Apache helicopter fires on crowd

[Adam]

Civilians were not simply just "present." They willingly climbed aboard a burning military vehicle. Civilians should have enough common sense to know that such activity is dangerous.

Incorrect. There was a picture of one civilian on the vehicle. And many more near it on the ground. Thirteen people died, around sixty were injured, including women and children.

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

Difficult to do when the combatants bring the battle into your home. This is one of the many points you seem to keep missing.

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

Aren't they both valid military targets, in your opinion?

 

[devious_]

When a battle is being fought, most civilians (those with some cranial matter) try to avoid dangerous situations. They seek shelter. They do not climb burning military vehicles. They do not co-mingle with known combatants.

What battle would that be? It was a quick attack. By the time the chopper arrived, the battle was long over.

Climbing aboard a burning military vehicle: Stupid.
Entering the World Trade Center as part of normal business activity: Not stupid.

Stupidity is relative.

 

[member 5645]

What battle would that be? It was a quick attack. By the time the chopper arrived, the battle was long over.


Stupidity is relative.

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:

Witnesses said the fighting in Haifa Street - a notoriously volatile area hostile to the US occupation - started at 3am.

"We don't know whether it was the Americans or the Iraqis who started it," Abu Adil said. "Several mortars were fired at 7am and then a car bomb blew up the tank. After the tank exploded a helicopter started shooting at us. We all ran."

So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance? :rofl:

 

[JohnDubYa]

But stupidity is relative, phatmonkey. :)

 

[russ_watters]

Avoidable at the expense of their civil liberty.

Civil liberty? What does that have to do with anything? Where does it say that you have a right to enter a battlefield and expect the opposite sides to stop the battle for you?

And no, they did not forfeit that when they approached a destroyed military vehicle wearing whatever it is they wore.

Its not a matter of what they were wearing. The battle was in progress, they entered it, and they got shot.

No they didn't. The battle came into their home.

Well, that may be true, but if so, they shouldn't have been cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle. There wouldn't have been a battle there that day if the terrorists hadn't started one and the civilians who mingled with the terrorists wouldn't have died if they had stayed in their homes. So I guess you're right - not all of the blame goes to the stupidity of the people killed - some is for the terrorists who started the battle in a civilian neighborhood in the first place.

It was a valid military target, according to your attempt at logic. Yes?

No, Adam, the WTC was not a valid military target and even if it were, its still a different situation than this. The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot. There was no such expectation for those in the WTC on 9/11.

How is it a straw man argument? It's a direct analogy.

Iraq, Apache firing on crowd, supposedly to destroy Bradley: [numbering added]
1. Target: Military asset.
2. Civilians present.
3. Asset attacked.
4. Civilians dead.

WTC attack:
1. Target: Economic asset.
2. Civilians present.
3. Asset attacked.
4. Civilians dead.

That's a strawman because its a mischaracterization (that's kinda the definition of a strawman).

1. The US was not in an open war on 9/11 and even if it were, intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war.

2. As I said above, there was no way those civilians in the WTC should have known (or even considered) that they could be attacked. In the battle in Iraq, the civilians chose to enter a battle already in progress. After the 1st WTC attack, people evacuated the area. The two events are so widely different, this is a transparent attempt to hijack the thread.

3. The battle was already in progress. You can't look at the firing on the Bradly in a vacuum (obviously, it wouldn't have even been there burning, had there not been a battle).

4. In the WTC, the civilians themselves were the target. In this incident, the Bradley (and the enemy soldiers around it that were firing at the helicopter) was the target. Again, they are so widely different as to make your point a transparent diversion.

 

[Artman]

Adam, if you want to compare the situation to those injured in the attack on 911 to the Pentagon, I might be willing to go there. THe workers at the Pentagon go each day knowing that they may be attacked. It is not stupid, it is their chosen profession, including the associated risk. Those who were climbing on and dancing near the burning Bradley did so knowing the associated risk, or they were stupid.

 

[studentx]

It indicates a great lack of respect for human life when you only post such stories when it involves americans.

Today, 59 Iraqis were killed but not by Americans.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Those who were climbing on and dancing near the burning Bradley did so knowing the associated risk, or they were stupid.

Both.

And I hardly think that those who worked in the Pentagon felt that their lives were in danger.

 

[Artman]

Both.

And I hardly think that those who worked in the Pentagon felt that their lives were in danger.

Probably not, but the building is somewhat fortified, and their are security measures in place to minimize danger. Still, it is a military target.

 

[Adam]

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:


So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance? :rofl:

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

 

[Adam]

Well, that may be true, but if so, they shouldn't have been cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle.

Were they?

There wouldn't have been a battle there that day if the terrorists hadn't started one and the civilians who mingled with the terrorists wouldn't have died if they had stayed in their homes.

There wouldn't have been a battle had the US not invaded.

The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot.

In their homes?

There was no such expectation for those in the WTC on 9/11.

Obviously they should have expected it. Or are they just stupid too?

1. The US was not in an open war on 9/11 and

These people have been attacking the USA for ten years.

even if it were, intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war.

Thank you.

2. As I said above, there was no way those civilians in the WTC should have known (or even considered) that they could be attacked. In the battle in Iraq, the civilians chose to enter a battle already in progress. After the 1st WTC attack, people evacuated the area. The two events are so widely different, this is a transparent attempt to hijack the thread.

So on the one hand, you're saying the Iraqi civilians should all know that bombed out US military vehicles are valid military targets. And on the other hand, American civilians should not know that American financial and industrial mechanisms are valid military targets.

3. The battle was already in progress. You can't look at the firing on the Bradly in a vacuum (obviously, it wouldn't have even been there burning, had there not been a battle).

In their homes.

4. In the WTC, the civilians themselves were the target.

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

 

[Hurkyl]

The civilians in Iraq chose to enter a battle already in progress and should have expected to be shot.


In their homes?

They weren't in their homes, they were crowded around a damaged military vehicle.


If there were military conflicts in my town, and I knew of a damaged enemy vehicle down the street, I would think it entirely unsafe to go and dance around it. I really don't understand your point at all.

2>And it was an incredibly skilled bombing. While it is obviously no consolation to those who have died, or have had family that died, this war dropped more bombs than the entire gulf war I in the first few days, with far fewer civilian casualties from.

This is the kind of thing I like to hear: comparative statistics. Virtually all the figures tossed around in these threads are presented in a vacuum, and are thus entirely meaningless, but one can learn something from this.

So, of course, I must ask if you have a reference to back up this statement.

 

[kat]

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

Commercial Airliners are civilian targets no matter how you twist and turn it.

 

[Evo]

Don't be silly. The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

If the civilians weren't the targets, why wouldn't they have struck on a Sunday?

It seems to me they wanted the towers full of civilians. They chose early morning flights because they would stand less risk of flight delays than later flights. They wanted to hit all at once. You saw what happened to the one delayed flight.

 

[Stanley_Smith]

As you all should know, aljazeera is banned by the Iraqi government. Maybe that's why they quoted from reuters for the above article. See the link Adam posted at the beginning of the thread if you don't know what I 'm talking about (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...3816BA7A5F0.htm )

What's interesting is that for aljazeera didn't quote the whole Reuters report, which can be found at:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581858&section=news

"Heavy fighting erupted in Haifa Street, a thoroughfare in central Baghdad notorious as a rebel stronghold. The crackle of gunfire echoed for several hours as U.S. tanks and tank-like Bradley fighting vehicles moved into the area."

This paragraph was missing. Look like the fighting didn't discourage the curious and jubilant crowd from "swarmed around it, cheering, throwing stones and waving the black and yellow sunburst banner of Iraq's most-feared terror organization" (http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/9640817.htm )

or "Jubilant fighters, curiosity seekers and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several placed a black and yellow banner of Tawhid and Jihad in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-09-11-baghdad-fighting_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

I don't know, but like a few of us said, it's would be wise to stay away from area where there are fighting instead of seeking it, especially when the vehicle was still burning; I'll even run away from a car in flame!

It's so convenient to blame the American and the Iraqi interim government for everything even though "the Tawhid and Jihad Group of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who Washington says is behind much Iraq unrest, claimed responsibility for the violence"; interesting...!


Note that the vehicle was burning when the crowd "celebrated"





http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581858&section=news

 

[Outcast]

Where are you people getting your information??

From ADAM'S links:


So fighting had been going on for 4 hours in a notoriously volatile area. Mortars start going off. A Car bomb blows up a 'tank', and suddenly that seemed like a good time to come dance? :rofl:

Same people probably thought it was a a good time to come dance in the streets on 9-11 too.

 

[russ_watters]

Adam, if you want to compare the situation to those injured in the attack on 911 to the Pentagon, I might be willing to go there.

But he can't, as the Pentagon is a military installation full of military personnel and civilians working for the military. He'd be changing one major difference for another.

The WTC and its financial activity were the target. That's why early morning flights were used, before the towers filled up.

Add that to the list of factual inaccuracies: As the first plane hit at 8:46 and most financial people start work at 8:00 or 8:30 (markets open at 9:00), the attacks were timed so the buildings would be at their fullest. Besides, you know that killing as many civilians as possible was the goal in 9/11: Bin Laden has said it himself.

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

Two more facutal inaccuracies: the APC was in the street, not inside a building (obviously), and the battle was in that street because the terrorists started it there.

Were they? [cavorting with the terrorists who started the battle]

Read your own links, Adam. It says quite explicitly that the terrorists started the battle, the area was a known terrorist hotbed, and many of the peopel around the tank were the very terrorists who participated in the battle to that point.

There wouldn't have been a battle had the US not invaded.

Poor attempt at diversion, Adam. You do, of course, know the difference between a battle and a war.

Obviously they should have expected it[9/11]. Or are they just stupid too?

Expected it based on what? No one was shooting at the building when they entered it that morning. Really, Adam, you're being transparently absurd here. Are you trying to be funny?

These people have been attacking the USA for ten years.

Thats true - terrorist attacks are something that are always a possibility. But that fact has nothing at all to do with the battle in Iraq (though the battle was started by Al Queda terrorists, it wasn't a terrorist attack) - unless, of course, you wish to argue that the same Al Queda terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of those in 9/11 were responsible for the civilan deaths in this incident. Tenuous, as the civilans in this incident chose to mingle with the terrorists, but I'll allow it...

Thank you.[re: intentional attacking of civilians is a violation of the rules of war]

You're welcome - so you agree now that the two situations are different? Because if you wish to argue that the US helicopter intentionally targeted civilans, you're going to need some evidence (and some precident) to back that up.

So on the one hand, you're saying the Iraqi civilians should all know that bombed out US military vehicles are valid military targets. And on the other hand, American civilians should not know that American financial and industrial mechanisms are valid military targets.

Yes to the first part (it should be obvious to anyone using a little common sense - and btw, one of those articles does say some people fled at the sight of the helicopter), no to the second: financial institutions are not valid military targets and the WTC was not a shipyard or tank factory.

edit: more on financial institutions: I'm sure you will wish to make the comparison between what the terrorists are doing and the concept of total war from WWII. It doesn't apply: Al Queda is not looking for a military victory here and attacking the WTC was not calculated to prevent us from building more tanks. The goal of Al Queda is to not military victory, but civilan deaths and destroying our way of life.

 

[Adam]

They weren't in their homes, they were crowded around a damaged military vehicle.

Their home town.

 

[Adam]

Commercial Airliners are civilian targets no matter how you twist and turn it.

I agree. However, another user is trying to show that attacking civilians is acceptable if your objective is, in the end, a military target.

 

[Adam]

If the civilians weren't the targets, why wouldn't they have struck on a Sunday?

On the other hand, if they wanted to kill civilians, why go so early?

It seems to me they wanted the towers full of civilians. They chose early morning flights because they would stand less risk of flight delays than later flights. They wanted to hit all at once. You saw what happened to the one delayed flight.

Fair enough. Maybe so. Do delays happen so often there?

 

[Adam]

Same people probably thought it was a a good time to come dance in the streets on 9-11 too.

Almost. There were thousands of people standing around gawking.

 

[Adam]

But he can't, as the Pentagon is a military installation full of military personnel and civilians working for the military. He'd be changing one major difference for another.

You're trying to have it different ways yourself, Russ, as is Dubya. Is it acceptable to taregt civilians for the purposes of achieving military objectives? I've seen several people here claim it is. Example: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden... Are you now saying those acts were terrorism? Which is it?

Some here have said it was okay to bomb those cities and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because it was a valid military tactic. How is that different from the WTC attack?

Add that to the list of factual inaccuracies: As the first plane hit at 8:46 and most financial people start work at 8:00 or 8:30 (markets open at 9:00), the attacks were timed so the buildings would be at their fullest.

The WTC generally housed around 50,000 people during a working day, plus around 150,000 visitors. Most arrived after 9 AM. Clearly, since there were not 50,000 casualties, you are basically wrong when you say most of them started work there at 8:00 or 8:30 AM.

Besides, you know that killing as many civilians as possible was the goal in 9/11: Bin Laden has said it himself.

Can you show me this quote?

Two more facutal inaccuracies: the APC was in the street, not inside a building (obviously), and the battle was in that street because the terrorists started it there.

Terrorists flew USA military hardware and personnel to Iraq, invaded and bombed the hell out of them, then parked USA military APCs in the streets of their home towns? Wow. Tricky terrorists...

Expected it based on what?

Based on it clearly being a military target. According to some users here, at least.

You're welcome - so you agree now that the two situations are different?

No, you agreed with me that attacking civilians was against the rules of war. Thanks again for that.

 

[JohnDubYa]

On the other hand, if they wanted to kill civilians, why go so early?

Sheeez, Adam, look at what has happened to your argumentation. You are now claiming that the terrorists went out of their way to prevent civilian casualties. That is completely absurd. As Evo said, they could have brought down the towers on a Saturday or Sunday --- there would have been almost no one inside the towers --- if they really cared about human life. If there is one thing we should know about Al Quada, it is that they are impervious to human suffering.

 

[Adam]

I don't think they cared about lives at all. I think they were horrible scum. Just like the people who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Baghdad. Just like the soldiers who killed those innocent civilians in Iraq the other day.

However, since most people didn't start work there until after 9 AM, the idea that they were trying for maximum civilian deaths doesn't hold water.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I don't think they cared about lives at all. I think they were horrible scum. Just like the people who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, Baghdad. Just like the soldiers who killed those innocent civilians in Iraq the other day.

I'm done with this *******.

 

[Adam]

It's not a typo. I was not referring to number 12 Baker Street. I was referring to all their homes.

 

[plover]

Doh!

It's not a typo. I was not referring to number 12 Baker Street. I was referring to all their homes.

I apologize. It's a pretty tangled thread—I thought you were reiterating the point you made in post #66, which I read as referring to the city or the country as their home, rather to an actual building. My mistake.

I fixed up the post. It should be accurate now...

EDIT:
:yuck:
Having now convinced myself that I'm not sure I was reading anyone correctly, I removed the post.

 

[studentx]

And you know what? It was still in the Iraqis' homes. Where it hadn't been prior to the arrival of the US military.

Actually in recent battles, Najaf in particular, most of the civilian population had left the city and it was occupied by foreign fighters, sleeping, looting and destroying homes without permission from the original habitants. Could you show me some proof that the iraqis dancing on the vehicle actually owned a house, let's say in a 50 mile radius?

 

[Artman]

Adam, I can see you are very opposed to the USA occupation of Iraq. I also feel that you are oppsed to violence and death against innocent people. I believe that we all are, whether you think that is the case or not.

What I want to know is, do you think that those persons celebrating around the damaged Bradley are truly innocent? Do you really think that they were just civilians walking past, innocently celebrating the invaders loss, or could they have been insurgent rebels in the act of creating a propaganda moment for the reporter when the helicopter showed up, or possibly the ones who bombed the vehicle, or possibly taken shots at the helicopter?

I am not asking you to say that they deserved to be shot. I just want to know if you can accept that they may not be completely what they are being made out to be.

 

[Adam]

Actually in recent battles, Najaf in particular, most of the civilian population had left the city and it was occupied by foreign fighters, sleeping, looting and destroying homes without permission from the original habitants. Could you show me some proof that the iraqis dancing on the vehicle actually owned a house, let's say in a 50 mile radius?

So all those little kids they show on the news are foreign terrorists?

 

[Adam]

I also feel that you are oppsed to violence and death against innocent people. I believe that we all are, whether you think that is the case or not.

I know we aren't all opposed to it. We have a few users here who, in their desperation to prop up their patriotic faith, are actually suggesting the civilians deserved it.

What I want to know is, do you think that those persons celebrating around the damaged Bradley are truly innocent? Do you really think that they were just civilians walking past, innocently celebrating the invaders loss, or could they have been insurgent rebels in the act of creating a propaganda moment for the reporter when the helicopter showed up, or possibly the ones who bombed the vehicle, or possibly taken shots at the helicopter?

Some of the dead are children. Do you wish to suggest they were Evil Terror Kids or something?

 

[Artman]

Some of the dead are children. Do you wish to suggest they were Evil Terror Kids or something?

No not evil.

I am reminded of the lady who sued a store because she tripped over a child crawling on the floor. The child was hers.

Kids do what they are shown. I blame the parents for those children being there.

 

[russ_watters]

However, another user is trying to show that attacking civilians is acceptable if your objective is, in the end, a military target.

No one is saying anything of the sort. And besides, you know that the civilians themselves were the target. You're not quite lying here, but you're close. Either way, this is intentionally deceptive.

Their home town.

Now you're changing wording and changing the situation - those people didn't die because the fight was in their home town, they died because they left their homes to participate in the battle. Again, not quite a lie, but intentionally deceptive.

On the other hand, if they wanted to kill civilians, why go so early?

Since we know you know this to be factually wrong (since it has now been pointed out to you), this is now a lie. In case you missed it before, the flights were timed specificaly for a condition of high occupancy in both the planes and the bulidings. Stop lying.

You're trying to have it different ways yourself, Russ, as is Dubya. Is it acceptable to taregt civilians for the purposes of achieving military objectives? I've seen several people here claim it is. Example: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Dresden... Are you now saying those acts were terrorism? Which is it?

Why don't you find some actual quotes from me instead of putting words in my mouth. Again, intentionally deceptive diversion.

The WTC generally housed around 50,000 people during a working day, plus around 150,000 visitors. Most arrived after 9 AM. Clearly, since there were not 50,000 casualties, you are basically wrong when you say most of them started work there at 8:00 or 8:30 AM.

Again, factually inaccurate, and, I can only conclude, an intentional lie. You of course know that virtually everyone who died was above the crashes and everyone who lived below.

Based on it clearly being a military target. According to some users here, at least.

According only to you and without substantiation (but backed with plenty of lies).

In light of all these deceptions/lies, that's it for me in this thread. Adam, you've shown your true colors quite clearly here. When your thoughtless rhetoric is contradicted with real arguments and exposed, you respond with bluster, diversion, deception, and lies. The further back into a corner you get, the further over the line you go.

 

[studentx]

So all those little kids they show on the news are foreign terrorists?

Could you show me where there were kids in the Najaf battle?

 

[Adam]

And besides, you know that the civilians themselves were the target.

I know that the excuse was that the US troops were aiming for the military vehicle in the middle of a bunch of civilians. Given the interviews I've seen and read with US troops regarding their activities in Iraq, I have no reason to believe they were not deliberately aiming at the civilians. If you watch Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911, you'll see a lovely interview with a US soldier describing how friggin great it is to watch the Iraqi people burn and explode. After Desert Storm, I read an interview with one of the Apache pilots behind that "Highway Of Death" massacre; he described how, at the time, being young, patriotic, and stupid, he had blasted away at the civilians as though it was all a computer game, and had enjoyed every moment of it. Only later did the reality of the situation come clear to him. I certainly wish I had that interview with me now, for your educational benefit.

Now you're changing wording and changing the situation - those people didn't die because the fight was in their home town, they died because they left their homes to participate in the battle.

So, those civilians in their own town should remain indoors? It isn't their right to go out? And the little kids killed by that Apache were participating in the battle?

Since we know you know this to be factually wrong (since it has now been pointed out to you), this is now a lie. In case you missed it before, the flights were timed specificaly for a condition of high occupancy in both the planes and the bulidings. Stop lying.

You didn't show anything of the sort. Stop misusing and abusing the word "factually". The "fact" is, there were around 3,000 people there. Thus, at that time, there were around 3,000 people there. Simple, yes?

Why don't you find some actual quotes from me instead of putting words in my mouth. Again, intentionally deceptive diversion.

Why don't you answer the question?

Again, factually inaccurate, and, I can only conclude, an intentional lie. You of course know that virtually everyone who died was above the crashes and everyone who lived below.

I know there weren't 50,000 people in the building.

According only to you and without substantiation (but backed with plenty of lies).

What's this? You don't believe the word of the USA, British, Austrailan, and allied governments? They said such targets are valid military objectives. People here have also said it.

In light of all these deceptions/lies, that's it for me in this thread. Adam, you've shown your true colors quite clearly here. When your thoughtless rhetoric is contradicted with real arguments and exposed, you respond with bluster, diversion, deception, and lies. The further back into a corner you get, the further over the line you go.

Wow. Thoughtless ad hominems from a "mentor".