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

[geauxtohell]

(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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

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:

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]

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.

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]

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:

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.

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]

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.

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.