F-14 over Faliuja engagement video

[Jarnhamar]

I agree mike. I ment to say that i've seen this footage in a few places and I have seen the plane dropping the bombs called an F14 and I have also heard it was an F16. I was curious what type of fighter actually dropped the bombs.

 

[krugan]

Here is a link to a page that has some interesting videos and pictures (some very graphic ones also), but the one that shows the Apache killing the 3 men, is that the video you guys are talking about?  How can you tell they're "terrorists"?  Doesn't it look like one guy is getting out of a tank while another gets in?  I don't think these guys are hopping off a tractor doing any farming at night over there.

If these guys are Iraqi soldiers, then would the last guy that was clearly injured and then shot up, would that not be considered "murder" under UN law?

There is another video that says Israeli soldiers shot off the foot of a Palestinian because he didn't have any I.D. and the guy laying there with what does look like his foot severed and three soldiers around him then walking away. 

Many different videos and pictures can be seen by going to the home page and clicking on the "Patriots" link and choosing a different part of the world and then selecting a country.

http://www.thenausea.com/usa-iraq.html

 

[girlfiredup]

Krugan,

The video is not of 3 men.   It's aerial footage of a pilot dropping a bomb on a group of about 30+ men that walked out onto the street.   The pilot radios in and says: "I've got a group of people out here on the street, do you want me to take them out?"   The voice that comes back to him on the radio is: "take them out". The pilot says "in 10 seconds.................. impact!"   It's too bad the link is dead because it's an interesting video.

 

[krugan]

GirlFiredUp,

Thanks for the info, but I think we're mixing things up. I was referring to what cheeky_monkey and SFontaine were discussing (right after the original post) about the Apache and whether it is the same video of the Apache on the link I added.

 

[girlfiredup]

Ah I see.   Well sorry for the mix up.   Carry on.

 

[sinblox]

I was wondering the same thing.

The pilot is clearly instructed "Go forward of the truck and hit him" after he rolled out from under the other truck injured. I thought this was a violation of the Geneva conventions? Unless the US is using the standard"they aren't uniformed soldiers" as an excuse which is sickening. Like it or not, no matter how bad the men killed were, there's rules to follow.

 

[SFontaine]

So let me get this straight. Because they didn't kill him with the first volley the man is allowed to live? So the US is supposed do what? Roll a truck up in there and treat the guy who would likely kill any Western soldier given the chance. Also there were no American ground forces in the area that could have done that anyway. The Army isn't about to let these guys go who could then go on to kill Americans or Brits so they killed them. Simple enough.

These men were terrorists. Besides, the pilots were not getting a sort of blurred picture like we were. They had a combination of intelligence and much better imagery than we can see. They made the right choice.

 

[sinblox]

SFontaine, you completely missed the point. Can someone who knows it well clarify the Geneva convention please? Is it not true that wounded enemy are not to be engaged?

 

[girlfiredup]

http://www.thenausea.com/usa-iraq.html

What happened to this link?  It's now dead.  It was working a few days ago.  ARgh!

 

[bossi]

The applicable concept is "hors de combat", as follows:

hors de combat

Combatants who are hors de combat are out of the fight are and entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They are to be protected and treated humanely, without adverse discrimination. (Convention I Art. 3; Protocol I, Art. 4)

Attacking a person who is hors de combat is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 3)

Persons are hors de combat if they have been captured, if they have surrendered, or if they are unconscious or otherwise incapacitated provided that they do not attempt to fight or escape. (Protocol I, Art. 41, Sec. 2)

Parachutists who eject from a damaged aircraft cannot be attacked while they are descending. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 1)

Parachuters who have landed in hostile territory must be given a chance to surrender, unless they are clearly acting hostile. (Protocol I, Art. 42, Sec. 2)

I will only politely suggest it's not as black and white as some may say, since the man was not unconscious and it could be interpreted that he was trying to escape ...

 

[1feral1]

WRT the Apache video...

I have seen the entire video. At first one bad guy takes an armed RPG from the 1/4T truck and walks out to a field and sets it down. Later a tractor pulls up, and then about this time this is where the regular video starts.

After the 1st baddie is hit, the guy by the tractor just before he gets it, tries to deploy the RPG, and then he gets hit too. Watch closely, you can actually seem go to pick it up.

Absolutly 100% bad guys, anythig less is pure BS. Oner must view the entire clip about 5 mind long.

Rest assured they were the bad guys.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[SFontaine]

Hey can someone familiar with internation law help me with this? I heard using 50 cals against baddies is against the law and is only supposed to be used against equipment, which means shirts, belts, hats etc is free game. True or false?

 

[MJP]

You don't need to be familiar with international law....just familiar with the search button.  

We discussed this a few time but the best one was a few months back.   You can check it out here.....http://army.ca/forums/threads/16351.0.html

For anyone to lazy to actually click on the link, the short answer is .50 cal is legal in every aspect, as is tracer, as is 25mm......as everything we use in the forces.

And when you refer to equipment were you joking when you typed shirts, hats, belts?  

 

[SFontaine]

That's a big negetory. Someone I spoke to said that using 50 Cals against human beings is illegal however using it against equipment is legal hence why we can shoot people with it (If we shoot their hats, shirts etc). It turns out that guy is a moron.

 

[Tomas-K]

The US Military confirmed that they were indeed terrorists. That has never been in doubt.

Make no mistake, there ARE WMD in Iraq, we WILL find them. That has never been in doubt.

I can hardly believe this post was made in July of the year 2004.

IQ (or lack thereof) is clearly not an issue when joining the US military.

 

[Tomas-K]

These men were terrorists.

Why were they 'terrorists'?

If another nation invaded Canada under the pretext of 'liberation' and you fought back you would be a 'terrorist'?

 

[muskrat89]

IQ (or lack thereof) is clearly not an issue when joining the US military.

Tomas - You're going 90 miles per hour down a dead-end street. Show some tact.

I've met tons of intellectually challenged individuals in the Canadian Forces, also....

 

[Tomas-K]

IQ (or lack thereof) is clearly not an issue when joining the US military.

You're going 90 miles per hour down a dead-end street. Show some tact.

I've met tons of intellectually challenged individuals in the Canadian Forces, also....

Driving in Iraq, American style!

BTW the Canadian forces have a minumum educational requirement.  Enough that in general everyone who joins is good enough to at least make corporal.  Interesting fact.

 

[Goober]

For those who didn't see the Apache video, it was on the site linked a page back. But here is the direct link http://www.thenausea.com/elements/usa/iraq%202003/2004%20january/2004%2001%20iraq%20killing.wmv

Here is the friendly fire incident with the F14 bombing the people on the road

{removed because of the graphic nature Ex-Dragoon]

 

[QORvanweert]

Well, it certainly appeared to me that the guy was trying to drag himself away. BUT, considering that they had what appeared to be an RPG over by the first two guys I don't blame the pilot for shooting him. He might have been going for a weapon. And he had crawled further then was necessary to escape the heat of the fire. IMO they did the right thing.