Collateral Murder
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
Wow, that was a lovely objective piece that made claims to there being no weapons.
Why do you like media that insults the intelligence of 5 year old's JBeee?
If some country invaded Canada and overran our military, does anyone doubt there would be instant retaliation from Canadians? Do you not think that a lot of people would be massing in our forests to create a resistance? Insurgent is a convenient word to use to create an enemy when in fact they would be freedom fighters if they were Canadians on Canadian soil.
It would depend on why they invaded.
Yep.
Nope. And before you go there, or jump to conclusions, I don't believe the Iraq war was a wise idea either.
Last edited:
You obviously are unaware of the capabilities of an Apache. Do you think they were hovering directly above. I assure you that If they knew they were being watched by Apaches they wouldn't be milling around with AK-47's.
If they could have brought down that Apache I am sure they would have.
Because people will see what they want to see. It helps them cope with how their ideology clashes with reality.
JBee....Are you into conspiracy theories????
Here's one for ya .....be scared real scared that it could also apply to Canadians:lol::lol:
Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
and of course taking out the Van with the 2 kids was completely justified. I mean, there were AK47's and RPG's sticking out all OVER that Van. Plus, the fact that they were trying to rescue a wounded man that had just been shot. How dare they. He should have been left on the sidewalk to bleed to death.
And of course the Apache pilots could see two kids in the van in a banking and vibrating attack helicopter. And every pilot should assume that a knucklehead would pack their kids in a van to pick up wounded insurgents (or reporters).
So, the justification for taking the van out was because...what?.... how was it a threat again?
There didn't seem to be any reason to attack the van. It just looked like a feeding frenzy had taken hold. The gunner sounded like he just wanted to gun down someone else cause his adrenaline was up.
Yep, it has been common practice of other insurgents to remove weapons and wounded, to use as public relations photo ops. This is SOP now.
Cliffy, would like to know what I think of arm chair quarter backs, that have never actually given any time to learning about combat, let alone seen it?
They had not removed any weapons, up to that point, and I find it hard to swallow that a potential "photo-op" justifies the carnage I saw with that van.
Your point? There orders are to stop it from happening. Given there were weapons at the scene, there were insurgents. The case is clear, the pilot and gunner acted in good faith, and broke no law under the Laws of Armed Conflict.
That's your opinion.
But it isn't merely a photo op they're trying to stop. They are trying to stop insurgents from escaping and the weapons from finding their way back into circulation.