.
> 2. Allow the individual slaves to gain cathartic  release by taking any suppressed rage and hate out via legal murder acts that do not endanger the societal leaders.
> 3. To assuage the average citizen-slaves need to cathartically revel in the mass murder of human being all the while keeping up their illusion of decency via various spoon-fed societal lies.
> 
> The whole primary point why societal leaders start wars is simply to commit the acts of mass murder that they crave. The claims made that wars are started to provide "freedom", "security" and peace are so obviously false as to be laudable. It comes as no surprise to Me that all ages and sexes of human beings are being murdered by american society. However, the point is moot, because whether or not an an individual who is murdered is a soldier or not makes zero difference to the Truth that he was brutally and malevolently murdered by the other society.
> 
> There is a good article on wars on My website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another fucking armchair expert who wouldn't know a front line from a dog turd. Do carry on old chap. I really enjoy laughing at you. Seems everyone else does too!
Click to expand...


As much as I disagree with his mass murder theory it is equally laughable to believe we are occupying Iraqghafistan out of the "War on Terror" bullshit.


----------



## Liability

Seer Travis said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Seersucker Travisty, governmental leaders "crave" to commit mass murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is correct. Although you should actually try and refute something for once instead of looking dumb by constantly and mindlessly abusive people.
> 
> For example : Lloyd DeMausse actually knows what he is talking about, that is why he is head of the world institute of psychohistory. The Institute for Psychohistory
> 
> He supports the Truth that poltical leaders have confrontational and psychopathic personalities. Of course, I am sure a mindless hick like you knows better than us trained professionals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still linking to your illiterate and extremely unintelligible web site, stupid?  Did you not comprehend the directive you got from an Administrator?  Did you LIE when you agreed to the TOS, ass breath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a personal website signature link especially for blogs and sites related to discussion material. My website not a business ad, or an add for anything. It relevant for those who want more information on My posts.
> 
> _"Advertising: Advertising for personal gain of any kind is not permitted in any forum or by private message. Posting website links will be permitted occasionally, but will be dealt with on a case by case basis. This does not apply to member signatures."_
> 
> That construes that I can use the signature for My website regardless of whether it is an add or not.
> 
> You just hate the Truth, you hate Me, because you are so inferior and pathetic that you cannot bear to look at reality. Thus, you try and delete the link that reminds you of Truth. Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> We all know the TOS and the "rules" are just a bogus little shield for the arrogant and authoritarian attitude of little pathetic minds who like to play Hitler behind their computer screen.
> 
> ---------
> For more information on My posts visit My website blog at TM8k which explains My philosophy.
Click to expand...


Douchebag, may I call you douchebag?  No?  Ok then, listen up douchebag:

One does not "refute" a mere addle-brained and facially absurd contention like the stupidity you spewed.  One, instead, simply mocks it.

The day you manage to come forward to support that idiotic contention with something that makes even a rudimentary form of "sense" is the day it might be worth "refuting."

Until then, you are just a fucking joke, douchebag.  Not a good joke.  Not funny.  Not intelligent.  And Lord knows, you sure as hell aren't honest.  But you are pathetic.  A pathetic joke.  

By the way, nobody here who has the intellect of a high school sophomore or above accepts a transparent fallacy like your appeal to some alleged authority.


----------



## CurveLight

Did someone fart?  Sounds like an asshole was posting?


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> Did someone fart?  Sounds like an asshole was posting?



That was either you yourself you "heard" or Seer Travis.

You two are natural allies. He's a scumbag poseur who pretends to speak the truth but lies (like the fucking evil retard he is), and you are overtly hostile to honesty.


----------



## CurveLight

The guilty dog barked the loudest.....lol!


----------



## CurveLight

Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and give neg reps where you aren't even posting?  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and give neg reps where you aren't even posting?  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.


whine some more


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and give neg reps where you aren't even posting?  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.


btw, dipshit, i have posted in this thread


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and give neg reps where you aren't even posting?  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> btw, dipshit, i have posted in this thread
Click to expand...


Wasn't talking about this thread dumbfuck.  I specifically said threads you don't post in.  Keep embarrassing yourself.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and give neg reps where you aren't even posting?  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> btw, dipshit, i have posted in this thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking about this thread dumbfuck.  I specifically said threads you don't post in.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
all you have to do is READ it
you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged


----------



## Liability

CurveLight said:


> The guilty dog barked the loudest.....lol!



That was just you farting some more.


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw, dipshit, i have posted in this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking about this thread dumbfuck.  I specifically said threads you don't post in.  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
Click to expand...


Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking about this thread dumbfuck. * I specifically said threads you don't post in.*  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.
Click to expand...

again, the embarrassment is all yours
but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection

btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
so dipshit, fuck off


----------



## DiveCon

Liability said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guilty dog barked the loudest.....lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just you farting some more.
Click to expand...

how can you tell over all that whining he does


----------



## Liability

PussyPuddle said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bent twat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't talking about this thread dumbfuck.  *I specifically said threads you don't post in.*  Keep embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  *I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.*  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so *literal*.
Click to expand...


_PussyPuddle a/k/a Bent twat_ is so stupid and generally  dishonest that, at this point, he probably doesn't even see how badly he just embarrassed himself.


----------



## DiveCon

Liability said:


> PussyPuddle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  *I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.*  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so *literal*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _PussyPuddle a/k/a Bent twat_ is so stupid and generally  dishonest that, at this point, he probably doesn't even see how badly he just embarrassed himself.
Click to expand...

TFF eh?


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, the embarrassment is all yours
> but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection
> 
> btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
> so dipshit, fuck off
Click to expand...


Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.
> 
> 
> 
> again, the embarrassment is all yours
> but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection
> 
> btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
> so dipshit, fuck off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.
Click to expand...

wow, how fucking stupid can you get
you most certainly DID imply that it was wrong or improper to rep someone in the thread you didnt post in
i even quoted the post and highlighted it
as did Liability
you are too fucking stupid for words

and before you project your paranoid delusions onto me again, you should be seeking out professional help


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and *give neg reps where you aren't even posting?*  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.


how fucking stupid and dishonest do YOU have to be? dipshit


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you dont have to post in a thread to neg rep your post, dipshit
> all you have to do is READ it
> you made your usual dumbassed post, so it got negged
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, the embarrassment is all yours
> but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection
> 
> btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
> so dipshit, fuck off
Click to expand...


Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another strawman.  I never claimed one has to post in a thread to use the rep button.  When I said to keep embarrassing yourself I didn't intend for you to take it so literal.
> 
> 
> 
> again, the embarrassment is all yours
> but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection
> 
> btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
> so dipshit, fuck off
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.
Click to expand...

what a fucking dipshit
seek out the help you think i need, because you are projecting AGAIN


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and *give neg reps where you aren't even posting?*  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> how fucking stupid and dishonest do YOU have to be? dipshit
Click to expand...



You're so fuxxing dumb.

I never said it is necessary to post in a thread to give reps.

I said you're so obsessed you stalk and give neg reps when you aren't even posting in those threads. 

Wow! You really like to embarrass yourself!


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Divecon, just out of curiosity, how sick do you have to be to stalk me in threads and *give neg reps where you aren't even posting?*  Hasn't your therapist advised against that kind of behavior?  If not, find a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> how fucking stupid and dishonest do YOU have to be? dipshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're so fuxxing dumb.
> 
> I never said it is necessary to post in a thread to give reps.
> 
> *I said you're so obsessed you stalk and give neg reps when you aren't even posting in those threads. *
> 
> Wow! You really like to embarrass yourself!
Click to expand...

again, dipshit, THAT is implying it is somehow wrong
you dont even understand what you post


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, the embarrassment is all yours
> but do keep showing your massive stupidity by your projection
> 
> btw, you IMPLIED one must post in the thread to rep someone for a post
> so dipshit, fuck off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a fucking dipshit
> seek out the help you think i need, because you are projecting AGAIN
Click to expand...



Lol!  I'm not the one doing the stalking.  Crying "projection" is one of your trademarks when you know you've been bitch slapped.  Have fun psycho stalker!


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> how fucking stupid and dishonest do YOU have to be? dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so fuxxing dumb.
> 
> I never said it is necessary to post in a thread to give reps.
> 
> *I said you're so obsessed you stalk and give neg reps when you aren't even posting in those threads. *
> 
> Wow! You really like to embarrass yourself!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again, dipshit, THAT is implying it is somehow wrong
> you dont even understand what you post
Click to expand...



It's common knowledge your brand of stalking is wrong.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so fuxxing dumb.
> 
> I never said it is necessary to post in a thread to give reps.
> 
> *I said you're so obsessed you stalk and give neg reps when you aren't even posting in those threads. *
> 
> Wow! You really like to embarrass yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> again, dipshit, THAT is implying it is somehow wrong
> you dont even understand what you post
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's common knowledge your brand of stalking is wrong.
Click to expand...

then report me, dipshit

btw, dipshit, you accusing me of "stalking" you is nothing more than your PARANOIA
seek out that help you so clearly need


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never implied it either.  It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not.  I'm pointing out you're so obsessed you stalk me on the board.  You've been doing it for a very long time so I'm concerned for your mental health which is why I asked if your therapist has recommended you avoid that type of self destructive behavior.  You can keep stalking as it does me no harm but it puts you closer to the insanity you fight.
> 
> 
> 
> what a fucking dipshit
> seek out the help you think i need, because you are projecting AGAIN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lol!  I'm not the one doing the stalking.  Crying "projection" is one of your trademarks when you know you've been bitch slapped.  Have fun psycho stalker!
Click to expand...

i'm not stalking anyone, you fucking retard


----------



## WillowTree

hEY! cURVElIGHT bUDDY.. EVERYONE KNOWS YOU HAVE WAYS OF PREVENTING "STALKING" LIKE THE IGNORE BUTTON,,


----------



## CurveLight

WillowTree said:


> hEY! cURVElIGHT bUDDY.. EVERYONE KNOWS YOU HAVE WAYS OF PREVENTING "STALKING" LIKE THE IGNORE BUTTON,,




The ignore button doesn't have anything to do with the rep button.  I just think it's funny he's so pathetic he stalks.  Whenever I stop posting in 9E threads he always follows what I do in other threads.  Now watch him whine some more....


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> hEY! cURVElIGHT bUDDY.. EVERYONE KNOWS YOU HAVE WAYS OF PREVENTING "STALKING" LIKE THE IGNORE BUTTON,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignore button doesn't have anything to do with the rep button.  I just think it's funny he's so pathetic he stalks.  Whenever I stop posting in 9E threads he always follows what I do in other threads.  Now watch him whine some more....
Click to expand...


Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.

Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.


----------



## CurveLight

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> hEY! cURVElIGHT bUDDY.. EVERYONE KNOWS YOU HAVE WAYS OF PREVENTING "STALKING" LIKE THE IGNORE BUTTON,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ignore button doesn't have anything to do with the rep button.  I just think it's funny he's so pathetic he stalks.  Whenever I stop posting in 9E threads he always follows what I do in other threads.  Now watch him whine some more....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.
> 
> Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.
Click to expand...



Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:

"It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."


Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignore button doesn't have anything to do with the rep button.  I just think it's funny he's so pathetic he stalks.  Whenever I stop posting in 9E threads he always follows what I do in other threads.  Now watch him whine some more....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.
> 
> Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:
> 
> "It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."
> 
> 
> Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.
Click to expand...

whats pathetic is that you think i'm stalking you



your on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit


----------



## SFC Ollie

Yawn, what is it 2 pages of nothing now? This thread should be headed for the Lame zone soon.


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.
> 
> Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:
> 
> "It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."
> 
> 
> Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whats pathetic is that you think i'm stalking you
> 
> 
> 
> your on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit
Click to expand...



Stalking is generally done in the public dumbass.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:
> 
> "It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."
> 
> 
> Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> whats pathetic is that you think i'm stalking you
> 
> 
> 
> your on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking is generally done in the public dumbass.
Click to expand...


yeah, sure it is

you're posting on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit, ANYONE can respond and its not stalking
damn you are one fucked up troofer


----------



## CurveLight

DiveCon said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> whats pathetic is that you think i'm stalking you
> 
> 
> 
> your on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking is generally done in the public dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, sure it is
> 
> you're posting on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit, ANYONE can respond and its not stalking
> damn you are one fucked up troofer
Click to expand...


Never said responding is stalking.


----------



## DiveCon

CurveLight said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalking is generally done in the public dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, sure it is
> 
> you're posting on a PUBLIC message board, dipshit, ANYONE can respond and its not stalking
> damn you are one fucked up troofer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said responding is stalking.
Click to expand...

your paranoia is showing again


----------



## Gunny

CurveLight said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ignore button doesn't have anything to do with the rep button.  I just think it's funny he's so pathetic he stalks.  Whenever I stop posting in 9E threads he always follows what I do in other threads.  Now watch him whine some more....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.
> 
> Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:
> 
> "It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."
> 
> 
> Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.
Click to expand...


A buddy's someone that goes to town and two blowjobs and brings one back.

Want to try again, slurpy, or what?


----------



## DiveCon

Gunny said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wah.  I am not aware of a rule that says you cannot be neg'd for a post someone strongly disagrees with by someone not participating in the thread.  That's just you seeing a rule that isn't there.
> 
> Not surprising, that last.  You do that a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rotfl!  Where did I say anything about rules?  I didn't.  I even said:
> 
> "It's common knowledge you can give reps or thanks....or both....in any thread whether one is posting in that thread or not."
> 
> 
> Even when you try to help your buddies out you just contribute to the pool of idiocy for lack of basic comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A buddy's someone that goes to town and two blowjobs and brings one back.
> 
> Want to try again, slurpy, or what?
Click to expand...

bent dipshit is not one to be giving comprehension lessons, since he lacks it in the first place


----------

