Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

as an enlisted guy, here's my whole take on advancement... we see time and again people getting promoted who shouldnt have, due to the system in place (im a victim of this myself, but thats for another discussion)...


in my own experience, the BEST officers are in their military career with a goal in mind. i've served with some outstanding Os who's goals were achieved, and were pursuing other things in life. ie, a CO i had wanted his masters, and to start a business once he got out. he got into an Army funded Masters program and got out. I served my first tour under H.R. McMaster, who is FINALLY getting the recognition he deserves for being hor awesome he is...obviously his plan is to stay in until he's too old to do it any more (and the army is better for having him)

the vast majority of 'bad' officers ive seen/been around are ones who either are unsure what they want in life, they suck at their job, or their goals are nowhere near what they should be (or a combination). of course, a few actual bad apples get aound from time to time, but often times, the guys with no real plan will stick around because they have a paycheck and can do the work well enough...they arent really helping anything, but not hurting things very much at all either.

where the thunder seems to come from, is when the good guys with a plan get sucked into "good idea fairy" territory, and end up having to put up with inordinate amounts of BS, which drive many who originally wanted to be 'lifers' to simply get out and pursue other things.

 CptJake wrote:
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...

You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...

 CptJake wrote:
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

According to the report the pilot fired not to protect American lives, but to 'ensure the wounded insurgents did not escape'.


I could understand 'I was concerned for the lives of the men near by','I was under fire and believed them a threat', 'I thought they had a trigger device', and so on. Some reasonable explanation.


"I fired to prevent the wounded from escaping."

Has a bit of a different ring to it.



'

 Jihadin wrote:
You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...

Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.

Or he's just a poser.

 Jihadin wrote:
You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...

Actually at the time this was happening (based on the date) I was collecting a paycheck from a casino.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
You forget Baron job...well at that time a bit back, was watching monitors and at his finger tips was rockets and a 90mm cannon or something crazy...

Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.

Or he's just a poser.

Apparently a poser who unlike everyone else actually waded through the uncut video and the report.

'to prevent to wounded from escaping.' If he thought them to be a threat, I simply do not see this response being given. And yet in the report it clearly states he was firing to prevent the escape of the wounded, not to protect American lives.

Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.

Yes, and someone with the background that Baron attests to would know this...

Baron...back off because your butt flapping in the breeze.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freaking cells and empty water bottle markers lol

BLU-110 all the things. That's my assessment.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.

Exalted. All it takes is one guy lobbing grenades in a group of people throwing rocks to make for a bad time for all.

 djones520 wrote:
Which just helps to make my point... I'm a freaking weather forecaster and I understand what is going on here. If dude was really a guy who was responsible for delivering hardware, then he knows what's really going on out there.

Or he's just a poser.

People still have doubts about that?

 MWHistorian wrote:
Having been in engagements in Iraq I can attest that such things are immensely more complicated than what they appear to be on the news and its nearly impossible for a distant observer with no experience or understanding of how things worked to judge the situation accurately. What constitutes a threat before, during and after an engagement took months of training before we were even allowed into Iraq. A van picking up wounded insurgents? Threat. Guy watching battle with cellphone? Threat.

"The Apache pilot requests permission to engage the van in order to prevent the escape of the insurgents." 15-6 Report, 1st Air Cav, page 3

"the Apache pilots thought the van was to be used as a means of escape for the wounded insurgents. The van arrives as if on cue, and is immediately joined by two military-aged males who appear from the nearby courtyard. The children are never seen, while the driver slides open a door and then retakes his seat while the two other males attempt to load the first insurgent into the vehicle. It is unknown what, if any, connection the van had to the insurgent activity." from the 15-6 report for 1st Air Cav's actions that day, Page 4.

Again: "I believed the van to be a threat" is a long way from "I believed the van was evacuating the wounded." So far, all the justifications I've heard have claimed they shot because it was a threat. The report spells out in no uncertain terms they did not feel the van was a threat, that they felt it was being used to evacuate the wounded. You can all sit there, and lecture me about how the fact I've never been to Iraq makes me unfit to judge if something is a threat in this context and I'm willing to grant that is a good point. But I have their own admission here that they did not feel it was a threat either. Which puts a very different spin on it, and gives quite a different context to what I see on that tape.

Hell, the guys on the ground who were actually there are not even unanimous in their view about it being a 'righteous kill' as Jake put it. And they'd know better than any of us posting.

You seem to be under the impression that the only circumstances under which air assets are cleared hot is when there's an immediate threat presenting itself to coalition forces.

That's not accurate.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...

There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.

Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.

It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...

There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.

Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.

Was Don Shipley set on him?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.

It was pretty sad, he had a son that also would go on about his dad's exploits, and he was just about as ignorant. There was an exchange of mail between these two and the SEAL that exposed this guy. The proof was laid out that he was a fake, and still they tried to insist he was a SEAL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A story about some fake SEALs that got outed.

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/exposing-navy-seal-fakes

It was Captain Bailey that came after the guy I talked about. It was beautiful to witness.

 Seaward wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that the only circumstances under which air assets are cleared hot is when there's an immediate threat presenting itself to coalition forces.

That's not accurate.

*sigh*

I'm not talking about if he was cleared or not. (We hear him get cleared to fire) The problem is things like proportionality. Example, in Iraq, the insurgents started strapping bombs to kids and sending them to ask coalition forces for candy, then detonating when they get close. So, now what, shoot every group of school kids you see? When you take fire from a house, do you return fire, or do you drop a thermonuclear weapon on the city?

One of the guys you see there on the ground, when commenting on the video, asked the simple question, "why obliterate the van when a warning shot probably would have done"?

100% of the justification I've read on van is based on threat. But when I read the report, that does not hold up. The pilots did not fire based on threat. I can understand threat, I can excuse perceived threat. Everything I see in that film I can justify right up to the van. According to the report, the pilot simply did not wish that one wounded guy to get away.

The RoE explicitly prohibited (IIRC, and I may be incorrect) engaging persons in the act of recovering casualties.

Crazyhorse 18 had something of a track record for this sort of thing, based on reports.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Those guys did not surrender, nor could (or should have) the pilots confirmed they had 'laid down their arms' or 'no longer had the means of defense'. In fact, the adult males grabbing wounded were clearly capable of turning into fighter within seconds of desiring to do so, and even a wounded guy can fire a weapon/set off an IED.

Then we can discuss the applicability of that portion of the Geneva Conventions to non-uniformed wearing insurgents...

There were US troops in contact within a few hundred meters. The pilots were there to KILL any threats to those US troopers. Again, not even a hard call.

You'd think someone of Baron's background would be aware of all of this...

There was someone on another game forum I used to go to that claimed he was a SEAL and had the war stories to prove it. he even had it in his bio on another game site he ran. Pretty scary stuff, all the brushes with death and combat heroics he would recount from his Vietnam days.

Somehow, though, he couldn't give his BUD/S info because he was a "secret SEAL". All his talk caught the attention of some real SEALs, and somehow, his claims of wartime heroics disappeared from his website bio. His name later appeared on the "Wall of Shame", a site that was maintained by SEALs outing poser's names and their offenses in claiming honors they hadn't earned.

Was Don Shipley set on him?

Larry Bailey was the one that went after him.

http://www.stolenvalor.com/team.cfm

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's pretty much a given once they start claiming they were secret ops or w/e, but still manage to spout off all their warstories, that they're a poser.

That's always been my experience, and I hate those kinds of people. They really cheapen the sacrifices I made in my years as a Seal-Sniper in the Marine Core.

 Ouze wrote:
Marine Core.

Not sure if that's your sense of humor or auto correct striking.


Here's one I've been mulling over:

In Feb 2007 Crazyhorse 18 was instructed that "one cannot surrender to an aircraft". I know of at least one insistence where surrender to aircraft was accepted by US forces (back in gulf war 1, USS Wisconsin accepted the surrender of Iraqi forces to a UAV) and, under international law, aircraft can surrender to each other by transmitting their intent on certain frequencies. As far as I can find in international law, the only thing I can really find on this incident is that "It is prohibited to deny quarter to those manifesting the intent to surrender. "

Anyone have anything more on this? I can't say I've ever heard of anything like this off the top of my head.

I'm not talking about if he was cleared or not. (We hear him get cleared to fire) The problem is things like proportionality. Example, in Iraq, the insurgents started strapping bombs to kids and sending them to ask coalition forces for candy, then detonating when they get close. So, now what, shoot every group of school kids you see? When you take fire from a house, do you return fire, or do you drop a thermonuclear weapon on the city?

See Baron...what little credibility you had left with me just ended. As a self claimed "Operator" then you would know more about what AQ and Taliban did to get this discontinued. Or you were so deep in the mountains to be out of media contact to missed the week long stories they had on this topic and what both sides were doing?

 Jihadin wrote:
As a self claimed "Operator"

Point of fact I never have. Frazz took something I said out of context and claimed that (wrong kind of operator, the equipment sort, not the Operative sort). Dreadklaw has been repeating it for a while, but it isn't actually what I said. But some posters have been getting a lot of mileage out of it, and are not likely to stop any time soon, since they just ignore it when I try to correct them.

And, bluntly, yes, I really am that disconnected from the world. Most of the information I do get comes from the internet, and that does not come in a logical order, and tends to lack context, until I can dig out more background information. It does however work well as my mind sort of works in a similar manner. I don't really assemble my thoughts in a manner most people would understand unless I stop and focus (and when I can't focus, either because of injury or anger, I spit out some really strange gak). So yes, I ask questions. I ask some pretty damn odd ones on occasion if you have not noticed.

I (rather obviously) struggle to understand people who do not see things the way I do. It might amuse you, for example, to know that I post on dakka more than I actually speak.

I do not relate to other people in what might be called a 'normal' manner. I find Seaward, as an example, not an an insult, horrifying. He, very frequently, takes positions that make me question his basic humanity, because he clearly has abandoned the same precepts that I cling to in order to function. My statement in an earlier post about him was not intended as an insult, simply a statement of what I perceived his intent to be. If I were to attempt to embrace the sort of 'I've got mine' mindset he espoused in another thread, I would not be as functional as I am.

Even if we both had the exact same experience, I would not understands how it effects you.

I do not have a particular agenda (something some posters seem to think I have for some reason), I more or less meander through things as I go, and so far have perplexed many people along the way, because I don't fit into their preconceived notions well at all. Almost everyone I meet along the way remembers me though, usually in a good way. Sometimes not.

Anyway, while you may not respect anything I have to say, I do respect what you have to say, and thought that perhaps an attempt to explain why I am the way I am was in order.

Sorry, Baron, I have to call bs on your comments. When you were making jokes about the Cole getting hit by terrorists, I called you on it and you came back with stories of your exploits.

Direct quote from your to me:

"US Servicemen die all the time. You put on a uniform, you have to realize that there is a very good chance that whoever your enemies are, they're going to take a shot at you. What I was laughing about was the first sentence (for reasons I will not go into here, I have fond memories of a heavily armed yacht being blown half way to the moon). The Cole was just an example of a ship gettign hit that occurred to me that everyone else might have heard of.

As far as saying gak in front of guys: I've been doing that for years. Wins so far the toll is three US marines (one single and one pair), one Royal Marine, one sailor off the USS Boxer (surprisingly, I grant, the most belligerent of them. I had to beat him unconscious.), one Navy SEAL (very fancy, very surprised when his big pressure point move didn't work), and two infantrymen from Texas (as a pair, and Texans live up to their rep, they were tough). Losses: Was held down by five guys once and beaten by a sixth. Was pistol whipped (poorly, they held the wrong end, which gave me scars on my arms for years from the hammer) by an angry Irishman once."

Relapse wrote:
Sorry, Baron, I have to call bs on your comments. When you were making jokes about the Cole getting hit by terrorists, I called you on it and you came back with stories of your exploits.

Direct quote from a PM of yours to me:

"US Servicemen die all the time. You put on a uniform, you have to realize that there is a very good chance that whoever your enemies are, they're going to take a shot at you. What I was laughing about was the first sentence (for reasons I will not go into here, I have fond memories of a heavily armed yacht being blown half way to the moon). The Cole was just an example of a ship gettign hit that occurred to me that everyone else might have heard of.

As far as saying gak in front of guys: I've been doing that for years. Wins so far the toll is three US marines (one single and one pair), one Royal Marine, one sailor off the USS Boxer (surprisingly, I grant, the most belligerent of them. I had to beat him unconscious.), one Navy SEAL (very fancy, very surprised when his big pressure point move didn't work), and two infantrymen from Texas (as a pair, and Texans live up to their rep, they were tough). Losses: Was held down by five guys once and beaten by a sixth. Was pistol whipped (poorly, they held the wrong end, which gave me scars on my arms for years from the hammer) by an angry Irishman once."

If anyone doubts I have a big mouth when pissed off, please check my post history.

Just because I'm a tech guy doesn't mean I can't win a fight. The SEAL or so he claimed, was a gentleman by the name of Mark Darcangelo in a bar near Grove City PA. the US Marines and the guy off the Boxer (who happens to be my brother in law now) were in San Diego, the Texans were in a bar in Virginia. The RM guy I was told about after the fact, I don't actually remember it. The five guys were in a bar near Mercer PA, called the Landmark. The Irishman was in my own home at the time, because he has seen a picture of me and Gerry Adams among my stuff. (I met Adams in the late 90's in Pittsburgh.) all of which, other than the Irishman, I've talked about before. I've also talked about a few other times I've gotten my ass kicked, some of which were much more recent than those. (most of that list is more than a decade old)

The yacht I still won't talk about. I didn't carry it out, I provided gear, and sat back and watched. And thought the target richly deserved it and do to this day.

If you don't think my explanation holds water, I'll happily mail you a copy of my most recent schedule A with the names and addresses redacted.

It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.

That's not how I see it.

It isn't that cut & dry.

I mean, there's the Medevac ordeal where actual medevac helicopters are being targeted (direct violation of Geneva Convention) that may have unnecessarily caused serviceman's death.

Read here:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/red-air-americas-medevac-failure/All-Pages.htm

I'm thinking the Geneva Convention needs updated...

Ironclad Warlord wrote:
It seems to me that the US gov wants it both ways, they like the Geneva convention and don't hesitate to mention it when other groups disobey it but can't stand it when it gets in the way of what they want. They complain when groups like wikileaks give people a version of the war they don't like but at the same time sanitize all the news they give the American people inevitably leading to people getting info from people like assange.

I would love to see you cite some sources which lead you to this opinion. Where has the US gone against or gotten upset at the Geneva convention? How can you say that the absolute massive amount of embedded reporters in both Iraq and Afghanistan which have reported all kinds of stuff, coupled with reports from non-embedded reporters have equalled sanitization of all news about these wars? I would say the exact opposite is true, and you would have a very difficult time giving examples of better and more timely coverage of any other military operations.