Badass Apache Combat Footage!

**deathgodusmc** · 06-04-11, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Pint

So eight men. A couple Ak's and one RPG. That leaves 5 unarmed. Strolling down the street in about as untactical a manner as you could manage, making no effort to hide their weapons. That is positive identification of a legitimate military target? The best you could do is claim that obviously the enemy tried to appear nonthreatening on purpose. You are still failing to understand what positive identification means. Your ignoring the underlined part, its underlined for a reason so people read it. If we had a professional in that bird it would of gone like this, "8 dismounts two blocks north of you, I see 3 weapons, I have eyes on and will notify if they approach." unit on ground, "roger, are they advancing on us?" "no, looks like they are strolling in a gaggle, movement is non-tactical, could be any local friendly element or neighborhood militia doing a patrol, no PID" ground "roger keep us informed"

Your making it obvious that positive identification for you means not from Kansas and that threat means armed. Or the proximity to either one of those. Thankfully for the Iraqi police and locals who band together for self protection from the real bad guys they can expect better from us 99.999999% of the time. The part with the van does nothing but nullify any sensible argument that the gunner and pilot had any sense of professionalism, or any intent to follow the ROE at any point in this engagement. I will say it again just so no one thinks I am solely blaming the gunner and pilot, they were trained by inept leadership that woefully disregarded the ROE and escalation of force procedures as habit, the gunner should of been retrained at best or warmed a bunk for a while in Leavenworth if the evidence bore that punishment out. The commander on the other hand was criminally negligent in duty for the entire tour, not just what this incident covers. The Army will scape goat a helicopter gunner to save face, but it has a harder time explaining a rogue field grade officer and a complacent NCO core that failed to bring him to check. A real investigation would of made the second part something it would of had to explain in detail. It did no wrong, just ask em.

Since when do insurgants fight tactically? Since when was hiding a weapon the main concern for them?

LOL thats how it would go huh? Maybe in your delightful world it would but obviously it does not happen that way. There are more videos like this one that oddly enough do not go down the way you say they do. Now for the rest of your post if thats what the army does then why is this gunner not in leavenworth? It should be obvious but i guess it eludes some. Let me say it again. ROE was followed and no laws were broken. If there were when this video hit the scene over 2 years ago then the army MIGHT have tried to scape goat the gunner. That didn't happen though did it.

This is a clear cut case of some peoples sensabilities getting stepped on so now someone has to be to blame. All the opinions of what should have, might have, and could haves aren't worth a thing because what did happen was perfectly within the laws of combat.

**deathgodusmc** · 06-04-11, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by [CoFR]SirMoo

Evan Wright documents many cases in Iraq where ROE was loosened because commanders thought it was "inconvenient". With the Pentagon seemingly oblivious to the actual reason for "boots on ground want to kill some Hajjis" or agreeing to relax ROE because "our boys got our asses kicked in the next village when they ran headfirst into an ambush", this is actually a prime example of the need for more civilian oversight. "If they look like they have a weapon, shoot them until they become unidentifiable pulp" should not be an acceptable ROE under pretty much any circumstances, but especially one for an armored helo crew. Helo crews also need to be better trained to recognize "hey is the guy with the RPG actually pointing it at me, or is he just carrying it from A-B?" Anyway, it is the complete disregard shown in scenarios demonstrated by this video that initiates the slippery slope all the way down to another My Lai. If the military itself is covering up the incident by writing it off as "we can't always help it in battle" then again, it is doing a service to the public by allowing us to say "wait a minute something needs to change here."

I can agree that field command most likely did loosen the ROE but an offical loosening didn't happen until 2010. However i completely disagree with your statement about its a haji kill them all. In fact they did a whole series on the military channel i believe it was talking to Marines in the field and them discussing how the purposefully hesitate to avoid those collateral damage kills.

**deathgodusmc** · 06-04-11, 02:12 AM

There are plenty of vids just like these. So by all means tell me how your statements hold water what so ever when it is common for attack choppers to engage those that are not a direct threat to them? In short you cant because those choppers were designed for search and destroy. They engage any target that can be found as long as permission to fire is given those targets will be taken out. In a perfect world you would have you peace but that isn't where we live and it comes down to kill or be killed. In the case of choppers engaging targets like these it become kill or someone else will be killed. Im not one for saying someone is wrong on stuff expecially in this forum but in this case you are just wrong. If laws were broken then at some point in time those individuals would have been held accountable. Yet not one person has been on this situation.

You really think we would put a whole group in prison for taking pictures of them just fucking with POW's and let someone go that murdered them if that was the case? Hell no we wouldn't and the proof for that has been brought forward with that last several that killed for the hell of it. This case specifically should be easy to determine because the damn video has been out so long and publisied. Yet still no charges pending. At what point in time do you ask yourself if maybe your just over reacting to something because you lack all the details?

**Pint** · 06-04-11, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Since when do insurgants fight tactically? Since when was hiding a weapon the main concern for them?

LOL thats how it would go huh? Maybe in your delightful world it would but obviously it does not happen that way.

Insurgents don't fight by traditional warfare =anyone can be an insurgent.
Insurgents are our enemy=we want to shoot our enemy.
We can shoot anybody.

The reason those videos don't cause a rukus is because you have an enemy actively engaging in one, there you have PID and threat. That is a good shoot. In another you have a fully armed band moving through a rural area, that looks like Afghanistan, ROE and escalation are a little different there as it should be, rural area no collateral damage. Nothing says bad shoot on that one. The one with the truck is from, if my memory serves, rural Tikrit that guy was ghosted by the bird for a while watching him place IED's. The choice was made that we would not be able to get ground forces there in time to catch him, if the bird engaged him when he got back on the main road then we could be in a collateral damage situation. Best option take him out in place. Excellent use of command authority and situational awareness and due diligence in using an air asset. Your examples do not contain a highly iffy initial engagement or a blatant break in protocol and law concerning the van.

My delightful world contains two combat tours with combat arms in combat areas. Yes that is how it goes down. It has gone down just like that many times. Many times a bird spots for us and we go to them, sometimes they wave and set their weapons down and one will come talk, and its a security detail or neighborhood militia if they are known to be local friendlies we chat for a minute and wish them well, sometimes we don't know them, we would confiscate any of their weapons and detain. Sometimes when they see us coming they shoot and we kill them. Sometimes when they see us coming they run only to find out they were out maneuvered and we kill or detain situation depending. Sometimes they run and get away. Sometimes they will run and the bird takes them out once their clear of non-combative structures and populace. Sometimes they run into a house and we go in and kill them. My delightful world contains an enemy who doesn't wear black hats. My delightful world followed the ROE.

Maybe in your delightful world professionalism is not needed. Iraq is the real world and requires a ROE and soldiers professional enough to follow them. You beat an insurgency by working with locals and showing them you are a more worth while ally then the insurgents. This why we have won already in many parts of Iraq and have not needed a presence there for years. If we took your logic then we would of just killed a bunch of people while yelling "fuck ya get some." The bad guys don't wear black hats, you are arguing that it then makes it ok to shoot anyone with out a hat.

By all means brotha go back to creating an illusion of knowledge and experience on these points for the folks who don't know any better, you have managed to thoroughly prove your self a phony at worst or a naive blabber mouth at best.

**triggerhappy2005** · 06-04-11, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Pint

My delightful world contains two combat tours with combat arms in combat areas.

How many combat tours did you serve Death?

**deathgodusmc** · 06-04-11, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Pint

Insurgents don't fight by traditional warfare =anyone can be an insurgent.
Insurgents are our enemy=we want to shoot our enemy.
We can shoot anybody.

The reason those videos don't cause a rukus is because you have an enemy actively engaging in one, there you have PID and threat. That is a good shoot. In another you have a fully armed band moving through a rural area, that looks like Afghanistan, ROE and escalation are a little different there as it should be, rural area no collateral damage. Nothing says bad shoot on that one. The one with the truck is from, if my memory serves, rural Tikrit that guy was ghosted by the bird for a while watching him place IED's. The choice was made that we would not be able to get ground forces there in time to catch him, if the bird engaged him when he got back on the main road then we could be in a collateral damage situation. Best option take him out in place. Excellent use of command authority and situational awareness and due diligence in using an air asset. Your examples do not contain a highly iffy initial engagement or a blatant break in protocol and law concerning the van.

My delightful world contains two combat tours with combat arms in combat areas. Yes that is how it goes down. It has gone down just like that many times. Many times a bird spots for us and we go to them, sometimes they wave and set their weapons down and one will come talk, and its a security detail or neighborhood militia if they are known to be local friendlies we chat for a minute and wish them well, sometimes we don't know them, we would confiscate any of their weapons and detain. Sometimes when they see us coming they shoot and we kill them. Sometimes when they see us coming they run only to find out they were out maneuvered and we kill or detain situation depending. Sometimes they run and get away. Sometimes they will run and the bird takes them out once their clear of non-combative structures and populace. Sometimes they run into a house and we go in and kill them. My delightful world contains an enemy who doesn't wear black hats. My delightful world followed the ROE.

Maybe in your delightful world professionalism is not needed. Iraq is the real world and requires a ROE and soldiers professional enough to follow them. You beat an insurgency by working with locals and showing them you are a more worth while ally then the insurgents. This why we have won already in many parts of Iraq and have not needed a presence there for years. If we took your logic then we would of just killed a bunch of people while yelling "fuck ya get some." The bad guys don't wear black hats, you are arguing that it then makes it ok to shoot anyone with out a hat.

By all means brotha go back to creating an illusion of knowledge and experience on these points for the folks who don't know any better, you have managed to thoroughly prove your self a phony at worst or a naive blabber mouth at best.

All that and yet no charges still. I never argued we do everything by the book. Point in fact i said there are those that dont. I also didn't say i was happy about the video. So far with all your talk you still haven't realised all i said was it was a legal shoot. You are the one that mentioned fighting tactically. SO why get upset when i ask the question since when do they fight tatically.

Let me add thanks for your service. Then i will simply say you were doing good all the way up until you couldn't control your emotions. Insults and running off at the mouth dont do your arguement justice.

**deathgodusmc** · 06-04-11, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

How many combat tours did you serve Death?

I see your back to trolling again today. Instead of dropping to your level i will simply ask do you actually have an opinion on the op because thus far you haven't posted anything.

**bust331** · 06-04-11, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I see your back to trolling again today. Instead of dropping to your level i will simply ask do you actually have an opinion on the op because thus far you haven't posted anything.

Thats why I utilize the ignore feature.

**triggerhappy2005** · 06-04-11, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I see your back to trolling again today. Instead of dropping to your level i will simply ask do you actually have an opinion on the op because thus far you haven't posted anything.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Except there was no chaos leading up to this event. Those pilots were 100% lucid and so was the person that ok'd them to fire.

Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

No, you tried to imply that these pilots were victims of chaos.

If you say that you were just generalizing then don't do that. We're talking about something specific, so stay on point and be specific yourself.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I guess we all just had to be there, right?

Nobody's capable of viewing that video and coming to their own conclusion.

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

But we're talking about this incident here and not war in general. This is a case by case basis and in this case there was plenty of time to make the decision and there was no chaos as clearly shown in the video.

These are just a few posts I've made.

So back to my question. You seem to like telling everyone how uneducated they are and how their lack of time in the military and combat operations precludes them from having an opinion on such matters. Now I'm asking for your credentials. We know Pint has them, where's yours?