Powered by TypePad

« Take Him Out To The Ball Game | Main | Team Obama, Wrapping Themselves In Reagan »

April 07, 2010

Comments

Clarice

BTW It's not as if Reuters embeds weren't working in many places for the enemy. See this spoof http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184234.php

Melinda Romanoff

JiB-

He's wearing his "Imagery Analyst" hat today.

Must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I stopped following the story when the editing of the tape was revealed. No agenda.

Thomas Collins

Captain Hate, if Duke's win ticked off the Gang of 88, all the better. That was such a great game, I didn't care at the end who won. I just wanted it to go down to the last shot. And it did.

Cecil Turner

It looks like the photogs may have taken a "before" picture and that the guy with the RPG is coming up to take a shot at the Humvee.

I think that's exactly what it was, setting up a shot remarkably like the first in this series. And while the aircrew may have made an error in identifying the camera, they got the nature of the event right.

As to the rescue van, the shooters are not obligated to allow insurgents to escape to fight another day (in fact they should not), and the survivor would've probably been okay if he'd waited for the reaction team. Why there were kids inside is hard to figure, displaying either a marked disdain for civilized standards on the part of insurgents, or possibly the unplanned nature of the rescue effort. I can't figure which.

You obviously want to believe what WikiLeaks wants you to believe . . .

I think he's coming 'round to our way of thinkin' on this one.

Danube of Thought

He seems to think that the ROE in Iraq at that time prohibited firing on people in civilian clothes unless they were confirmed to have weapons at the time of engagement. He's wrong.

A rule of that kind has only been applied in Afghanistan, and only very recently. One result already is that combatants will fire on US troops from a building, then leave their weapons inside and come out and taunt the troops.

anduril
You obviously want to believe what WikiLeaks wants you to believe . . .

I think he's coming 'round to our way of thinkin' on this one.

Posted by: Cecil Turner | April 07, 2010 at 04:10 PM

A pleasure to agree with you for a change, Cecil. I suspect that a lot of those people were spectators out for some fun who should've kept a safer distance. The van drivers were brave but foolish.

As for wanting to believe what Wikileaks wanted me to believe, I started by stating:

The characterization of this video is obviously skewed, since the video itself shows that the US helicopter pilots and gunners somehow thought they were involved in a legitimate military action...

I'm pleased to be wrong on this one and will not be as trustful of Wikileaks in future. Having spotted their skew to begin with, I should have been more suspicious. It's truly humbling to be brought down to Rush Limbaugh levels of correctness. :-)

anduril

DoT, are you suggesting that if unarmed Iraqis had taunted US troops the troops would've gunned them down? I find that difficult to believe, even allowing for suspicion as to what they'd been up to. My belief is that in those circumstances they would have taken them into custody and searched the building for evidence. The video certainly confirms that the crew made sure to report confirmed weapons sightings before requesting permission to engage, which certainly suggests something about what their Rules of Engagement were.

Captain Hate

That was such a great game, I didn't care at the end who won. I just wanted it to go down to the last shot. And it did.

Indeed it was, TC; God know$ why the NCAA poobah$ want to $crew around with $ucce$$ by expanding the field to 96 but I'm $ure the an$wer i$ in here $omewhere.

Rocco

Are these RPG's mounted on a scooter?

Photobucket

Clarice

reports of a giant explosion in downtown Peshawar.

Rocco

Two men on a scooter with RPG's, wonder where they learned that? We are talking about the Mahdi Army....correct?

Danube of Thought

Fox News has an assessment of the incident.

DoT, are you suggesting that if unarmed Iraqis had taunted US troops the troops would've gunned them down?

Before the McChrystal change to the Afghanistan ROE, there was no taunting going on. The Taliban do it now because they are fully aware of the rules.

Whether or not guys without weapons get shot depends on where they are and what has been going on. The presence of weapons in this group served to identify them for what they were, and having been so identified they were, indeed, fair game.

Soylent Red

Wow...

I am apparently one racist son of a gun. Who knew? And I'm not even a member of the Teabag Movement or a Republican!

OT...but sort of on topic...

Got my ticket to see the elephant finalized today. So even RR/Spasticleo appropriating my handle can't bust my good mood...

Clarice

when do you leave, Soylent?

Soylent Red

Mid-summer. I'll bring you some aquamarine and rubies.

Cecil Turner

A pleasure to agree with you for a change, Cecil. I suspect that a lot of those people were spectators out for some fun who should've kept a safer distance. The van drivers were brave but foolish.

Same here, but don't get carried away . . . don't want to pick out curtains any time soon.

I think the "spectators" thing is wrong, though. As the wikileak guys pointed out, the insurgents were very casual, but I think that's just an indicator they were veterans (who tend to be that way when executing familiar duties). Ditto for the van drivers who were entirely too quick to be bystanders. The long version of the film showed guys going into an abandoned building with weapons, and they were extremely nonchalant about the whole thing (which I suspect is a survival trait for insurgents hiding amongst the populace). The later hellfire strikes on that building were more interesting to me than the initial 30mm engagement.

On balance, I'm somewhat relieved my own experiences were stand-up battles against conventional forces.

JM Hanes

anduril:

"I suspect that a lot of those people were spectators out for some fun who should've kept a safer distance. The van drivers were brave but foolish."

So, how many times did you have to "review" the video to come to that inventive conclusion suspicion? Pity that the guys in the cockpits don't have comfy chairs and time for reruns too.


Clarice

Soylent: "I'll bring you some aquamarine and rubies."

Well, in that case I'll be impatiently waiting for your return. *smoooches***

Clarice

Soylent, a young friend of mine is about to be sent to Okinawa and from there with the marines to the land of aquamarine and rubies. If you keep in touch, I'll let you know when he's sent there and where he'll be.

daddy

Only 7 hours worth of scrutinizing video tapes and still photos to arrive at the conclusion which the troops under fire in a combat zone had to come to in a 50/th of the time.

Clarice

Yes, daddy. It's why I think most of the JAG corps and Naval Investigators who screwed up Haditha should be back at hq..

daddy

"OT...but sort of on topic...

Got my ticket to see the elephant finalized today."

Soylent, best of luck good friend.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame