Helicopter downed over Damascus

[tonker]

A couple of videos showing a Mil 4(edited) getting shot down over the once Christian city of Damascus.

LiveLeak.com - Syrian rebels shoot down Helicopter over Damascus

[Fareastdriver]

Unless I am mistaken that is a Mil 4 Helicopter. They go back to the early fifties. Lots of Avgas to catch fire.

[Courtney Mil]

Well it's not exactly HDTV, but the cabin looks quite long, so I would have thought a Hip. Correct me if I'm wrong, Tonker, wasn't the old Mil 4 more like a Wessex? Shorter cab? Does Syria (or anyone) still fly them?

Questions, not disagreements.

[Tiger_mate]

A Mil4 is more akin to a Whirlwind. It certainly looks like an Mi4 on some footage I have seen and white in colour which is hardly military spec. The cab will be no loss, the crew however......

Notwithstanding whose side they were on, the loss of aviators is never pretty.

[Trim Stab]

More likely to be a Mil 2 Hoplite.

Mil4 really too old.


Update - some still photos elsewhere show five-blade so can't be Mil 2 or Mil 4 - must be an 8 or 17.

[Fareastdriver]

My comment is based on the fact that I have seen both types in the air and it looks a lot more like a 4 than an 8. I agree with Trimstab that it could be a 2.

[AirShowJunkie]

On the Daily Fail's website they have a half decent image. Looks like a Mil 14.

[Rosevidney1]

And I reckon with a 5 blade rotor it is a Mil Mi 8/17 Hip.

[Fareastdriver]

I have found something on Sky News here:Syria Army Helicopter 'Shot Down' In Damascus (http://news.sky.com/story/977469/syria-army-helicopter-shot-down-in-damascus)

Stopping it 0.08 secs just before impact shows that what appears to be two three bladed rotors at the point of overlapping which would make it a Karmov.

[heli-cal]

For murdering their own citizens, the crew deserved everything they got.

[Tourist]

Airshowjunkie

An Mi14.

Seriously?!

Not, perhaps, the most conventional helicopter for the role, but hey...:rolleyes:

[ORAC]

Orbat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Force#Aircraft_Inventory) - probably an Mi-2, the others being transports.

[Tourist]

A Mi8/17 is just as likely to carry weapons as a Mi2 Hoplite.

The "kamov" effect is just a video camera artefact.

[TEEEJ]

Definitely a Mil 8/17 Hip. 5 blades.

Syria - Helicopter shoot down by the FSA (part 3/3) - YouTube

[AirShowJunkie]

Tourist,

A Mil 8. I'll get me coat!

[Nige321]

Report here of a Mil24 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147950)

[Ivan Rogov]

Cabin well alight after departing controlled flight, not a nice way to go, hope they deserved it :\

Oh, cert Mil 17, remedial recce for everyone :E

[Tashengurt]

Looked very much like a 17 to me but I'm no steely eyed killer.

[parabellum]

One picture I saw yesterday just after being hit showed it alight at the base, rear of cabin by the fillet that leads up to the tail boom, quite a prenounced nose and at least a five bladed rotor.

[Tiger_mate]

The fire appears to start on the starboard weapons pylon which with external fuel tanks adjacent to it is quite a recipe. The Mi17 only stores fuel internally when equipped with ferry tanks. This could have its origins in a malfunction rather then a shoot down but the spin and hype is inevitable.

[ORAC]

http://dawncompk.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/syria_helicopter_downed_afp_1_670.jpg%3Fw%3D670%26h%3D350

http://media.worldbulletin.net/250x190/2012/08/27/syria-helicop.jpg

[Trim Stab]

Thanks ORAC - Well that (almost) settles it then!

Tail rotor looks like its on the left, which would make it a Mil 17 (it is on the right for Mil 8). Quite interesting then, as it appears to be configured for ground-attack and I thought Syrian Air Force only had Mil 8M in that role.

[Fareastdriver]

If somebody had shown that picture at the beginning we would not have had all this discussion.

[Tourist]

heli-cal

"For murdering their own citizens, the crew deserved everything they got."

It must be nice to live in such a simple world as you, with goodies and baddies, black and white.

My only concern is what happens when the baddies become goodies?

[500N]

"My only concern is what happens when the baddies become goodies?"

That was what they were talking about tonight on the news,
that the opposition was a "legitimate" form of opposition government !

[Yozzer]

The French stance on the 'rebels' was quickly distanced by some elements of the British political scene. Quote: The reason that 'opposition' is limited is because some believe it better to live with the devil you know then the anarchy that may follow. Either way, the crew of at least three people were doing as ordered for that is their job. Protestation should be aimed at political leadership not the guys ordered to complete an unsavoury task. Human beings can be very cruel creatures and it is niave to treat every citizen of every country with the same ethics and value to life as the democratic western world. A mistake often made by people that simply do not understand the world and the way it works.

I was tempted to respond earlier to Heli-Cal but checked his previous contributions to Pprune and selected anti-Troll mode instead; for wise to the world is something that he is not. Immature and ideolistic would be a polite description, but I can think of something much more appropriate if tasked.....

[melmothtw]

...were doing as ordered for that is their job
They tried this defence at Nuremburg. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

[Tourist]

Their mistake was to be on the losing side....

[melmothtw]

Their mistake was to commit crimes against humanity (I know the allies did commit war crimes also, but there is no equivalence between the two).

[chopper2004]

Problem is now, theres rumours in the news that A l Q are joining in the mix with local yocal volunteers from the UK. WHose side they're fighting on/against?

And as said what happens when the baddies become goodies or what happens when the goodies comes into power (eventually)and will they be democratic to their own or just be hypocrites but with different suit and uniform?

Remember one of the lot from up north who got released and started to moan about their treatment in the High Courts after being 'mistakenly' arrested in Afghanistan by either us or the US forces and got shipped to the land of banned cigars to be asked questions day in day out? They claimed he was asked questions in Syria for a while before being flown to the Carribbean. I thought hang on a sec thought the Syrians were bad guys, Assad is a bad guy (probably supporting the bad guys further east) so it aint worth the risk using SYria as a stop gap almost laughable as using Damascus as a transit point for all the AT fleet on the way back and forth :) :)

[Tourist]

melmothtw

No, that was their evil, not their mistake. If you are a nasty piece of work, it pays to be on the winning side.

The winners get to define "crimes against humanity"

If the Germans/Japanese had won, there would, no doubt, have been a similar trial in which no Axis personnel would have appeared, and Bomber Harris and the likes of the crew of the Enola Gay would have figured heavily.

Thankfully, I prefer our idea of what defines a crime, though we can be pretty vague about these things.....




We supported Saddam because he was a goody even though he used chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranians. He must have been a goody because he was fighting Iran who used to be goodies then became baddies suddenly.

Saddam stopped fighting Iran and invaded Kuwait thus became a baddy even though most people in the region think that the Kuwaities had it coming.

We trained the Taliban who were goodies, to fight in an insurgent manner because the were fighting the Russians who were baddies.

Then the Russians left Afghanistan and became more friendly, so the Taliban were no longer automatically goodies, and then they didn't give up Bin Laden which made them baddies which changes "insurgent" to "terrorist"!
Russia were also fighting Muslim types so they kind of became goodies.

Gadaffi and Libya were baddies because they killed Americans. The rebels are goodies because they fight against Gadaffi. But wait, the rebels are also anti western muslim fundamentalists, and the Regimes are supported by Russia, and they are goodies now, right?!..... erm!!! what now!?

Obviously we will support the anti western, religiously fundamentalist parties who will hate us forever, why not, after all, aren't they goodies?

Ditto
Egypt (pro western, large well educated middle class, religiously tolerant), Tunisia(pro western, very large well educated middle class, religiously tolerant), Syria (large well educated middle class, religiously tolerant, boss married to a Brit!)

Suddenly all rather tricky.


ps.

I love this idea that you cannot kill your own citizens without deserving to die by immolation.

Where does that leave police marksmen?
Soldiers in N. Ireland?
The many pilots who have bombed people with surprisingly British accents in Afghanistan?
Everybody who has ever fought in a civil war anywhere?

I do wonder sometimes if the duller among us should be allowed to hold weapons.

[glojo]

Did Nelson Mandela give a whole new meaning to the words rubber necklace:uhoh::uhoh:

None of us have the right to judge the aircrew of that helicopter

[heli-cal]

The military defense of only following orders is beyond pathetic, it is also fatally flawed. To the surprise of no one, it's cited as a defense for murdering citizens, invariably by other military types.

The Syrian military is murdering the citizens of that country, some of those killers happen to operate aircraft, like the crew of that attack helicopter.

They chose to kill, and whilst doing so, were apparently shot down.

Just because their atrocities are committed whilst wearing a flight suit, doesn't absolve them of their responsibility or accountability, and in this instance, the direct consequences of their actions.

I think for myself, this appears to be an alien concept to some posters whom adhere to the notion of only doing what they are told to do. How ironic to be criticized by those whom support and defend the actions of that crew!

[Rosevidney1]

Should I assume that heli-cal has not served in the armed forces?:confused:

[Tourist]

Yozzer, you were right.:rolleyes:

[dead_pan]

Problem is now, theres rumours in the news that A l Q are joining in the mix with local yocal volunteers from the UK. WHose side they're fighting on/against?

Same thing happened in Libya but that didn't stop us backing with the rebels. If Al Q want to get involved in Syria thats fine with me - far better they expend their energies fighting the real oppressors of their kin than their imagined enemies here in the West.

[timtrb]

Tourist, you're so right! in another 9-12 months the goodies will be the baddies!

[Ivan Rogov]

As I understand it members of the UK military are required to comply with the Geneva Convention and have RoE to legally ensure we comply, we are not to obey illegal orders, we are not 'hired guns'. If the members of another countries Military don't follow similar principles I guess they may be breaching a number of international laws, they told me to do it is not a defence. BTW I'm not passing judgement on the crew in this helo

[heli-cal]

Should I assume that heli-cal has not served in the armed forces?

Like I said, I think for myself, and as such, the answer is no!

[Trojan1981]

Tourist: great post :ok:

Yozzer: You were right!

:D:ok:

[melmothtw]

The consensus on here seems to be that the crew's actions can and should be vindicated as they were "following orders".

What is the view then of the two Libyan pilots who refused to obey orders to bomb their own people and instead defected to Malta? At the time I seem to remember the overwhelming opinion on pprune was that they were corageous heros for having shown humanity in 'doing the right thing'.

Maybe opinions have changed...?

[glojo]

Another fishing type post?

Has anyone stated what that helicopter was doing just prior to this video footage? Was it on an humanitarian rescue mission? Was it a TV crew filming a national Geographic documentary on the flight of the humble bumble bee? To suggest those flyers were committing a criminal act with no proof at all is just plain wrong.

My own thoughts are that whoever was aboard that aircraft might not have survived and as such we should show some respect.. INNOCENT until Pprune fishermen\people suggest otherwise.

[ORAC]

My major feeling is one of sympathy - for all involved. This is not a clear cut black and white situation.

You have a civil war with barbarism from both sides (see bombing at funeral in Damascus yesterday).

Sectarian warfare between Shia/Sunni/Alawite fanned by regional faction interests in Turkey/Saudi/Kuwait/Iran etc.

Those in the armed forces who do obey orders to shoot/bomb/shell towns/villages being shot on the spot and their own families/villages being targeted.

How would any of us behave if we were placed in such circumstances? What further atrocities will take place as the civil war develops and which families on either side will escape without lose of family, property, sanity and their own lives?

So, disapproval of their actions, incredible admiration for those brave enough to stande up and refuse to participate whatever the cost - but mainly great sympathy for all those trapped and engulfed in the insanity that is civil war.

[melmothtw]

You're quite right glojo. It turns out that it was actually a TV crew filming a National Geographic documentary on the flight of the humble bumble bee.

My apologies.

[Tourist]

melmothtw

No there is no such consensus here at all.

What there is, is an understanding that things are not black and white in any war, let alone a civil war.

Personally, with no dog in this fight, I tend to root for the rebels. This is probably due to my respect for their amazing courage and my "Britishness" when it comes to supporting the underdog despite the fact that in terms of national interest Assad is probably preferable in the long term.

I don't see a problem in supporting the defecting jet pilots without condemning the helicopter pilots. We do not know their personal circumstances.
If I was a single guy, I would like to think I would have defected rather than fight a civil war. If I was leaving my wife and kids behind then certainly not.

What I do know is that I would not wish the horror of all helicopter pilots, ie the 10 seconds of blazing agony begging for the release of the final impact that helicopter fires can cause purely based upon which side of a war you happen to be on.

Ironically, the ability to dehumanise the enemy to the point where you can rejoice in their agonized death as demonstrated above by heli-cal is the first step that normal, social humans need to go through to perform atrocities. Witness the huge number of normal Germans/Japanese who did terrible things after they came to believe that the enemy was not worthy of human respect.

People who understand that the world has many shades of gray and are just doing their job no matter how distasteful are far less likely to do something truly awful than the fervent believer.

Best take a close look at yourself, heli-cal.

[melmothtw]

At the risk of flogging a dead horse here Tourist, I don't believe that anyone is 'rejoicing in the agonized death' of the crew of this helicopter.

The point that I and helical made was that the actions of the crew in attacking their own civilian population (assuming of course that they weren't actually making a documentary about bees, as glojo rather bizzarly suggests may have been the case) cannot be excused simply because they were obeying orders.

If you care to read back through the threads you will see that this was the beginning and end of our case. I've no more desire to see anyone die in the burning wreckage of a helicopter than you or anybody else has, and to suggest otherwise is to distort what was said.

[PTT]

@ melmothtw
I think you're going to have to tell us what the difference between "civpop" and "armed rebels" is, and how you know which, exactly, the crew were attacking (assuming they were indeed attacking anyone).

[melmothtw]

PTT, I use the same definition of "civpop" and "armed rebels" as the intnerational community did when it decided to intervene in Libya to prevent Gadaffi rolling into Benghazi and slaughtering his own people.

Then, and the countless other times that individual nations or the collective international community have intervened militarily in a civil war on humanitarian grounds (East Pakistan, Kosovo etc).

Again, I refer you to my original post copied below which was concerend only with insidiousness of using the defence of 'following orders'...



Quote:
...were doing as ordered for that is their job
They tried this defence at Nuremburg. Didn't work then, doesn't work now.

[Tourist]

"If you care to read back through the threads you will see that this was the beginning and end of our case. I've no more desire to see anyone die in the burning wreckage of a helicopter than you or anybody else has, and to suggest otherwise is to distort what was said."



"For murdering their own citizens, the crew deserved everything they got."


Hmmm.

That sounds to me rather like a desire.

Just a few points.

They may or may not have killed their own citizens.
These citizens may or may not have been civillians, defected soldiers, rebels or foreign fighters.
They may or may not have delberately targeted non-combatants.



All these things are possible.

Murder, however, is a term for a court.
You or Heli-cal don't get to decide whether someone is a murderer based on 10 seconds of grainy footage of a helicopter crashing.


It is possible, but unlikely, that one day a court will decide who is a murderer in this conflict.

It is ironic that those peacenick types who are so intent on "justice" are those who are so quick to circumvent it and perform instant kangaroo courts serving down judgements :

"the crew deserved everything they got....."

before a shred of evidence has been put forward of any actions whatsoever let alone "murdering their own citizens".

[melmothtw]

"If you care to read back through the threads you will see that this was the beginning and end of our case. I've no more desire to see anyone die in the burning wreckage of a helicopter than you or anybody else has, and to suggest otherwise is to distort what was said."



"For murdering their own citizens, the crew deserved everything they got."



You've taken a quote from me (the top one) and used a quote I didn't type (the bottom one) to try and demonstrate how I am contradicting myself - ever so slightly disingenuous of you there Tourist.

Maybe I didn't read helical's posts as thoroughly as perhaps I should, but my points still stand (irrespective of how you juxtapose my posts with those of other ppruners to paint a distorted picture of what I actually said).

Helical can answer for himself as to his views...

[Tourist]

melmothtw

You took on the defense of heli-cal when you said:

"I don't believe that anyone is 'rejoicing in the agonized death' of the crew of this helicopter."

I was not suggesting that you yourself had said it, but certainly you are correct to say that you needed to re-read heli-cal more closely before aligning yourself with him.

[glojo]

I totally accept that filming bumble bees from a helicopter is very much a tongue in cheek comment but please show me any actual footage you, or anyone else has of that very specific helicopter, flown by that aircrew that is attacking anything, or anyone. I know my comment was tongue in cheek, but I am certain you have NO IDEA what that actual helicopter was doing?

Are you seriously suggesting that ANY aircrew has to physically check out the ground target they have been tasked\ordered to attack? Do they land the helicopter, knock on the door, enter the property and then ensure it complies with the ongoing Rules of Engagement? :eek:

War is not nice and people get killed.

If an aircraft deliberately fires it weapons at an unauthorised target then I accept they need to be accountable for their actions and explain the reasons why they did what they did.

If an aircrew or any other military ship or vehicle attacks an authorised target and innocent civilians are harmed, injured or killed then yes, someone has to be accountable, but perhaps not those that pressed the relevant button.

To me we have a few folks that are intent on getting folks to bite and I guess they are never going to put themselves in harms way and so they feel the y can criticise those that have made a different type of decision.

[melmothtw]

What I am suggesting glojo, and the ONLY thing I am suggesting, is that 'just following orders' is not a lgetimate defence to crimes against humanity (as defined by the UN), and hasn't been since 1945.

As has already been mentioned here, British military personal are obliged to disobey illegal orders for this very reason.

This was the only point I was making.

[melmothtw]

To me we have a few folks that are intent on getting folks to bite and I guess they are never going to put themselves in harms way and so they feel the y can criticise those that have made a different type of decision.


If that is aimed at me glojo you should know that I have been in harm's way, and I will leave it at that.

[glojo]

What I am suggesting glojo, and the ONLY thing I am suggesting, is that 'just following orders' is not a lgetimate defence to crimes against humanity (as defined by the UN), and hasn't been since 1945.

As has already been mentioned here, British military personal are obliged to disobey illegal orders for this very reason.

This was the only point I was making. I understand what you are trying to say but it is only a statement made by someone with 20/20 hindsight.

You are the commanding officer of a submarine and have been given the coordinates of a target and told to launch weapons at that specific location.

Do you obey those orders?

[melmothtw]

You are the commanding officer of a submarine and have been given the coordinates of a target and told to launch weapons at that specific location.

Do you obey those orders?
I don't know, having never been the commanding officer of a submarine that is a particular decision I have never had to make.

Again though, the point I was making was that whatever decision you do make, right or wrong, don't expect to be able to stand up in court after the event (if that's where it lands you) and say "I was just following orders!"

If you care to check over my posts on this subject you will see that that is all I have been saying throughout...

[glojo]

I don't know,

That just about sums it up and no disrespect to you or anyone else. I deliberately avoided using aircraft as an example but the decisions are the same. The commanding officer has NO IDEA regarding what that target is or if that missile will fly true or if things have changed without our intelligence services being aware of that change.

War is a bitch and making these awful decisions is not something everyone can do. Far better to let them 'film their bumble bees' :)

[melmothtw]

That just about sums it up and no disrespect to you or anyone else. I deliberately avoided using aircraft as an example but the decisions are the same. The commanding officer has NO IDEA regarding what that target is or if that missile will fly true or if things have changed without our intelligence services being aware of that change.

War is a bitch and making these awful decisions is not something everyone can do. Far better to let them 'film their bumble bees' http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Seeing as you persist, I would say that both the case of the submarine commander and the helicopter pilot are not that dissimilar in that if either had committed a crime against humanity they would both be liable to answering for it in court.

Having said that though, I would imagine it might be easier for the submarine commnder to plead his innocence at not knowing he was committing a war crime in that he was underwater and several hundred miles off shore at the time.

For the helicopter pilot flying over a populated civilain area in perfect visibility and firing rockets into that populated area (if that is what he was doing - the images of the downed helicopter appear to show it had rocket pods fitted), he might find his plea of innocence a little harder to prove.

Both cases would be a matter for the court to decide. Either way, if they had committed a crime against humanity they would have to offer a defence that goes beyond just obeying orders - the one and only point I have been making all along!

The fact that I don't know if I would obey the hypothetical order you fielded is neither here nor there - my original point and subsequent postings on the subject have nothing to do with what I would do in any particular sutuation, but with the fact that you cannot use 'obeying orders' as a defence against war crimes.

If you don't believe me, go ask the UN.

[Stuff]

You are the commanding officer of a submarine and have been given the coordinates of a target and told to launch weapons at that specific location.

Do you obey those orders?

Don't make me go and get my copy of Crimson Tide out again.

[500N]

"You are the commanding officer of a submarine and have been given the coordinates of a target and told to launch weapons at that specific location.

Do you obey those orders?"


Isn't that exactly what US Nuclear Sub commanders have to do
and as long as the message is real, launch the missiles as their
is no communication with HQ.

If you didn't, you wouldn't be a CO of a submarine for long ?

[Courtney Mil]

I see here more examples of our litigation-fuelled society. Everything these days seems to come back to what will happen in court and peoples human rights, even legitimate law fighting and no matter what the victims have done themselves.

Orders do need to be obeyed. How does the commanded always know whether his commander's order is legal? I and my like have to rely on the fact that the targetting and identification have been done correctly and that the message I receive is authentic. If I wait to check out every single engagement order before obeying, I die. Simple as that. Terrible transgretion of MY human rights.

[melmothtw]

I'm not saying it's right Courtney Mil, just saying how it is and has been since 1945. I guess the world learned the hard way in the years prior where 'just following orders' can lead...

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, indeed. Now those guys really were in a position to understand the legality of their orders!

[melmothtw]

Yep, and that's the point. It's not about litigation but protecting civilians. As a member of a Western military you are subject to rigorous rules of engagement which are all tied into this notion that those who wage war are accountable for their actions.

[glojo]

I'm not saying it's right Courtney Mil, just saying how it is and has been since 1945. I guess the world learned the hard way in the years prior where 'just following orders' can lead...

The World has sadly learned nothing about 'just following orders' and atrocities are still happening as we speak.

But as far as I am aware those trials did not prosecute the commanding officers of submarines that sunk merchant ships, or pilots that bombed our cities?

Failure to carry out a lawful order or command during times of war is not something to be encouraged and during the times you are discussing it might even have lead to summary execution.

If the command is lawful, then INSTANT compliance is both expected and required.

500N
Not just the commanders of US submarines.. If the orders are verified, then those missiles fly.

[Shytehawk]

500N
Isn't that exactly what US Nuclear Sub commanders have to do
and as long as the message is real, launch the missiles as their
is no communication with HQ.

I just hope that the submariner knows the difference between "their" and "there".

[melmothtw]

If the command is lawful....


...then it won't result in a crime against humanity being perpetrated and there is no reason why it shouldn't be obeyed.

[The Nip]

There are some intriging points here.

As an aside, the USA are currently killing dozens of people in various countries using UAVs. All the time an apology is made and some financial recompense is given to the relatives.

Is this lawful or just collateral? Or is it just because they can.......

Terrorists or freedom fighters, who decides if they are legitimate targets?

And yes I have served in the sand with the locals.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Terrorists or freedom fighters, who decides if they are legitimate targets?

Well, according to Obama, he decides who dies today and who lives until tomorrow.

[heli-cal]

Interesting that the military types supporting the actions of the helicopter gunship crew (whom were reportedly attacking people on the ground) resort to repeated insults and entirely baseless opinions about my understanding of issues!

The Government's, human rights groups and countless others, worldwide, whom believe that atrocities are being committed by the Syrian military will no doubt also become the subjects of their righteous, self styled wisdom and expertise, in the form of entirely predictable abuse.

Empathy for one's counterparts is understandable, however, citing the Nuremberg defense for the crew of a helicopter gunship that was (reported to be) firing on civilians, in a civilian area is morally indefensible and intellectually flawed.

[Courtney Mil]

Heli-Cal,

You should expect to find "military types" here, expressing their opinions. Probably not the right place to pick a fight on that basis.

The Government's, human rights groups and countless others, worldwide, whom believe that atrocities are being committed by the Syrian military will no doubt also become the subjects of their righteous, self styled wisdom and expertise, in the form of entirely predictable abuse.

Not sure who you're having a go at there. Is that just an anti-military thing? Sorry, don't get where you're coming from. Explain? Or do you resort to repeated insults and entirely baseless opinions about my understanding of issues!

Finally I don't think anyone here (as has been stated before) is in a position to understand what they were doing or why. If we were facing armed insurgency in the UK, I wonder what our armed armed forces would be doing or being ordered to do.

[Airborne Aircrew]

I wonder what our armed armed forces would be doing or being ordered to do.

In that situation one would hope they would march on Westminster and hang the thieving bastards ensconced therein...

But that's just me... :}

[500N]

" If we were facing armed insurgency in the UK, I wonder what our armed armed forces would be doing or being ordered to do."

Wouldn't it depend on who is doing the armed insurgency ?

[Thelma Viaduct]

I wouldn't get too stressed with the "military types". They were exactly the same with Iraq and Afghanistan before realising both wars were for bollocks reasons and not what their leaders had conned them to believe. As you can imagine, they don't pipe up too much about their idiotic beliefs/opinion/experiences on the subject now as it makes them look stupid in a way that even the vast majority of the population realise it's at best a waste of money, the sacrifice of which has been paid in the blood of poorly paid soldiers and the suffering of their families and friends. All the dicks that thought it was a good idea on here and giving it the big 'warfighter' one are now stum.

Because they are now unable to think or form an opinion for themselves, they can only believe what they're told, it's ingrained in their 'mentality'. Don't think or ask, just do.

The Machinegundemic character on here is a typical example, proper thick as 2 short planks.

[orca]

I am a military type.

To me this is all fairly clear cut and easily explained.

1. War is inherently bad, but in a combatant versus combatant situation we military types are able to determine which team we would like to win and which we would like to see lose. How we have arrived at this opinion is up to us, but usually has ingredients such as an opinion on the team's cause, whether we have an affiliation with the country, like the uniforms etc etc. In this situation we quite naturally see losses on one side as bad and losses on the other side as good. Losses are still losses, but it's a tough game.

2. If we really couldn't care less about the conflict due to geographic dis-location or the two sides meaning nothing to us ideologically then one would hope we viewed all loss of life as sad.

3. If it were proven that any combatant knowingly used any degree of force on a non-combatant, particularly lethal force, then we would obviously disapprove no matter which team they were on. We would hope that the criminals were brought to book in a court of law.

4. Being a military type one accepts that war is a rough old game and those caught not playing by the rules might be lucky enough to get to a court, they might not. I don't approve of summary 'justice', because to me it isn't just - but I am not naive enough to think it may not happen.

In the case of the Mi-17 being shot down I feel sorry for the aircrew. I have no reason to suspect that they were deliberately targeting non-combatants and even acknowledge that to discriminate in what they perceive to be a COIN operation is probably incredibly hard. That being said, from what I have read, the pro-regime forces and militias have carried out some awful atrocities and I would like to see the rebels win this one. There is of course evidence that some rebels are guilty of similar. So on balance I would like the rebels to win, which they must do militarily, so the loss to the regime of a helo is a good thing. But I do think that the crew might just have been doing their job in a perfectly legal way. Hard lines. Tough game.

[melmothtw]

If we were facing armed insurgency in the UK, I wonder what our armed armed forces would be doing or being ordered to do.

We did, for 30 years in Northern Ireland, and not once did our armed forces conduct air strikes on centres of civilian population. Mistakes were made (Bloody Sunday), but it was never 'policy' to attack civlians. Goes back to my earlier points about rules of engagement.

[Shytehawk]

Piouspilot "proper thick as 2 short planks."

Now there is an example of education and inteligence.

[Ivan Rogov]

I say Pious, calling us names like that, you'll make us Military types cry. Lucky we are 2 fick 2 no wot u r on abart :rolleyes:

[heli-cal]

Heli-Cal,

You should expect to find "military types" here, expressing their opinions. Probably not the right place to pick a fight on that basis.

The generic term is used for current/former military personnel, irrespective of branch/rank. I don't pick fights, that is your false assumption!

Quote:
The Government's, human rights groups and countless others, worldwide, whom believe that atrocities are being committed by the Syrian military will no doubt also become the subjects of their righteous, self styled wisdom and expertise, in the form of entirely predictable abuse.


Not sure who you're having a go at there. Is that just an anti-military thing? Sorry, don't get where you're coming from. Explain? Or do you

I am not having a go at anyone, "their righteous, self styled wisdom and expertise, in the form of entirely predictable abuse" is reference to the military types and their abuse as posted, not your imaginary "anti-military thing"


Quote:
resort to repeated insults and entirely baseless opinions about my understanding of issues!

Finally I don't think anyone here (as has been stated before) is in a position to understand what they were doing or why. If we were facing armed insurgency in the UK, I wonder what our armed armed forces would be doing or being ordered to do.

Bumble bee spotting, submarine commanders, "armed insurgency in the UK", is there a collective reading comprehension/intellectual difficulty with recognizing that the crew of that helicopter gunship were reported to have been firing into civilian areas... In Syria!

I accept that certain military types subjugate free thought and simply do as they are told, and to them, "INSTANT compliance is both expected and required", but ease off with the persecution complex and recognize and respect that others do actually think for themselves, and may actually express comments that do not support military atrocities against civilians!

Replies in blue.

[Ronald Reagan]

I simply don't understand the western worlds lack of concern over the current situation in the middle east. Basically tough secular leaders who could maintain order are being removed and being replaced by Islamist political groups! In every single country in the region where the former dictator has been removed islamists in one form or another have taken over. I worry what the hell is going to happen to women in these nations, also those who do not follow islam! Egypt is my biggest worry, but Libya is concerning aswell. As for Syria better the devil we know!!!!
Lets look at Iraq, what was the point of it? Are people really better off than before? Has the west got a new loyal client state? I don't think so.
Once we leave Afghanistan does anyone think the Afghan government forces will hold out long?
There are many reports of the rebel groups in Libya and Syria having links with or actually being Al Quida. I thought they were supposed to be the enemy? Now the west is on their side? In 10 to 20 years possibly a lot less this is going to come back and bite the west big time! The whole region will be more radical than it is today. Probably yet another huge foreign policy blunder!!!!
Besides we have no damn money, neither UK or US, every pointless conflict we have bankrupts us that little bit more!!!

[Tourist]

Thank you for your consideration heli-cal

I was reading your post in total confusion until your explanatory "replies in blue" sorted it out for me. Now I understand the error of my subjugated thoughts.

Phew!

Thanks for that!
I now look forward to a bright and happy future.

[ORAC]

Grauniad: Syrian rebels claim to have shot down a Mig warplane in Idlib (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/30/syria-crisis-live-bashar-al-assad?commentpage=all#block-503f2811c0e3513f65bf9759). Video footage purported to show the wreckage of the jet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/30/syria-crisis-live-bashar-al-assad?commentpage=all#block-503f44ee58f956c1a416ac78)and a pilot ejecting (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/30/syria-crisis-live-bashar-al-assad?commentpage=all#block-503f34ebc0e3d642e636ef9f). Activists said the pilot was later captured by the Free Syrian Army. A Syrian military source denied that a Syrian warplane had been shot down (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2012/aug/30/syria-crisis-live-bashar-al-assad?commentpage=all#block-503f384458f956c1a416ac68).

8my60YJIEEo&feature=player_embedded

_7yktr9q7Zo&feature=player_embedded

[Lonewolf_50]

Yep, and that's the point. It's not about litigation but protecting civilians.

I note a blythe assumption that whomever that helicopter may have been engaged with are in fact civilians, which seems to imply "non combatant" in a war of which civil war is a subset.

The two and a half forking of this thread is not surprising.

A bridge must be out somewhere.

[500N]

Ronald Reagan

"I worry what the hell is going to happen to women in these nations, also those who do not follow islam! Egypt is my biggest worry, but Libya is concerning as well."

The women were worried as well in Egypt from the programs I saw on TV
and were dead against the Islamic laws that would take them backwards.

.

[heli-cal]

Thank you for your consideration heli-cal

I was reading your post in total confusion until your explanatory "replies in blue" sorted it out for me. Now I understand the error of my subjugated thoughts.

Phew!

Thanks for that!
I now look forward to a bright and happy future.


Given your post count, I'd have thought that you would have been aware that there is a minimum post content, excluding quotes.

That means one has to enter additional text or the page won't load, hence the "Replies in blue." entry, to accommodate this requirement.

I doubt that bright or happy future, just more ignorance!

I do look forward to a safer future for the citizens of the Idlib province.

[Tourist]

Thank you heli-cal.


Tell me again how sheep's bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes....

[melmothtw]

I note a blythe assumption that whomever that helicopter may have been engaged with are in fact civilians, which seems to imply "non combatant" in a war of which civil war is a subset.




There's no blythe assumption Lonewolf 50. My original post was in response to a ppruner who said that whatever the helicopter crew were doing was justified because they were obeying orders. I responded that obeying orders is not a legitimate defence and hasn't been since 1945. The thread then morphed into a wider discussion on war crimes.

My point about protecting civilians was made in this wider context and not specifically with regard the helicopter crew.

[ORAC]

Syrian fighters 'take over part of airbase and shoot down bomber jet' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9509782/Syrian-fighters-take-over-part-of-airbase-and-shoot-down-bomber-jet.html)

Video footage showed the burning wreckage of a Syrian air force jet in Idlib province where there has been an upsurge in attacks by the opposition targeting the regime's helicopters and aircraft. Rebel cameramen chanted "God is Great" as the plane, reportedly shot down by heavy machine gunfire, fell near the Abu Zuhour military base on the Turkish border. "The two pilots who parachuted from the plane were captured," said Colonel Afif Mahmoud Suleiman, head of the rebel Military Council in Idlib.

The Liwa al-Ummah brigade based in the same province said they had taken advantage of the regime's concentration of attacks on nearby Aleppo to mount a massed attack on the Taftanaz airbase further east. The brigade, which has links to fundamentalist Libyan groups, distributed pictures of at least five helicopters burning on Wednesday night and the rebels were in control of at least one section of the airbase yesterday. The conquest of an airbase would amount to a significant breakthrough for the Syrian rebels.....

[Courtney Mil]

I'd have thought that you would have been aware that there is a minimum post content

10 characters, mate.

[Tiger_mate]

Nice one......

[TWT]

Or,you can change the font colour of your post to white