Did an Apache Helicopter Fire on Civilians in Baghdad?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    apache Helicopter
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
109 replies · 16K views
Gza said:
I see that as a very disrespectful statement. We invaded their country with no authority or pretenses whatsoever, and bombed the living sh*t out of it.
Besides, of course, a treaty Saddam broke (or rather, never complied with) and several UN resolutions.
We have now resorted to attacking civilians who celebrate in manners we don't find appropriate (freedom in the general sense for the Iraqi people, doesn't involve freedom of speech I take it,)
A wholly incorrect characterization of the situation.
and now you call the deceased morons, because they don't understand "the dangers of war"? Do you understand the dangers of war as you sit comfortably in you cushy seat? There is no class or seminar on it, so enlighten us, please. Perhaps a pamphlet entitled "The Dangers of War" would be appropriate...
Do you? Would you have chosen to climb atop a burning military vehicle immediately after the battle? Would your common sense have told you it might not be a safe thing to do? Would your common sense tell you that waving the flag of the enemy might identify you as the enemy?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just one little quickie:
phatmonky said:
3>Or perhaps you will read the statement where the apach took small arms fire, instead of jumping on the bandwagon.
Do you have a source for that? That makes my earlier statement irrelevant if true: any civilians in the crowd jumped right into the middle of a battle. Climbing on a burning vehicle after a battle is pretty dumb, but running into a firefight is just plain suicidal.
 
Phatmonky
1>Stop pushing that lie.
It isn't one.

Russ:
Its standard procedure of every military, ever to destroy your own damaged equipment to prevent it from falling into enemy hands (as already mentioned). Civilians choosing to be near an APC choose to risk death when it is destroyed. They choose to give up their civilian status.

Next, some of the people on the APC were enemy combatants (how many, no on knows), and that makes them a legitimate target. Again, civilians choosing to mingle with enemy combatants are choosing to be in the line of fire. They choose to give up their civilian status.
Man, that's so lame, how did you ever become a mentor of anything? Civilians in their own home town, dancing in the streets because a piece of the invader's military hardware was destroyed, become valid targets because they are having a party? Your attempts at justifying these acts by the invading force are becoming more ludicrous by the day.
 
This is great. A USA Apache fires on a crowd of innocent civilians. Again. And some users are trying to blame it all on the victims. Again.
 
russ_watters said:
Just one little quickie: Do you have a source for that? That makes my earlier statement irrelevant if true: any civilians in the crowd jumped right into the middle of a battle. Climbing on a burning vehicle after a battle is pretty dumb, but running into a firefight is just plain suicidal.

Sorry, thought it had already been posted in this thread- too many message boards ;)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040912_151.html
"As the helicopters flew over the burning Bradley they received small-arms fire from the insurgents in vicinity of the vehicle," a military statement said. "Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."

Now I'm not saying I know what happened, I'm saying the bandwagon in this thread is getting pretty full.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians. What a surprise.

It mentions "anti-Iraqi forces". What about the dead reporter? What about the dead civilians?
 
Just for the "victims deserve it" gang: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder, do you people think the civilians in the WTC deserved it too? After all, major economic institutions must obviously be valid targets, right? Personally I don't think so. But do you? If not, why not?
 
Adam said:
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians.
Show me where it says that.

Adam said:
It mentions "anti-Iraqi forces". What about the dead reporter? What about the dead civilians?
Source ic Wales

AT LEAST 13 people were killed and 55 wounded when a US helicopter fired at Iraqi crowds around a destroyed army vehicle...As the Americans withdrew, jubilant fighters and young boys swarmed around the burning vehicle. Several young men placed a black banner of al-Qaeda-backed Tawhid and Jihad, led by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in the barrel of the Bradley's main gun. A US Apache attack helicopter swooped down and opened fire around the Bradley. Witnesses said several people, including a journalist for an Arab TV station, were killed.

My source was ic Wales. Seems to include everything you asked about. The main difference is, it did not mention the blood spattering on the lens and face of the cameraman and other such sensation crap included for effect in the source you posted, but then I don't even think they gave the number killed or injured just to let the mind go totally wild. Where are the facts?
ic Wales
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A few more:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-iraq13.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/848502.cms
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=561021
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=54998
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Journalist%20Killed
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/256/world/Violence_in_central_Baghdad_ki:.shtml
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=123&art_id=qw1094998141887B262
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=581826&section=news

Exactly how many different reports from different parts of the world do you need? How many must say that civilians were killed, including children? When does the civilian death toll cease being the fault of innocent civilians?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Artman said:
Show me where it says that.
Here you go:
"Clearly within the rules of engagement, the helicopters returned fire destroying some anti-Iraqi forces in the vicinity of the Bradley."
And no, it isn't within the rules of engagement. Or, more accurately, valid rules of engagement (as set by the military force in question) must fall within the laws recognised by that country.
 
This is great. A USA Apache fires on a crowd of innocent civilians. Again. And some users are trying to blame it all on the victims. Again.

The civilians' behavior in this incident cannot be justified. There is a war going on. Under no circumstances should civilians jump on military vehicles (especially if they are burning).

Chalk this one up for Darwin.
 
Dubya, these people were in their own town. They live there. It's their home. The USA military is blowing stuff up in their home.

How about I chalk up your unceasing attempts to justify terrorism to blind patriotism?
 
Adam said:
Here you go:

And no, it isn't within the rules of engagement. Or, more accurately, valid rules of engagement (as set by the military force in question) must fall within the laws recognised by that country.
That is a quote from a military leader, not the words of the news source. You said:
Adam said:
American news says the American Apache was right to open fire on a crowd of civilians.
So, show me where American News makes that claim.
 
Okay, the American news presents the voice of the American government/military making those claims. Better?
 
Besides, of course, a treaty Saddam broke (or rather, never complied with) and several UN resolutions.

Thanks for clearing that up Russ. Now I know we actually went to war with Iraq for non-compliance with UN resolutions. I'm sure there aren't any other countries out there that are breaking UN resolutions :rolleyes: . But that's another thread.

It now also seems, I'm the only American here who is outraged by the attack. I guess I should just follow suit with everyone else and remain nonchalant while Iraqi civilians die, taking the easier road of blaming them instead of taking responsiblity for the mess we've now created in Iraq.

And just for the record:

Chalk this one up for Darwin.

Misguided human intervention in the form of an Apache helicopter firing a missile at you doesn't count as the "hand of evolution."
 
Adam said:
Okay, the American news presents the voice of the American government/military making those claims. Better?
Yes. And thank you for the links. I will read them when I have time (I've checked out some of yours that do offer additional information).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Misguided human intervention in the form of an Apache helicopter firing a missile at you doesn't count as the "hand of evolution."

But the stupidity in willingly placing oneself in danger does.

There is a war going on. A military vehicle is burning. Lord knows how much live ammunition -- such as mortar shells --- could be inside. People around you are waving flags identifitying themselves as the enemy of the US. And you cannot see the stupidity in standing on top of the vehicle?
 
A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.
 
But Reuters reported that four civilians were killed, including an elderly woman when US soldiers opened fire for coming under rocket attack.

Tikrit police are convinced American soldiers -- though not locally based -- fired the fatal shots, but the U.S. military says it has no record that its troops were involved.

U.S. forces accidentally open fire on Iraqi police apparently involved in a high-speed car chase, killing at least eight Iraqis and a Jordanian hospital worker.

SIX children were crushed to death by a collapsing wall during an assault by US forces on a compound stuffed with weapons in eastern Afghanistan, an American military spokesman said today.

So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

HUTALA, AFGHANISTAN (Talon News) -- Hats and shoes littered a blood-stained field in a desolate Afghan village Sunday, a day after U.S. warplanes targeting a terror suspect mistakenly killed nine children.

The Associated Press (AP) reported that American officials offered their regrets Sunday and said they were "deeply saddened" by the deaths. While the Afghan government urged the U.S.-led coalition hunting Taliban and al Qaeda fighters to make sure such an accident is never repeated, the United Nations called for an investigation.
 
Dubya, if you blow up a building, and the building crushes the occupants, it's your fault.

Remember that wedding party in Afghanistan? And the wedding party in Iraq?
 
So is a collapsing wall considered "firing on civilians" (your words)?

I'm sure you've heard of something called cause and effect. If you shoot the wall and it falls on innocent civilians, you have in effect killed the civilians, ignoring the homicidal instincts of the wall of course. :smile:
 
Adam said:
As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target? Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

I don't.
In the case of the World Trade Center, there was no declared war. There is no comparison. What the people in the WTC did was daily routine, what the people in Iraq, hanging around the burning wreckage of a military vehicle, carrying enemy flags, was just plain stupid. I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.
 
Actually there was. Many groups had declared war against the USA. Including Osama Bin Laden. I posted part of his letter the other day. I have the whole thing here as a PDF file.
 
Artman said:
I won't say they were valid targets, but what they did was evidently stupid.
Last time I checked, stupidity wasn't punishable by death.
 
Here is your statement:

"A few more examples of US troops firing on innocent civilians in recent times:"

And you then cite as one of the examples a wall collapsing during a battle. Your habit of posting such links is disingenuous, especially since you never bothered to post the context. Did you really think no one would bother to read them?

A short time ago, two American teenagers played Russian roullette with a semi-automatic pistol. The first shot killed the first player. The other player, thinking he'd got lucky and won, put it to his own head and pulled the trigger, to show off. he also died, of course. Yes, they were both incredibly stupid.

Actually, that sounds like an urban legend. I have seen numerous stories about this incident, and the names and locations change each time.

Many people just don't realize the details of armaments. Often, it's not their fault. Why should they know?

You can say that about any act of stupidity, for that matter. But I don't think it takes a lot of brains to stay off burning military vehicles.


As you say, there's a war going on. In war, you often target the economy supporting the enemy's military. So I ask again: Shouldn't the civilians in the World Trade Centre, by your rationale, have known it was a target?

A closer analogy would be: If the civilians saw the World Trade Centers burning from two direct aircraft hits, should they willingly decide to enter the buildings? That is much closer to the level of stupidity displayed by the dead morons.

(Yes, firemen did enter the World Trade Centers, but for obvious reasons.)

Shouldn't they have known not to go there? Do you consider them all stupid, valid targets, and responsible for their own deaths?

1. Anyone standing around or on top of a burning military vehicle is stupid (unless he has some legitimate reason, for which I cannot conjure).

2. Whether or not they are valid targets is still open to question. If some of the civilians, however, identified themselves as the enemy, then they become valid targets. (This may sound unfair, but remember it is the Iraqi resistance that has decided to fight in civilian clothes -- can't blame the US for that.)

3. Are they responsible for their own deaths? Absolutely.

One of the reasons soldiers should always fight in uniform is to prevent occurrences such as this from happening. Those innocent civilians that were killed can place the majority of the blame on the behavior of Iraqi resistance fighters (as well as their own stupidity).