Airsoft Arizona

Off-Topic Forums => Real Firearms => Topic started by: HavHav on January 14, 2004, 03:35:27 PM

Title:
Post by: HavHav on January 14, 2004, 03:35:27 PM: You can see the full footage, as well as more at http://www.militaryvideos.net (http://www.militaryvideos.net) You might want to warn people that a guy is ripped apart by the cannon. My favorite is the AC130 Thermal Cam...Terrorists go bye bye!
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 14, 2004, 03:40:19 PM: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/a ... 40109.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/apache_video_040109.html)

Rules of Engagement
Videotape Shows U.S. Helicopter Crew Firing on Suspected Iraqi Insurgents
By Martha Raddatz
ABCNEWS.com

Jan. 9â€” Graphic video footage from the gun camera of a U.S. Apache helicopter provides a window into the rules of engagement that often determine life and death in Iraq.

The video, obtained by ABCNEWS, shows grainy images of three Iraqis on the ground handling a long cylindrical object that the helicopter pilots believe is a weapon.
The pilots, from the Army's 4th Infantry Division, ask their commanders for permission to engage, then take the three men out one by one, using the Apache's devastating 30 mm cannons.

Nighttime Scene

The video opens with the helicopter tracking a man in a pickup truck north of Baghdad on Dec. 1, one day after the 4th Infantry Division engaged in the bloodiest battles with Iraqi insurgents since the end of major combat.

The pilots watch as the man pulls over and gets out to talk to another man waiting by a larger truck.

"Uh, big truck over here," one of the pilots is heard saying. "He's having a little powwow."

The pickup driver looks around, then reaches into his vehicle, takes out a tube-shaped object that appears to be about 4 or 5 feet long, and runs away from the road into a field. He drops the object in the field and heads back to the trucks.

"I got a guy running throwing a weapon," one of the pilots says. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, an ABCNEWS consultant who viewed the tape, said the object looked like a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, "or something larger than a rifle."

The pilots check in with their operational commander, who is monitoring the situation. When they tell him they are sure the man was carrying a weapon, he tells them: "Engage. Smoke him."

The pilots wait as a tractor arrives on the scene, near the spot where the pickup driver dropped the object. One of the Iraqis approaches the tractor driver.

Then, within minutes, the Apache pilots open fire with the heavy 30 mm cannon, killing first the Iraqi in the field, then the tractor driver. The pilots then fire at the large truck and wait to see if they hit the last of three men.

When he rolls out from under the truck, one of the pilots says, "He's wounded."

The other pilot says, "Hit him," and the Apache opens fire again, killing the man.

The Apache fires nearly 100 30 mm cannon rounds in all.

Engagement Called Justified

A senior Army official who viewed the tape said the pilots had the legal right to kill the men because they were carrying a weapon. He said there were no ground troops in the area and if the Apache pilots had let the three Iraqis go, the men might have gone on to kill American troops.

Keane agreed. "Those weapons were obviously not being pointed at them in particular, but they [the three Iraqis] are using those weapons in their minds for lethal means and they [the Apache pilots] have a right to interfere with that," he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an ABCNEWS defense consultant who also viewed the tape, said the Apache pilots would have had a much clearer picture of the scene than what was recorded on the videotape. He also said they would have had intelligence about the identity of the men in the vehicles. "They're not getting a sort of blurred picture. They have a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see."

As to whether the Apache pilots could have called in ground troops to apprehend the men, Cordesman said: "In this kind of war, wherever you find organized resistance among the insurgents, you have to act immediately. If you wait to send in ground troops almost invariably your enemy is going to be gone."

Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 14, 2004, 03:44:15 PM: that was a 30 mm cannon? a round a little over an inch in size did that? is it an explosive round? does anyone know?

and... what do you all feel on the apropriatness of firing on the wounded combatant?
Title:
Post by: Harley on January 14, 2004, 04:18:53 PM: Sweet! Those 30mm rounds are depleted uranium. They just look explosive due to impacting the ground and kicking up all the dirt.
Title:
Post by: Me-Ushi_Kami on January 14, 2004, 05:02:31 PM: Nice video, Thanks for the site havhav I will probably end up watchin all of those too.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 14, 2004, 05:13:55 PM: no, i was wondering due to the effect on the vehicles. du, that makes sense, du burns on impact.
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 14, 2004, 06:37:16 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 no, i was wondering due to the effect on the vehicles. du, that makes sense, du burns on impact.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Depending on the material being impacted. The friction of DU rounds punching through metal (read Armor) usually causes a bit of heat[}:)].

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 
and... what do you all feel on the apropriatness of firing on the wounded combatant?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We are all now more of a pansy for having read your post.
Title:
Post by: Harley on January 14, 2004, 07:18:52 PM: He was moving pretty good, so he couldn't have been hurt too badly and thus he was still a threat. His mistake for not staying hidden under the truck like he was.
Title:
Post by: Paco on January 14, 2004, 07:29:20 PM: It actually looked like he was missing a leg...
Title:
Post by: Harley on January 14, 2004, 07:40:16 PM: I didn't see that, I'll have to watch it again.
Title:
Post by: HavHav on January 14, 2004, 07:51:20 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 
and... what do you all feel on the apropriatness of firing on the wounded combatant?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No offense, but what the hell were they supposed to do? Land the helicopter and preform CPR? The guy shouldnt have been there in the first place. If you have the choice to live your life normally, or go chill in an alley behind the crackhouse in the middle of 'the hood', dont be supprised if you get shot. It was obvious that they were a threat. [Ditching weapons and what looked like a very large AT or AA launcer] Even though they wernt shooting anyone, they were a threat. If you were in the middle of Afghanistan, and saw some Taliban guys down the road loading AK's, RPGs, and putting the finishing touches on a few heavy machine guns, would you just sit there and wait until they decide its a good time to shoot you?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Harley
 I didn't see that, I'll have to watch it again.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Watch it 2 more times and you will see more interesting things. The First, watch the right of your screen (the man standing there) when the Apache first opens fire. It looks like he either got some dirt kicked up at him, or some shrapnel to his abdomen. (This same guy later gets shot as he peeks around the truck). The second time, watch the smoke to the left of the person getting shot (the first time), and you will see a leg fly off.
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 15, 2004, 01:28:33 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by HavHav
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 
and... what do you all feel on the apropriatness of firing on the wounded combatant?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No offense, but what the hell were they supposed to do? Land the helicopter and preform CPR? The guy shouldnt have been there in the first place. If you have the choice to live your life normally, or go chill in an alley behind the crackhouse in the middle of 'the hood', dont be supprised if you get shot. It was obvious that they were a threat. [Ditching weapons and what looked like a very large AT or AA launcer] Even though they wernt shooting anyone, they were a threat. If you were in the middle of Afghanistan, and saw some Taliban guys down the road loading AK's, RPGs, and putting the finishing touches on a few heavy machine guns, would you just sit there and wait until they decide its a good time to shoot you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He would have ran off by then, leaving a trail of urine in the desert sand.

The bottom line, leakingpen, is that those guys exist so the nation I love and the freedoms I can take for granted aren't dependent on people like you to defend them. And yes, I am judging you by what you have said thus far. It is all I know of you, it's not personal.
Title:
Post by: Me-Ushi_Kami on January 15, 2004, 03:09:00 AM: Thats one thing i never understood about war. The fact that people deam diffirent ways of killing a human to be inhuman or whatever. For example last i checked you cant shoot a person with a M82-A1.. ok your going to kill him ether way.. one just takes less time, less bullets, and can be done at a greater distance.

People often say how inhuman it is to fire on someone that isnt firing apon you first. For example up above when leakingpen asked how do we feel about that. I feel fine about it and if i was the pilot i wouldnt give it a second thought. Hell i would have sent a few more down just to make sure. Your in it to take out your targets .. once they are identified you should be able to use what you have at your dispence to destory it and not have to stop half way cause on the first shot you wounded it.

It reminds me of times where you see a group of people attack another group of people and at the end they try to save the people they just injured becuase they mortaly wounded them but didnt kill them.

Use DU rounds, use bombs, use what ever.. just get the job done!
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 15, 2004, 04:56:34 AM: no, i meant as in since the way he was moving he looked pretty wounded, as he was under a truck that had gone BOOM, should they have blown just the other truck to prevent him from escaping, kept guns on him, called in ground troops, and tried to capture him. for interrogation. if he managed to get up and try to run, THEN smoke him. and harley, the truck was burning. would YOU have stayed hidden under flaming wreckage?
Title:
Post by: Me-Ushi_Kami on January 15, 2004, 05:31:20 AM: Well people do often do stupid things when paniced any how so i doubt he gave it to much thought. You have a choice of 30mm gun or a truck that could explode in any minute.

Ok so my example using leakingpen is a little off but for sake of argument it will work. As for capturing him.. i would just have killed him. Considering the time, money, and waste of man power.. i wouldnt go get him. He would probably not say much and rot in some prison somewhere. IMO
Title:
Post by: Harley on January 15, 2004, 06:57:59 AM: Yep, he definitely lost his lower right leg. I don't think the truck was on fire though, maybe smoking, but not on fire.

Either way, I concure with Me-Ushi's statements. Rules of war??? What's that all about. Either you're at war or you're not.
Title:
Post by: Paco on January 15, 2004, 08:36:10 AM: Capture him??? After his wounds and getting hit by truck shrapnel, 30mm cannon fire and losing his leg, I don't think he'd survive much longer. I think they did him a favor by finishing him off.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 15, 2004, 09:23:53 AM: true.
Title:
Post by: Farslayer on January 15, 2004, 09:29:07 AM: Wow, really graphic. That is what war is about. Killing people, plain and simple. Not "glorious" at all. Pretty horrible stuff.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 15, 2004, 09:48:20 AM: no, not glorious. but it IS war. in war people die. Often gruesomely.
Title:
Post by: HavHav on January 15, 2004, 10:04:15 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Paco
 Capture him??? After his wounds and getting hit by truck shrapnel, 30mm cannon fire and losing his leg, I don't think he'd survive much longer. I think they did him a favor by finishing him off.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Exactly what I was thinking. Poor guy was better off getting blown apart then having some poor farmer child stumbling upon the body. And the guy looked like he was screaming for his life (reaching hand in air and his other hand grasping his chest)...Kinda sad to watch, but it needs to be done.
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 15, 2004, 11:04:37 AM: I doubt a group of ground tropps would be re-routed to capture one immobilized Iraqi. It is not worth it, and like someone said above, would be a tremendous waste of manpower. If a unit was nearby, they still wouldn't do it. By the sound of the radio chatter, it appears that the mission of that crew was to destroy targets. What's the point in having the most powerful and successful military in world history if you won't use it to take out the enemy.

For what it's worth, I understand your argument/questions. However, we as civilians are not asked to understand the rules of warfare. It's not up to us. All we need to do is make living in freedom the most enjoyable experience possible while our troops guarantee it will be there tomorrow.
Title:
Post by: Farslayer on January 15, 2004, 12:04:20 PM: Doesn't the A-10 Warthog fire the same cannon and ammo?
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 15, 2004, 12:20:24 PM: similar ammo, but not as long, as they use a lighter weight ammo for the apache. the apache also has a greater range of ammo type. also, the avenger thats mounted on the warthog has a higher rof compared to the apache, but unlike the apache, can only fire at top rate, whereas the apache can run a lower rate when needed for ammo conservation (as it did in this video)
Title:
Post by: DiMeNTioN on January 15, 2004, 12:20:58 PM: Maybe this will shed some light on the topic. I recently found this video on a website given to me by a friend of mine. Keep in mind this page is pro-humanitarian and the person who edited the video edits out [writhes on the ground] "lying next to his gun" just to make his case that much stronger but nonetheless the soldiers clearly broke the law. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing, but at some point you have to draw the line.

WARNING: SEMI-GRAPHIC http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5365.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)
Title:
Post by: Paco on January 15, 2004, 01:38:14 PM: I will bet you $1M that the interview with the soldier was 100% taken out of context with what was seen in the video.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 15, 2004, 01:49:57 PM: of course it was. thats journalism. the cheers do upset me a bit. but it looked to me like the guy was trying to reach his firearm. if the soldier made that judgement, then he was right to fire. taking a few shots at that range and missing that badly though...
Title:
Post by: Farslayer on January 15, 2004, 09:34:17 PM: Upon showing the helicopter footage to my wife, who ran from the room screaming, it looks like that second guy who got smoked near the tractor was trying to pull out a piece of cloth or something and wave it around. Possibly a white flag or something? Whatever color it was, it think it turned red very quickly.....
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 15, 2004, 09:50:46 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 of course it was. thats journalism. the cheers do upset me a bit. but it looked to me like the guy was trying to reach his firearm. if the soldier made that judgement, then he was right to fire. taking a few shots at that range and missing that badly though...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're right. There are dark moments in humanity. Sometimes emotions like that are simply the result of sustained firefights, where US tropps could have lost buddies, or been through some intense combat. An enemy kill sometimes provides a bit of elation (and encouragement) during a hectic time.

About the A10, there are different types of ammo used, all being 30mm x 173. API/DU, HEI, and TP rounds can be fired. The last obviously not being used in combat.
API/DU-Armor Piercing Incindiary/Depleted Uranium
HEI-High Explosive Incindiary
TP-training Practice

Apache ammo: which IS shorter, as leakingpen stated above.
M789 (HEDP) High Explosive Dual Purpose
M799 (HEI) High Explosive Incendiary
M788 (TP) Target Practice

DU is not always used. The M230 system uses 30mm x 113.

the ROF is slower on the M230, as it is a chain gun, operates by a chain similar to that of a bicycle. The GAU-8 is a gatling-type, and thus has a much higher ROF.

BLAH

BLAH

BLAH

Not that anyone cares[:P].
Title:
Post by: Greg on January 15, 2004, 11:25:53 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by DiMeNTioN
 Maybe this will shed some light on the topic. I recently found this video on a website given to me by a friend of mine. Keep in mind this page is pro-humanitarian and the person who edited the video edits out [writhes on the ground] "lying next to his gun" just to make his case that much stronger but nonetheless the soldiers clearly broke the law. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing, but at some point you have to draw the line.

WARNING: SEMI-GRAPHIC http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5365.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

WTF!?! [:(!]

The editing was so horribly obvious..

If that was right off CNN, then why does the top of the page read "NEWS YOU WONT FIND ON CNN." Funny how some people can be so far left that they think CNN is part of "The Right-Wing Consipiracy." I mean.. It's CNN for god's sakes! CNN!
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 16, 2004, 01:53:43 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by USMC-Greg
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by DiMeNTioN
 Maybe this will shed some light on the topic. I recently found this video on a website given to me by a friend of mine. Keep in mind this page is pro-humanitarian and the person who edited the video edits out [writhes on the ground] "lying next to his gun" just to make his case that much stronger but nonetheless the soldiers clearly broke the law. I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing, but at some point you have to draw the line.

WARNING: SEMI-GRAPHIC http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le5365.htm (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

WTF!?! [:(!]

The editing was so horribly obvious..

If that was right off CNN, then why does the top of the page read "NEWS YOU WONT FIND ON CNN." Funny how some people can be so far left that they think CNN is part of "The Right-Wing Consipiracy." I mean.. It's CNN for god's sakes! CNN!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wrote a 42-page term paper for a Humanities class regarding media bias in the Middle East Conflict (Israle, Palestine). CNN is bad, but there are much worse. And I'm not talking about painfully obvious sources like the one above, I mean mainstream media, like NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and surprise... The New York Times. Sometimes it's subtle, but sometimes it turns my stomach. The Right has something to do with it too, but being a Right Winger, it doesn't bother me AS BAD as some of the liberal banter. More times than not, the left takes the side of utterly bashing the right, and even the left itself. It sometimes is so bad it's humorous!

Bleeding hearts are just funny creatures, I have come to accept that.

EDIT: Make that PREDICTABLE creatures...
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 16, 2004, 09:03:38 AM: the thing to remember is that while most reporters and journalists are rather liberal, the managers and editors are overwhelmingly conservative. so when you see a liberal bend, it tends to be subtle becuase the reporters are trying to get it past the conservatives in charge. (bumpersticker that i was going to put on my car once i got one, and couldt find where id put it when i did, the media is only as liberal as the conservatives that own it). hosetly, cnn is rather middle of the road. msnbc slightly left, and npr was rather left until about 9 months ago. but fox (or, as some like to call it, faux) is so far right its not funny. yeah, there are biases in the media that shouldnt be there, but cmon, you have only to look at the media coverage of the 2000 election to erase any thoughts of a liberal bias throughout the media.

back somewhat ON topic (sorry) yeah, i flipped that. the apache has a limited range of ammo, since the x113 also runs through the x173 cannons, giving the warthog a larger amount of options. unless theyve started making du for the x113 system (all web searches say nay) those were propbaly the dual purpose explosive.

and something i meant to add on the firing on the wounded man bit, through the wonderful zoom lense of the camera, its pretty obvious hes not going to fire. not that teh soldier can see that, or the camerman share that info...
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 16, 2004, 09:05:26 AM: The Right has something to do with it too, but being a Right Winger, it doesn't bother me AS BAD as some of the liberal banter. More times than not, the left takes the side of utterly bashing the right, and even the left itself. It sometimes is so bad it's humorous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ever watch fox or listen to rush? it goes both ways. i know more than a few liberals who listen to rush for entertainment value. same with hannity and colmes
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 16, 2004, 12:02:26 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 The Right has something to do with it too, but being a Right Winger, it doesn't bother me AS BAD as some of the liberal banter. More times than not, the left takes the side of utterly bashing the right, and even the left itself. It sometimes is so bad it's humorous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ever watch fox or listen to rush? it goes both ways. i know more than a few liberals who listen to rush for entertainment value. same with hannity and colmes

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yeah, but like I said, the Right wing banter doesn't bother me. Not to say that the lefty stuff does, it's just more "interesting" to watch. Hannity and Colmes, Joe Scarborough, and all the rest. Frankly, I am surprised that these4 guys can get away with some of this stuff. But I would be a fool to try and tell you I didn't love every bit!
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 16, 2004, 12:36:47 PM: have you read franken's latest? its a rather moderate look at the media. i expected it to be a lot more left leaning than it is. gives some interesting perspectives into the media.
Title:
Post by: CADD on January 16, 2004, 02:10:31 PM: told my mother about this vid and sadly she made reference to it sounding like a video game - that pissed me off....
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 16, 2004, 02:30:00 PM: well, it does. the thought of death and killing is an unreal thought to most people. Back in the 40's, people would refer to the tales of the war as sounding like a pulp book. Or a comic book. Look at the reaction of people who visit a slaughterhouse. Death is anathema to most of todays society. The ability to speak of death and KILLING! in normal reasoned tones seems strange and unreal to most people.
Title:
Post by: CADD on January 16, 2004, 08:35:29 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 well, it does. the thought of death and killing is an unreal thought to most people. Back in the 40's, people would refer to the tales of the war as sounding like a pulp book. Or a comic book. Look at the reaction of people who visit a slaughterhouse. Death is anathema to most of todays society. The ability to speak of death and KILLING! in normal reasoned tones seems strange and unreal to most people.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have logged hunreds if not htousands of hours over the years playing halo, ghost recon, rainbow six, splinter cell, soldier of fortune etc etc ... I know own a shotgun - yeah i know childs play to most of all the collections i see posted in here but a real steel none the less!

I have similar backgrounds to the steroetypes that shoot the hell out of ours schools but id be damned before i considereddoing such... and in no way have i ever corelated the games i play to real life..... those who do are either already sick and twisted beyond help or never played one themself.....
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 16, 2004, 11:55:27 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by CADD
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 well, it does. the thought of death and killing is an unreal thought to most people. Back in the 40's, people would refer to the tales of the war as sounding like a pulp book. Or a comic book. Look at the reaction of people who visit a slaughterhouse. Death is anathema to most of todays society. The ability to speak of death and KILLING! in normal reasoned tones seems strange and unreal to most people.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have logged hunreds if not htousands of hours over the years playing halo, ghost recon, rainbow six, splinter cell, soldier of fortune etc etc ... I know own a shotgun - yeah i know childs play to most of all the collections i see posted in here but a real steel none the less!

I have similar backgrounds to the steroetypes that shoot the hell out of ours schools but id be damned before i considereddoing such... and in no way have i ever corelated the games i play to real life..... those who do are either already sick and twisted beyond help or never played one themself.....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I understand where you are coming from. I think he reference howver, was due to the video screen, and the voice chatter. Some people just don't get it, and that's fine. I have heard alot of servicemembers relate combat to a video game. Wire-guided missiles, radar screens, UAVs, you name it. When looking through an electronic scope at a tank downrange, it plays alot like the games of today. More times than not, references such as the one you describe are due to the level of violence in video games. That's my understanding anyway.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on January 19, 2004, 09:24:19 AM: what i mean is that when you listen to the pilots talk, they are talking about death and killing in a matter of fact way. that seems unreal to most people.
Title:
Post by: Paco on January 19, 2004, 09:32:59 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 what i mean is that when you listen to the pilots talk, they are talking about death and killing in a matter of fact way. that seems unreal to most people.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Boy, you "lefties" [;)] are tough to please... you didn't like the video with the soldier shooting the wounded Iraqi soldier reaching for his gun, and then laughing in the background (presumably) and now you don't like it done in a "matter of fact" manner. How do you want it referred to?
Title:
Post by: Greg on January 19, 2004, 11:28:20 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 what i mean is that when you listen to the pilots talk, they are talking about death and killing in a matter of fact way. that seems unreal to most people.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Um.. They are professionals. As Paco said- how should they talk about it? Not only that, but remember that they are talking to eachother over the plane's vox intercom. Therefore they have to speak clearly.
Title:
Post by: HavHav on January 19, 2004, 12:37:48 PM: leakingpen. There is not much we can do about those terrorists dieing anyways. They are already dead! If you love them so much, feel free to join them. Also, when someone is killed, there is no nice or mean way to do it. You either kill someone or you dont. Simple as that. If you want our guys and gals in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blasted apart, tell them that. I am sure they would love to hear. And you know the only reason you are allowed to say what you think? Is because you live in America. Land of the free. Although sometimes it doesnt seem like it, you really can do pretty much whatever you want.
Title:
Post by: azsarge on January 19, 2004, 09:37:13 PM: I say we change his name from "leakingpen" to "bleedingheart"! That would clear things up a bit.
Title: DUCK!!!!!
Post by: CADD on January 14, 2004, 03:11:46 PM: http://www.vetsquad.com/Helicopter_Kills.mpeg (http://www.vetsquad.com/Helicopter_Kills.mpeg)