[005]
Evilest_Tim
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'I didn\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \
to:
\\\'\\\'I didn\\\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \\\"eeeeevil US military makes a habit of firing on civilians for no reason\\\"; stating as such makes me sound like a Strawman Political, aka, I feel it\\\'s down right insulting. \\\'\\\'
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
As for the casual attitude, the way soldiers conduct themselves might be disturbing to civilians, but ItGetsEasier is more or less a fact and this is the same mindset that drew smiley faces on incendiary bombs during the Second World War.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
As for the casual attitude, the way soldiers conduct themselves might be disturbing to civilians, but ItGetsEasier is more or less a fact and this is the same mindset that drew smiley faces on incendiary bombs during the Second World War.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'I didn\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \
to:
\\\'\\\'I didn\\\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \\\"eeeeevil US military makes a habit of firing on civilians for no reason\\\"; stating as such makes me sound like a Strawman Political, aka, I feel it\\\'s down right insulting. \\\'\\\'
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
The way soldiers conduct themselves might be disturbing to civilians, but ItGetsEasier is more or less a fact and this is the same mindset that drew smiley faces on incendiary bombs during the Second World War.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
The way soldiers conduct themselves might be disturbing to civilians, but ItGetsEasier is more or less a fact and this is the same mindset that drew smiley faces on incendiary bombs during the Second World War.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'I didn\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \
to:
\\\'\\\'I didn\\\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \\\"eeeeevil US military makes a habit of firing on civilians for no reason\\\"; stating as such makes me sound like a Strawman Political, aka, I feel it\\\'s down right insulting. \\\'\\\'
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove; the others just say they treated the situation \\\"like a videogame,\\\" meaning \\\"casually.\\\" You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'I didn\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \
to:
\\\'\\\'I didn\\\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \\\"eeeeevil US military makes a habit of firing on civilians for no reason\\\"; stating as such makes me sound like a Strawman Political, aka, I feel it\\\'s down right insulting. \\\'\\\'
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove. You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
Re: the links, only one mentions the particular game by name, so I don\\\'t really see what that\\\'s supposed to prove. You might see parallels if you approach it from a particular mindset, but the MW situation isn\\\'t the same type of operation, or the same vehicle, and it\\\'s physically impossible to cause collateral damage without failing the mission in the process, so I\\\'m dubious about including it. Not to mention it\\\'s just crying out for a string of justifying edits / political natter.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
\'\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \'\'
to:
\\\'\\\'I didn\\\'t intend, nor do I think that what I wrote sounds like \\\"eeeeevil US military makes a habit of firing on civilians for no reason\\\"; stating as such makes me sound like a Strawman Political, aka, I feel it\\\'s down right insulting. \\\'\\\'
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\'s game \
to:
The idea the entry bought up was that the AC-130 might be shelling a populated area deliberately, relating it to a video where US forces \\\'\\\'accidentally\\\'\\\' fired on a civilian gathering after a camera was misidentified as an RPG. The implication was that in both cases they were attacking civilians on purpose.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
\\\'\\\'I completely and utterly disagree with your assessment of what the video shows, I strongly believe that it shows that either the rules of engagement of the US army in a civilian heavy area are terribly and almost criminally misguided or that the pilots acted in a way that no modern army/air-force should deem acceptable. \\\'\\\'
They believed they were being targeted by an RPG team; what you hear on the radio is that old children\\\'s game \\\"Chinese whispers\\\" playing out, where \\\"I think I might have seen an RPG\\\" by stages becomes \\\"confirmed enemy forces with [=RPGs=].\\\" This sort of thing is prone to happening when people are in a potentially dangerous situation and repeating information to each other; what they heard becomes what they think they heard, which becomes what they say the next time someone asks. It\\\'s certainly tragic, but it\\\'s not something any rules of engagement would have changed; if they\\\'d held off until the supposed team had fired it might have been two helicopter crew or a whole Bradley full of infantry dead.
It\\\'s easy to say what you\\\'d do afterwards, knowing all the facts. It\\\'s harder when the wrong answer might kill you or the people who are relying on you.
