[007]
Evilest_Tim
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage both the civilian group and later the vehicle); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I\'m reading, the US ground force \'\'did\'\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene. I\'m aware that saying an Iraqi has an AK is rather like pointing out he\'s \'\'wearing clothes\'\' and certainly doesn\'t provide proof that he\'s a terrorist, but the presence of [=RPGs=] does suggest it was rather less clear-cut a situation than some people want to imply.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage both the civilian group and later the vehicle); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I\\\'m reading, the US ground force \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene. I\\\'m aware that saying an Iraqi has an AK is rather like pointing out he\\\'s \\\'\\\'wearing clothes\\\'\\\' and certainly doesn\\\'t provide proof that he\\\'s an insurgent, but the presence of [=RPGs=] does suggest it was rather less clear-cut a situation than some people want to imply.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage both the civilian group and later the vehicle); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I\'m reading, the US ground force \'\'did\'\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage both the civilian group and later the vehicle); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I\\\'m reading, the US ground force \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene. I\\\'m aware that saying an Iraqi has an AK is rather like pointing out he\\\'s \\\'\\\'wearing clothes\\\'\\\' and certainly doesn\\\'t provide proof that he\\\'s a terrorist, but the presence of [=RPGs=] does suggest it was rather less clear-cut a situation than some people want to imply.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I can gather, the US ground force \'\'did\'\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage both the civilian group and later the vehicle); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I\\\'m reading, the US ground force \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. In addition, from what I can gather, the US ground force \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' find two discarded [=RPGs=] at the scene.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target; from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. The A-10 video in attitude terms is actually a better parallel; by all accounts, 36, the pilot who actually attacked, was an Air National Guard pilot who seemed in an awfully big hurry to blow something up; among other things, he never recieved permission to attack from the Forward Air Controller (unlike the Apache pilot, who \'\'was\'\' authorised to open fire) and didn\'t wait for the artillery marker rounds to land before starting his attack.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and, unlike the A-10 video, actually requested and recieved permission to engage); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and had been authorised to fire, too); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target; from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46. The A-10 video in attitude terms is actually a better parallel; by all accounts, 36, the pilot who actually attacked, was an Air National Guard pilot who seemed in an awfully big hurry to blow something up; among other things, he never recieved permission to attack from the Forward Air Controller (unlike the Apache pilot, who \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' authorised to open fire) and didn\\\'t wait for the artillery marker rounds to land before starting his attack.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \'\'had\'\' confirmed they had a target (and had been authorised to fire, too); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place.
to:
Well, by the time they opened fire they thought they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' confirmed they had a target (and had been authorised to fire, too); from what I can gather, there had been actual RPG attacks on troops in that area earlier in the day, that\\\'s why they were moving a column of Brads into the area in the first place. You can say just 45 losses, but nobody wants to be number 46.
