US Apache killing civvies on wikileaks.

[Saint Without a Halo]

Thanks for clarifying your point! However the Falklands was hardly a war to end terrorism and the population generally all welcomed us rather than took up arms against us! furthermore the total dead in what was no more than a skirmish when compared to Iraq was less than those killed in Baghdad over the last few weeks!

 

Also the majority of those killed were military rather than civillian and little if any action took place in hevily populated urban environments. So hardly much of a direct comparison!

 

 

Also I dont recollect any British troops taking out 18 civillians and then trying to cover it up!

Edited 7 April, 2010 by Saint Without a Halo

[Ash]

And the kids? Probably helping as well.. although like the others in the video, you'll never know..

When kids are involved and you can't tell I always think it is better to be safe than sorry. Why take a risk when he could grow up, hit puberty, and grow a beard at any stage?

PS, you're a ****ing moron.

 

no..but can you tell from an apache gunship the difference between a telescoping camera to a rocket launcher..?

 

looked pretty hard to me..

Again, better to be cautious and blow the living **** out of anybody carrying anything which looks like it might be a weapon. It's only a bloke after all.

[Micky]

Rhnks for clarifying your point! However the Falklands was hardly a war to end terrorism and the population generally all welcomed us rather than took up arms against us! furthermore the total dead in what was no more than a skirmish when compared to Iraq was less than those killed in Baghdad over the last few weeks!

 

Also the majority of those killed were military rather than civillian and little if any action took place in hevily populated urban environments. So hardly much of a direct comparison!

 

 

Also I dont recollect any British troops taking out 18 civillians and then trying to cover it up!

 

Exactly - two different wars altogeather - the FI war was wagged between opposing nations armies - few civilian casulaties and the formalities of war were observed. British Paras also paid tribute (in some cases) to how well Argentinian conscripts fought. It was a war played by the rules - which recent wars have not been, hence the current debate.

[View From The Top]

Give it a rest. You make yourself look sad enough with your internet hardman exchanges with Derry.

 

Fries with that sir?

[dune]

Fries with that sir?

 

30 minutes and that's the best comeback you can come up with.

[View From The Top]

30 minutes and that's the best comeback you can come up with.

 

 

 

I wanted to keep it nice and simple so you'd understand it. We know you're not to good with complex ideas.

[dune]

I wanted to keep it nice and simple so you'd understand it. We know you're not to good with complex ideas.

 

to or too?

[Wade Garrett]

bloody hell

 

if that is not a reason to get this disgraceful labour lot out..I dont know what it

 

I am a little confused by your comment. They yanks make yet another monumental ****-up, and this means that British voters shouldn't vote Labour?

 

I can't quite see the link.

[Jonnyboy]

bloody hell

 

if that is not a reason to get this disgraceful labour lot out..I dont know what it

 

The Tories always vote for wars you idiot!

[.comsaint]

So in what recent war have we bombed are way to success?...

 

Belgrade?

[Seaford Saint]

I could not watch much beyond 14 minutes, very very sad indeed

[Saint Without a Halo]

Not true at all.

 

Every major country has a "Lockheed Martin" type company. The French and German manufacturers are very successful, as indeed the UK is too.

 

The cost of the war is a significant burden to the US economy and in no way can be looked at as a financial benefit.

 

Am I cynical as I believe it is not a financial burden but a calculated business case in which the advance payment (the cost of the military adventure which also happens to be a stimulus for the US economy at the same time) is offset against the future guaranteed cheap controllable oil supplies as well as vast profits for US firms replacing the bomb damaged infrastructure using the countries oil wealth to pay for it!

[thesaint sfc]

Out of interest, does anyone know how high up this helicopter would be? I guessed from the way the people were behaving on the ground, and the way the van turned up that the helicopter was a good couple of miles away in the sky so no one on the ground would have known they were there. Also the impact times of the bullets seemed to be quite considerably delayed. Therefore people saying that they would shoot them, before they had chance to shoot - I don't really buy that. This is nothing but a gung ho attack. No one one the ground knew the helicopter was even there, so how could they cause it any danger? Also all they had were a couple of AK-47's and an RPG supposedly. I don't think that would take a helicopter out of the sky!

 

Another question would be, the people who gave them the go ahead to engage; would they just have the gunner/pilot (whoevers) say so that the people on the ground appeared to be armed, or would they actually be able to see the same screen that the people in the helicopter could see?

Edited 7 April, 2010 by thesaint sfc

[Saint Without a Halo]

Out of interest, does anyone know how high up this helicopter would be? I guessed from the way the people were behaving on the ground, and the way the van turned up that the helicopter was a good couple of miles away in the sky so no one on the ground would have known they were there. Also the impact times of the bullets seemed to be quite considerably delayed. Therefore people saying that they would shoot them, before they had chance to shoot - I don't really buy that. This is nothing but a gung ho attack. No one one the ground knew the helicopter was even there, so how could they cause it any danger? Also all they had were a couple of AK-47's and an RPG supposedly. I don't think that would take a helicopter out of the sky!

 

Another question would be, the people who gave them the go ahead to engage; would they just have the gunner/pilot (whoevers) say so that the people on the ground appeared to be armed, or would they actually be able to see the same screen that the people in the helicopter could see?

 

You are right the helicopter wasn't even in sight! Also everyone in Iraq knows that you are accompanied by armed guards when you are outside the green zone! So the AK47's should be no surprise.

 

If they thought the camera was an RPG and that there were people close by in danger then they could convievably make a case to take him out! however what they did in terms of taking out the other 17 and the van and then covering up the story, continuing to argue they were all insurgents and hiding the video is inexcusable. It is no wonder we are not taken seriously when we explain our democratic ideals!

 

It should be do what I do not do what I say! We must set the example if we want others to believe in our ideals!

[Viking Warrior]

St Halo

There will always be differing views on wars as well as the rights or wrongs of the helicopter incident. Its hard to get a full picture of what was going on only the apache film . I did think the comments by the pilot and gunner were over the top congratulating him for his efforts Killing somebody in war is never something to be proud of. but when it happens yes there is probably that moment of euphoria shortly afterwards asit could be a case of kill or be killed.

 

I have seen other footage of event in iraq , there is footage of an iraqi sniper

taking aim at british troops . it ws filmed and I will spare you the gruesome details but the iraqi was no longer taking aim with his weapon. Then there is other footage of apaches doing the same this time with insurgents /iraqis laying bombs each of the three were heavily laden with weapons. Two were killed outright but the third was wounded until the yank realised and fired more shots at him. I agree sometimes that war is ugly whether a proper war or one with terrorists. I have seen enough mutilation during my service career on both sides of the fence. Something like the FI is one thing but NI

[Liquidshokk]

Thought it was just another video of the soldiers killing a couple of civilians after mistaking them for terrorists......BUT TO BLOW THE VAN UP WHEN COLLECTING AN INJURED PERSON?!!?!? That bit shocked me.

 

I saw a video a long time ago where american soldiers were sat in the back of an armored truck and as they drove down the road with american folk music playing on the radio the guy on the back was randomly killing civilians walking down the street!! Then started shooting at the drivers of the cars following behind causing a big pile up of cars.

 

Thats two leaked events of this kind.... the scary part is that its probably happening every day. RIGHT NOW IN FACT.

[Liquidshokk]

American soldiers in Iraq decribe how they can kill civilians;

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f66_1223515331

[Saint Without a Halo]

St Halo

There will always be differing views on wars as well as the rights or wrongs of the helicopter incident. Its hard to get a full picture of what was going on only the apache film . I did think the comments by the pilot and gunner were over the top congratulating him for his efforts Killing somebody in war is never something to be proud of. but when it happens yes there is probably that moment of euphoria shortly afterwards asit could be a case of kill or be killed.

 

I have seen other footage of event in iraq , there is footage of an iraqi sniper

taking aim at british troops . it ws filmed and I will spare you the gruesome details but the iraqi was no longer taking aim with his weapon. Then there is other footage of apaches doing the same this time with insurgents /iraqis laying bombs each of the three were heavily laden with weapons. Two were killed outright but the third was wounded until the yank realised and fired more shots at him. I agree sometimes that war is ugly whether a proper war or one with terrorists. I have seen enough mutilation during my service career on both sides of the fence. Something like the FI is one thing but NI

 

Viking I agree and you are of course right war is not nice and many nasty things happen on all sides and it often comes down to shoot or be shot in the end.

Indeed I have altready said that if they mistook the camera for an RPG then the killing of the Reuters reporter could however regretable, be understandable particulalry if it was owned up to as a genuine mistake, however this particular incident represents all that is wrong with the American policy for why:-

 

1) deny and cover up a monumental B***s up?

2) the unrestrained glee in killing?

2) kill all the people including those trying to rescue the wounded in a van?

3) keep claiming they were all insurgents when it was obvious they were not?

4) keep the video under wraps when Reuters and the reporters family were rightly entitled to a proper investigation?

 

I fail to see how an attack Helicopter that was not even seen or heard on the ground was threatened and needed to follow a kill or be killed policy in this case!

 

After all we are in theory fighting to bring democatic ideals to those that dont have them and improve the lives of the people of Iraq and we should therefore abide by these ideals if we want support to grow for them and for them to take root and the people to see the terrorists for what they are!

 

To ignore our own ideals and what we believe to be right and wrong in the face of an enemy that behaves without ideals, only plays into that enemies hands by giving them a propoganda tool that questions the real reasons behind the occupation and provides a rallying cry that will create more and more potential recruits!

 

We need to give people hope and a reason to live and demonstrate our ideals apply to all this is very very hard in the face of enemies who apply no rules and follow no ideals but ultimately is the only sure way to eventual peaceful co existence!

[sotonist]

You are right the helicopter wasn't even in sight! Also everyone in Iraq knows that you are accompanied by armed guards when you are outside the green zone! So the AK47's should be no surprise.

 

If they thought the camera was an RPG and that there were people close by in danger then they could convievably make a case to take him out! however what they did in terms of taking out the other 17 and the van and then covering up the story, continuing to argue they were all insurgents and hiding the video is inexcusable. It is no wonder we are not taken seriously when we explain our democratic ideals!

 

It should be do what I do not do what I say! We must set the example if we want others to believe in our ideals!

 

if it really is the case that the helicopter wasn't in sight then i retract the darwin comment unreservedly. must have been going at some ****ing pelt to circle them like that from a couple of miles away.

[Liquidshokk]

U.S. Forces Shooting Unarmed Iraqi Civilians

 

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c2_1174734212

[Thedelldays]

U.S. Forces Shooting Unarmed Iraqi Civilians

 

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c2_1174734212

eh..

[Liquidshokk]

eh..

 

Its going on all the time. That site has loads of examples

 

:snipe::snipe::snipe:

[scotty]

I really don't find the video that surprising, in the circumstances in Iraq back in 2007. Neither do I find it surprising that there is a simultaneous outpouring of anti-American, anti-war, anti-military and self righteous indignation on this site.

 

When terrorism hit our capital in 2005, our metropolitan police force had a shoot to kill practice which led to the Jean Charles de Menezes killing. The US hardly has a monopoly on trigger happy killing of innocent civilians.

 

 

Look at the public outrage that resulted in. That policy changed pdq.

 

As to the comments from those who maintain that any shade of UK government would have done what blair did and backed the invasion, (and btw, it was an invasion- I wish people would stop referring to "going to war", which sounds far more innocent,) its worth remembering that the lib-dems opposed the action and would almost certainly have refused that course. I'm not thick enough to believe they had or have any chance of forming a government, but for all those on here bemoaning our involvement in Iraq they are the third largest party, and voting for them is an option.

[Redondo Saint]

Am I cynical as I believe it is not a financial burden but a calculated business case in which the advance payment (the cost of the military adventure which also happens to be a stimulus for the US economy at the same time) is offset against the future guaranteed cheap controllable oil supplies as well as vast profits for US firms replacing the bomb damaged infrastructure using the countries oil wealth to pay for it!

 

You are still wrong.

 

The military 'adventure' does not provide an economic stimulus. There have been no new aircraft or systems purchased specifically for the conflicts. UAV's and some armoured vehicles have been ordered but this is not a major job creator.

 

The only stimulus that worked for the economy was the cash for old cars and govt funded construction in the U.S.

 

Your comment regarding the oil supply is a different argument entirely to the economic situation and in any case OPEC controls the oil supplies.

 

You are also wrong about U.S firms rebuilding the Iraq and Afgahnistan infrastructure.

Many other European and soon to be Chinese contractors have won this business.

 

The Iraq war was totally ill-conceived I am in no doubt, but don't think it was all part of a much bigger cunning plan - it wasn't.

 

The U.S govt has far more scrutiny than probably any other govt in the world.

[Saintandy666]

....and don't forget Brown, who signed the cheques

 

And the conservatives who voted for the war. It never would have happened if the conservatives hadn't agreed with it because there were so many Labour rebels.

[Thedelldays]

And the conservatives who voted for the war.

and the 59 million who never marched in london

[aintforever]

You are still wrong.

 

The military 'adventure' does not provide an economic stimulus. There have been no new aircraft or systems purchased specifically for the conflicts. UAV's and some armoured vehicles have been ordered but this is not a major job creator.

 

The only stimulus that worked for the economy was the cash for old cars and govt funded construction in the U.S.

 

Your comment regarding the oil supply is a different argument entirely to the economic situation and in any case OPEC controls the oil supplies.

 

You are also wrong about U.S firms rebuilding the Iraq and Afgahnistan infrastructure.

Many other European and soon to be Chinese contractors have won this business.

 

The Iraq war was totally ill-conceived I am in no doubt, but don't think it was all part of a much bigger cunning plan - it wasn't.

 

The U.S govt has far more scrutiny than probably any other govt in the world.

 

I don't believe that for a second, do you really think it's a coincidence that the US and UK are two of the World's largest arms manufacturers. It's not just the US and UK military, all the countries in the surrounding area have increased military spending because of the instability.

 

As well as business making a fortune on arm sales you have the benefits of cheaper oil, the reconstruction contracts as well as the lucrative private security contracts which are worth billions.

 

 

From the BBC..

 

With annual sales of about £17bn, the (UK Arms) industry likes to see itself as a key plank of the UK economy.

 

The industry's biggest customer is the British government, which last year placed orders worth about £13bn.

 

But the UK is also the world's second biggest arms exporter, behind the United States, with a market share of about 20%.

 

It claims to directly employ 350,000, spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for a living.

[Redondo Saint]

I don't believe that for a second, do you really think it's a coincidence that the US and UK are two of the World's largest arms manufacturers. It's not just the US and UK military, all the countries in the surrounding area have increased military spending because of the instability.

 

As well as business making a fortune on arm sales you have the benefits of cheaper oil, the reconstruction contracts as well as the lucrative private security contracts which are worth billions.

 

 

From the BBC..

 

With annual sales of about £17bn, the (UK Arms) industry likes to see itself as a key plank of the UK economy.

 

The industry's biggest customer is the British government, which last year placed orders worth about £13bn.

 

But the UK is also the world's second biggest arms exporter, behind the United States, with a market share of about 20%.

 

It claims to directly employ 350,000, spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for a living.

 

 

What don't you believe?

 

Keep in mind the British govt would have been the biggest customer regardless of Iraq and Afgahnistan - same for the USA, France, Germany, Russia, etc, with their govts.

 

The BBC numbers are incorrect. In 2007 the UK was ranked 7 in arms exporters -

USA and China were 1 and 2, and even the Netherlands was number 6. (US dollars)

 

The conflict does not require radar systems, ships, fast jets and large hardware which is what the UK is good at producing.

[aintforever]

What don't you believe?

 

Keep in mind the British govt would have been the biggest customer regardless of Iraq and Afgahnistan - same for the USA, France, Germany, Russia, etc, with their govts.

 

The BBC numbers are incorrect. In 2007 the UK was ranked 7 in arms exporters -

USA and China were 1 and 2, and even the Netherlands was number 6. (US dollars)

 

The conflict does not require radar systems, ships, fast jets and large hardware which is what the UK is good at producing.

 

I don't believe that the military 'adventure' does not provide an economic stimulus.

 

Every bullet/missile fired or tank destroyed is paid for by the tax payer and makes some big corporation money. And that on top of the other economic benefits of invading Iraq like oil, reconstuction and security.

 

A quick google...

 

Global military spending rose 4% in 2008 to a record $1,464bn (£914bn) - up 45% since 1999, according to the Stockholm-based peace institute Sipri.

In contrast with civilian aerospace and airlines, the defence industry remains healthy.

"The global financial crisis has yet to have an impact on major arms companies' revenues, profits and order backlogs," Sipri said.

Peace-keeping operations - which also benefit defence firms - rose 11%.

Missions were launched in trouble spots such as Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

"Another record was set, with the total of international peace operation personnel reaching 187,586," said Sipri, or Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Growth industry

As the world's aerospace and defence industry prepares for next week's Paris air show centenary, it seems much of the focus is set to shift away from troubled civilian aircraft makers, which are struggling with reduced orders from recession-hit airlines, towards the companies that make fighter jets and other military hardware.

In total, the 100 leading defence manufacturers sold arms worth $347bn during 2007, the most recent year for which reliable data are available.

Almost all the companies were American or European. Some 61% of the total was accounted for by 44 US companies, with 32 West European companies accounting for a further 31%. Other companies were Russian, Japanese, Israeli and Indian.

"Since 2002, the value of the top 100 arms sales has increased by 37% in real terms," Sipri said. "The US presidency of George W Bush... was a period of continuity in the arms industry. This followed a period of consolidation in the 1990s and early 2000s."

The US aerospace and defence giant Boeing remains the world's largest, with arms sales of $30.5bn during 2007. The UK's BAE Systems ranked a close second, with arms sales of $29.9bn, while Lockheed Martin was third with $29.4bn in sales.

[Guided Missile]

Look at the public outrage that resulted in. That policy changed pdq.

As has the RoE in the US military since that video was taken...

[Saint Without a Halo]

You are still wrong.

 

The military 'adventure' does not provide an economic stimulus. There have been no new aircraft or systems purchased specifically for the conflicts. UAV's and some armoured vehicles have been ordered but this is not a major job creator.

 

The only stimulus that worked for the economy was the cash for old cars and govt funded construction in the U.S.

 

Your comment regarding the oil supply is a different argument entirely to the economic situation and in any case OPEC controls the oil supplies.

 

You are also wrong about U.S firms rebuilding the Iraq and Afgahnistan infrastructure.

Many other European and soon to be Chinese contractors have won this business.

 

The Iraq war was totally ill-conceived I am in no doubt, but don't think it was all part of a much bigger cunning plan - it wasn't.

 

The U.S govt has far more scrutiny than probably any other govt in the world.

 

Neither you or I are wrong! We have differing opinions formulated from what we have seen and experienced!

 

By the way I work in construction and have visited Iraq a number of times over the last few years from here in Dubai. I also have access to all news channels both western and non western. If you want an independant opinion on how the US is benefiting I think you should watch the BBC documentary on how US business is conducted in Iraq by the BBC reporter Tanya Beckett!

 

Also the US is by far the largest benefactor of contracts in Iraq and is also the largest importer of Iraqi oil these are both undisputed facts!

 

Re your point on OPEC, Iraq is being used to weaken the OPEC Cartel as it has to increase supplies in an effort to rebuild and feed it's people and is therefore less likely to cut back on supplies to suit OPEC's price policy.

 

Furthermore the country is also now a cess pit of corruption with vast profits being made by both Iraqi officials and the US companies at the expense of a largely poor population struggling to survive violence, a lack of infrastructure and no jobs. There is even not enough petrol for cars in a country sitting on a lake of oil! Never mind a severe shortage of electricity, power, hospitals schools and education! also what ever there is, is only affordable by the few!

 

It is this helplessness and lack of a future that breeds terrorisim and the US needs to understand this if it is to successfully combat it!

Edited 8 April, 2010 by Saint Without a Halo

[Jonnyboy]

and the 59 million who never marched in london

 

You really are a willy, the polls showed the majority were againsty it and that value has increased right up this day. If there had been a referendum it wouldnt have happened - hundreds and thousands of people dying and millions having their lives ruined...

[Wiltshire Saint]

NOBODY on this forum irritates me quite like you do ginger Robsk

 

It's because he uses big words you don't understand, you fatty spade face.

 

Anyway, I agree that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown should both be held equally responsible for the scenes in the clip.

[Jonnyboy]

and the 59 million who never marched in london

 

still a willy