How to say it like it is!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex
Your comments are quite uncalled for. The basis for your uninformed observation is, again, a thoroughly foreshortened and heavily edited video clip, taken totally out of context. You need to see the whole engagement and feel the adrenalin when a missile warner is growling in your ear so the "armchair" riposte is actually a fair comment.
A 2/3 man SAM Crew can wreak havoc and who is to know which coalition aircraft would have been taken out if these three "farmers" had been ignored. Very little farming is done in the dark in the wee small hours and the TI Video clearly shows the second target scrabbling under the "tractor" to unwrap the hessian from his weapon. You don't see him go to ground by the way - he was well trained.
I wouldn't have left them behind to shoot at my oppos.
Your comments are quite uncalled for. The basis for your uninformed observation is, again, a thoroughly foreshortened and heavily edited video clip, taken totally out of context. You need to see the whole engagement and feel the adrenalin when a missile warner is growling in your ear so the "armchair" riposte is actually a fair comment.
A 2/3 man SAM Crew can wreak havoc and who is to know which coalition aircraft would have been taken out if these three "farmers" had been ignored. Very little farming is done in the dark in the wee small hours and the TI Video clearly shows the second target scrabbling under the "tractor" to unwrap the hessian from his weapon. You don't see him go to ground by the way - he was well trained.
I wouldn't have left them behind to shoot at my oppos.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if that is indeed what happened then I will withdraw my comments and apologise. It has never been suggested before, in the context of this video, that a weapon was found in the debris, What was it?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist Said:
...the US not only didnt help but actually funded them in large part.
Tourist, this is a widely held misconception.
I spent most of my army career dealing with the IRA. The reality is that most of their funding (by a long long way) came from the proceeds of organised crime: cross border smuggling, racketeering and drugs. Also, the bulk of the weaponry used against us was of Eastern bloc origin - donated by hostile intelligence services.
What they received from the misguided individuals in the US was largely symbolic support, which Sinn Fein used as part of their propaganda line. Whatever its origins, Sinn Fein/IRA now is about money and power. Please do not assist them in maintaining their fiction.
Thank You
EG
...the US not only didnt help but actually funded them in large part.
Tourist, this is a widely held misconception.
I spent most of my army career dealing with the IRA. The reality is that most of their funding (by a long long way) came from the proceeds of organised crime: cross border smuggling, racketeering and drugs. Also, the bulk of the weaponry used against us was of Eastern bloc origin - donated by hostile intelligence services.
What they received from the misguided individuals in the US was largely symbolic support, which Sinn Fein used as part of their propaganda line. Whatever its origins, Sinn Fein/IRA now is about money and power. Please do not assist them in maintaining their fiction.
Thank You
EG
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilgrim - wee small hours? Check the time on the video. 1630 if I remember correctly.
Please understand that, having worked with the US military on numerous occassions, I have the utmost respect for the majority of them. There are, as in any military, a few bad apples. The problem comes when Americans fail to see that they are bad apples and try to defend their actions. There is an uneven moral relativism here which seems to allow American soldiers to do what they want because they are in combat, but castigates the enemy for even thinking about shooting back. I agree that it's important to realise who's side you're on, but retaining the moral high ground requires a slightly more objective viewpoint - if a guy has done wrong, he has done wrong, no matter which side he's on.
That said, I'll repeat that the majority of Americans I have met are great people.
Please understand that, having worked with the US military on numerous occassions, I have the utmost respect for the majority of them. There are, as in any military, a few bad apples. The problem comes when Americans fail to see that they are bad apples and try to defend their actions. There is an uneven moral relativism here which seems to allow American soldiers to do what they want because they are in combat, but castigates the enemy for even thinking about shooting back. I agree that it's important to realise who's side you're on, but retaining the moral high ground requires a slightly more objective viewpoint - if a guy has done wrong, he has done wrong, no matter which side he's on.
That said, I'll repeat that the majority of Americans I have met are great people.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, Pilgrim, your entire post is mis-informed speculation.
There is no missile, there was no 3-man SAM crew, no RWR warning, no 'oppos under threat' no 'wee small hours'. You're making it up. Presumably, like anyone who has been in the military, you identify with the crew concerned, have been or can imagine yourself being in similar situations and cannot believe that you would act that way, and I'm sure you would not.
Most people would accept that mistakes are made in war. What is really scary is the reluctance to accept, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the possibility that this crew might have acted so badly.
There is no missile, there was no 3-man SAM crew, no RWR warning, no 'oppos under threat' no 'wee small hours'. You're making it up. Presumably, like anyone who has been in the military, you identify with the crew concerned, have been or can imagine yourself being in similar situations and cannot believe that you would act that way, and I'm sure you would not.
Most people would accept that mistakes are made in war. What is really scary is the reluctance to accept, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the possibility that this crew might have acted so badly.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Alex, for clearing up that I never called Americans ‘pigs’ maybe it’s too difficult for HAL_pilot to read things and comment on the facts . This would seem to be the case for the majority of his countrymen (and mine to be fair).
That’s quite rich coming from you tarbaby, I haven’t been in said situation because I’m not a soldier; this is an aircrew forum.
I’m sorry FJJP but that is just utter rubbish, maybe I’ve misread your post. Are you saying that we cannot criticise our allies even if they make (in some people’s opinion) mistakes.
“You don’t go changing horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse” springs to mind.
If someone’s doing something wrong or something badly then I think they should be told.
He hasn't been fired upon by people who 5 seconds later want the full Geneva Convention when they surrender
Whether or not you believe the war is justified or not, whether or not you believe it is right to impose western-style democracy on another nation, there is no excuse for anti-allied comment [and I encompass more nations than just the US here].
“You don’t go changing horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse” springs to mind.
If someone’s doing something wrong or something badly then I think they should be told.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the Yanks working local or Zulu? You mean you don't know.....? Why would anyone use IR during the day?
"TADS FLIR. Views thermal images, real world and magnified, during day, night and adverse weather."
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex,
How do you KNOW? Were you there or are you just trying to join the masses who have something bad to say about the US. I still don't understand why you think this crew are pigs?
How do you KNOW? Were you there or are you just trying to join the masses who have something bad to say about the US. I still don't understand why you think this crew are pigs?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex
'there was no 3-man SAM crew'
That may well be true but you really are missing the point. You can only say that with hindsight.
At the time, while hovering in the day/dark (it doesn't matter which - you can't watch every patch of scrub within a mile, through 360 degrees, for threats), you have no idea whether someone is lining you up in his sights.
Without knowing the context, but from what I can see, this crew prosecuted a professional attack and were undoubtedly at risk in doing so. All this talk about 'wounded men crawling away' is total nonsense. You cannot tell that for certain , especially when you have about 1.2 seconds to decide, while you are trying to do about a dozen other things at once (including fly) and you could be on the recieving end at any minute.
I think that those that have been there are, very patiently, trying to explain this to you. Now you can continue to be ignorant or you can listen to them. It is NOT the same as a gameboy.
Hope that helps.
'there was no 3-man SAM crew'
That may well be true but you really are missing the point. You can only say that with hindsight.
At the time, while hovering in the day/dark (it doesn't matter which - you can't watch every patch of scrub within a mile, through 360 degrees, for threats), you have no idea whether someone is lining you up in his sights.
Without knowing the context, but from what I can see, this crew prosecuted a professional attack and were undoubtedly at risk in doing so. All this talk about 'wounded men crawling away' is total nonsense. You cannot tell that for certain , especially when you have about 1.2 seconds to decide, while you are trying to do about a dozen other things at once (including fly) and you could be on the recieving end at any minute.
I think that those that have been there are, very patiently, trying to explain this to you. Now you can continue to be ignorant or you can listen to them. It is NOT the same as a gameboy.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is going nowhere. We clearly have radically different views about what is acceptable in wartime. You keep yours and I'll keep mine.
Last edited by Alex Whittingham; 7th Feb 2005 at 22:22.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional attack or otherwise, legal or not, it is certainly more tactically sound to capture the enemy instead of kill him where possible, if only for intelligence reasons.
Unless the crew was in serious doubt that they were about to be attacked then they should have gone for a capture. The amount of time they spent watching the scene before opening fire suggests that they felt fairly secure in their position.
Unless the crew was in serious doubt that they were about to be attacked then they should have gone for a capture. The amount of time they spent watching the scene before opening fire suggests that they felt fairly secure in their position.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Lincs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex,
Like I said, it all depends upon the context:
If it is an isolated tractor with no obvious military association – it could well be a war crime.
If it was part of a dispersed enemy unit en route to engage a friendly position then it is entirely legitimate – and the consequences of failure demand urgency of action that may preclude you carefully considering every alternative.
If you had just witnessed them slaughtering dissident civilians then you might not care how high they raised their hands; of course, after the atrocity, killing them might be illegal – unless you had reason to believe that they were about to resume actions that would endanger you or a third party.
Difficult isn’t it!
I have no problem with you disagreeing incidentally – it actually provides useful insight into how a markedly different perspective can be taken from viewing the same material. We live in a democracy and the ‘you weren’t there so you cannot have a view’ will not wash – we, the military, need to understand viewpoints like yours, and manage them. My point throughout has been – do not make inflammatory judgements when you do not have the full facts. I would also encourage you to realise that being there does make a difference – you do not have 3 days to debate the outcome amongst a committee. You have an instant to make a decision (one of a hundred) – and the life of you and your colleagues may depend upon the outcome. It doesn’t mean you can’t have a view but it is important that you appreciate the difference. You seem intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that?
Good debate.
Oh... and PTT. What planet are you on???!
Like I said, it all depends upon the context:
If it is an isolated tractor with no obvious military association – it could well be a war crime.
If it was part of a dispersed enemy unit en route to engage a friendly position then it is entirely legitimate – and the consequences of failure demand urgency of action that may preclude you carefully considering every alternative.
If you had just witnessed them slaughtering dissident civilians then you might not care how high they raised their hands; of course, after the atrocity, killing them might be illegal – unless you had reason to believe that they were about to resume actions that would endanger you or a third party.
Difficult isn’t it!
I have no problem with you disagreeing incidentally – it actually provides useful insight into how a markedly different perspective can be taken from viewing the same material. We live in a democracy and the ‘you weren’t there so you cannot have a view’ will not wash – we, the military, need to understand viewpoints like yours, and manage them. My point throughout has been – do not make inflammatory judgements when you do not have the full facts. I would also encourage you to realise that being there does make a difference – you do not have 3 days to debate the outcome amongst a committee. You have an instant to make a decision (one of a hundred) – and the life of you and your colleagues may depend upon the outcome. It doesn’t mean you can’t have a view but it is important that you appreciate the difference. You seem intelligent, surely you can acknowledge that?
Good debate.
Oh... and PTT. What planet are you on???!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The planet where I was in theatre at the time and know the context. The same planet which has the entire video as bought from one of the BXs (not by me).
I appreciate your debate, and I see your point, but it just isn't valid in this case. I'm sure you can see the value of capture over killing the enemy, and I realise that going for capture does involve a risk, but then everything we do in war does - it's a matter of management of that risk.
Mr Hanky - The capture can be carried out by calling for an ARF, as I described earlier in the thread.
I appreciate your debate, and I see your point, but it just isn't valid in this case. I'm sure you can see the value of capture over killing the enemy, and I realise that going for capture does involve a risk, but then everything we do in war does - it's a matter of management of that risk.
Mr Hanky - The capture can be carried out by calling for an ARF, as I described earlier in the thread.
Last edited by PTT; 8th Feb 2005 at 08:05.
PTT said:
From the historian Richard Holmes' book "Tommy: The British Soldier on The Western Front"
First, there was no guarantee a man's surrender would be accepted. If he maintained a brave defence to the last moment and then threw down his arms, he was likely to be killed out of hand, sometimes with a gruff: "Too late chum".
Charles Carrington explained: "No soldier can claim the right to quarter if he fights to the extremity"
Thomas Marks, an NCO in the infantry, was disinclined to show mercy to machine gunners who surrendered at the last moment: "They are defenceless, but have chosen to make themselves so. We did not ask them to abandon their guns. They only did so when they saw those of us who were not mown down, getting closer to them, and the boot was on the other foot"
Yes, it's easy to answer from in front of my laptop, but I do know how I react in these situations.
First, there was no guarantee a man's surrender would be accepted. If he maintained a brave defence to the last moment and then threw down his arms, he was likely to be killed out of hand, sometimes with a gruff: "Too late chum".
Charles Carrington explained: "No soldier can claim the right to quarter if he fights to the extremity"
Thomas Marks, an NCO in the infantry, was disinclined to show mercy to machine gunners who surrendered at the last moment: "They are defenceless, but have chosen to make themselves so. We did not ask them to abandon their guns. They only did so when they saw those of us who were not mown down, getting closer to them, and the boot was on the other foot"
A journal of a US Marine about Guadalcanal (Pacific) in WW2 is somewhere on the Internet. Stay with me here...I found the Guadalcanal site with his and many other soldiers' experiences, but only by chance. This one guy said that most Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender and then either shoot at their would-be captors or try to throw a grenade etc. Therefore, this Marine stated that his fellow soldiers shot most of the Japanese who appeared to surrender, at least during one series of battles on Guadalcanal. Can we blame them? Read about the conditions there, at Tarawa and Iwo Jima etc-never mind in Burma. Someone stated that after men have killed a few enemy combatants, it gets much easier, and it can be difficult to control the urge. If I knew that it would almost certainly save some friends' or allies lives, it would get easier for me too.
This may have no real connection to the various situations in Iraq. But can certain similar situations (have they not happened in Iraq or Afghanistan?) create what to civilians, appear to be cold-blooded killing, but are based on numerous last-minute tricks by an enemy, who nowadays wears no uniform and can be everywhere? Maybe these tricks don't happen in Iraq? There is no chance that non-combat people can understand what it is like to be in those situations, anymore than I can understand what it was like to have been a soldier in Julius Caesar's legions, or on stage as lead guitar with the Clash.
As for killing civilians during WW2, we know that it was quite common to carpet-bomb or fire-bomb entire cities (a new article about Dresden's rebuilt Frauenkirche Cathedral, and the English vicars or bishops who visited as an embassy of peace, just came out in our paper, along with debates about the three bombing missions), in order to blast whatever targets. I don't know how many tens of thousands of civilians died on various sides, just in WW2 (!), even though it was not intentional in most cases. My experiences are non-combat. Many years ago, I flew some transport ANG C-130s and then Navy Reserve DC-9s, and have been civilian for the entire time. Had I been born with the WW2 generation, I might have been a B-26, -17 or B-24 crewmember, or even on a Stirling or Lancaster, and tried to do my job. I certainly do not envy those whose mission it is to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan: often a life-or-death mission. I watched an episode during a layover about the medical tents in Iraq, and the young faces of our injured troops. Many are only two years older than my school-age son. This made it difficult for me to watch those blood-covered young men. Were my son there, I would want him to do whatever he thought necessary to survive, against an enemy who, especially with Al Qaeda, merely worships "the cult of death", to quote an excellent editorialist with the New York Times (Friedmann). Many seem to fight with a ferocity borne of religious hatred-by perverting religious beliefs. Did they not also murder a British lady? It would be wonderful if we could tell the virgin Iraqi "government" to have their own police and military soon run their country, then we steadily bring all of our troops home, but my opinion is worth very little.
This may have no real connection to the various situations in Iraq. But can certain similar situations (have they not happened in Iraq or Afghanistan?) create what to civilians, appear to be cold-blooded killing, but are based on numerous last-minute tricks by an enemy, who nowadays wears no uniform and can be everywhere? Maybe these tricks don't happen in Iraq? There is no chance that non-combat people can understand what it is like to be in those situations, anymore than I can understand what it was like to have been a soldier in Julius Caesar's legions, or on stage as lead guitar with the Clash.
As for killing civilians during WW2, we know that it was quite common to carpet-bomb or fire-bomb entire cities (a new article about Dresden's rebuilt Frauenkirche Cathedral, and the English vicars or bishops who visited as an embassy of peace, just came out in our paper, along with debates about the three bombing missions), in order to blast whatever targets. I don't know how many tens of thousands of civilians died on various sides, just in WW2 (!), even though it was not intentional in most cases. My experiences are non-combat. Many years ago, I flew some transport ANG C-130s and then Navy Reserve DC-9s, and have been civilian for the entire time. Had I been born with the WW2 generation, I might have been a B-26, -17 or B-24 crewmember, or even on a Stirling or Lancaster, and tried to do my job. I certainly do not envy those whose mission it is to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan: often a life-or-death mission. I watched an episode during a layover about the medical tents in Iraq, and the young faces of our injured troops. Many are only two years older than my school-age son. This made it difficult for me to watch those blood-covered young men. Were my son there, I would want him to do whatever he thought necessary to survive, against an enemy who, especially with Al Qaeda, merely worships "the cult of death", to quote an excellent editorialist with the New York Times (Friedmann). Many seem to fight with a ferocity borne of religious hatred-by perverting religious beliefs. Did they not also murder a British lady? It would be wonderful if we could tell the virgin Iraqi "government" to have their own police and military soon run their country, then we steadily bring all of our troops home, but my opinion is worth very little.
