There doesn't have to be shooting at the moment for an area to qualify as a combat/war zone. In 2007 pretty much the entire country was a combat/war zone. The helicopter observed one of the men getting ready to fire what they believed to be an RPG. In a war/combat zone you don't need to wait until you're taking fire to engage a combatant. In fact it would be rather stupid to wait if you have the first shot. Based on what I saw, again with the benefit of hind sight, I'm inclined to agree. BUT having just lit up, what they believed to be, combatants given the circumstances I can understand. And technically it was a "battle"/firefight even if it was a lopsided one. Obviously you're upset and this is an important issue for you. But I think you have to keep in mind these are soldiers trained to kill, whose job it is to find and kill combatants. Had I been in the chopper under those circumstances I'd probably thought or said the same thing. These guys see and deal with death on a regular basis, it's only natural and expected they would have a different view from us armchair quarterbacks. Also friendly fire accidents are a part of combat, always has and always will be. (Did you know that during the Nazi's invasion of Poland 1/3 of the Polish Air force was shot down by Polish antiaircraft gunners? They were never trained to recognize the silhouettes of their own aircraft.) True although they should understand that incidents like this are unavoidable. I agree.
No, this pic represents a slaughter. What you and the Wiki Leaks folks are trying to do is draw some moral equivalence between what happened in this video, and what happened at a place like My Lai. It's apples and oranges, and anyone can see that, except for those which can't get past their own personal bias. Warning: Picture of dead bodies below. <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=3025092
What is the difference? About the same number of casualties. What makes that different than the wikileaks video, except for the fact that the child actually made it out alive? Also, what no one here seems to grasp is that simply having a weapon doesn't make one "hostile". Pointing or shooting it does, but not merely having one. It's common practice in Afghanistan to carry weapons daily. I don't know about Iraq specifically, but I wouldn't imagine it to be much different. Over there, if you go around shooting everyone who has a gun, you will be shooting most everyone. Many, and maybe most people in Afghanistan carry weapons with them on their daily business. Just having a gun doesn't make someone "hostile". Anyone, especially an American, should know that.
OMG, where to start? First off the pic does not fully represent the massacre at My Lai. Depending on who you believe the number was 347 or 504 people murdered. Quite a different situation to say the least. Now it appears you're trying to say that some guy over there walking around with automatic weapons is the same as some guy out hunting here in this country. Tell ya' what. Why don't you go over there and try walking around with a weapon. See what happens. Try explaining to them you're just following their custom of carrying weapons just for the hell of it. That might buy you another second or two before they put a bullet in your head. You might also ask them why some journalists can walk around with them and go unharmed, like those in the video, and others are captured to have their heads chopped off. I'll tell ya' why. They chose sides, that's why.
Look Einstein, you are the one who made the comparison in the first place. I don't know what the fuck my lai is, you are the one who made the comparison and posted the pic, so that's what I commented on. I don't know what "it appears" to you that I'm trying to say, so I'll clarify it for you. I never said that running around there with an automatic weapon is the same as some guy hunting here, you just made that up. You are arguing against a point that I never made, otherwise known as a "strawman". What I *DID* say, was that it's customary in that region for people to carry firearms with them on their daily business. That carrying guns was customary, and not something that is unusual or in any way necessitates being "hostile". It's simply what people do, much like they did in the old American west. Further, if anyone was going to "put a bullet in my head" for simply carrying a weapon over there it would be the American military, not the locals. If you don't know this, you are uninformed and talking out of your ass. Maybe you are unaware, but in America more people have and carry firearms than those who are "just out hunting". It's sad that people in America today think that's the extent of the right to bear arms, and that having a firearm somehow automatically means that someone is "hostile". This is government brainwashing of the highest order. It's even more sad that some people are stupid enough to think that the 2nd amendment was created to ensure that people could always go hunting. Further there is NOTHING in the video that even indicates that these guys were hostile, insurgents, or fighters at all. Just because some journalist was walking with them doesn't mean shit. Are you saying the journalist chose sides and that's why he was murdered? Are you saying that reuters is on the side of the insurgents? Like I said, carrying weapons, even assault weapons, is a normal, everyday occurrence in most of that region. The fact that they had weapons (which they never fired, or even pointed towards the helicopter) does not make them "hostiles" by any stretch of the imagination.
I believe you are wasting your time with the idiots. They well know they are wrong. If a heart is dark it first needs light to be able to see. I would focus my time to take their money in the market than to discuss the obvious.
Not at all! <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gk9_5OUWy3M?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gk9_5OUWy3M?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> Never Rearden! The most moral army? <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-DIOaCUhFk8?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-DIOaCUhFk8?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Okay wait a second. Now you guys are making the assertion that Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan are synonymous with Israelis in Israel and I'm sorry but that's just not a valid comparison. Israel is it's own country, founded by the United Nations, with a right to self defense. Note I'm not making the assertion that Israel is perfect or that Israel has never made any mistakes, but they certainly have the right to defend themselves, and the threat is not imaginary. America in Iraq and Afghanistan is an entirely different issue. America's initial invasion of Afghanistan was justified, they were harboring the guys who attacked us. Now, 10 years later, we have no legitimate business there. Iraq, of course, was based on false pretenses and was a crock of shit from the get go. These conflicts have been driven by private interests, political conquest, and to have control over the resources and politics of the region. Israel, on the other hand, is fighting for survival. Sure there is some similarity in that they both involve one well financed, martially robust side of culturally superior group of people, with a culturally inferior, barbaric stone age group of people, but the similarity ends there. America is fighting for control and conquest, Israel fights for survival. To equate the two is intellectually dishonest.