Obviously not. Again. They looked like they had weapons. The pilots weren't wondering...they were sure they saw weapons.
They then engaged what appeared to be a clear threat to other US forces nearby. The pilots acted exactly as they should have, given the information presented to them. This was a war zone, not a country club. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Mike Hale <eyeronic.des...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Except that they weren't obviously unarmed. >> >> Not only where they not obviously unarmed, they appeared to be armed. >> >> Look at the 4 minute mark. >> >> That sure as shit looks like an RPG. >> >> The crew thought the group was armed. Ergo, they were cleared to engage. >> >> This wasn't a war crime...and the allegation that it was just makes >> people look ridiculous. > Listen to yourself: we weren't sure if they were armed, so we killed > them. Put yourself and your family in the shoes of the dead folks. Its > not a comfortable place to be, is it? > > Jeff > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:05 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:44:44 PDT, Mike Hale said: >>>> Seriously! Think about the injustice of having American helicopters >>>> engage armed individuals shadowing American soldiers. >>> >>> Shooting at "armed individuals" is one thing. If it's "civilians and >>> Reuters >>> employees" who *aren't* obviously armed, it's something else. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 >> > -- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
