New Firing sigth for C.A.S. Heli ?

Post by **Dunehunter** » 2007-12-05 15:36

Outlawz, we have plenty of members who either don't know how to write proper English sentences, have dyslexia, or can't be bothered to put in the trouble of writing them, so no need to point it out.

Hotrod, a wounded enemy isn't going to fire back at you, or atleast that's what's presumed, especially when you're in an attack helicopter a long way away, so you're supposed to secure and treat them, not finish them off (Real-life is not like Mortal Kombat, no bonus points for ripping someone's spine out after you shot them)

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-12-05 15:40

Guys, we don't know anything about the circumstances of that video, so we can't judge it...

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-12-05 15:41

the thing is..... last time that video was posted here a lot of information concerning the event was posted...

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-12-05 15:42

[R-MOD]dunehunter wrote:Outlawz, we have plenty of members who either don't know how to write proper English sentences, have dyslexia, or can't be bothered to put in the trouble of writing them, so no need to point it out.)

I take that Canadians don't have English as their first language then?

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-12-05 15:43

@Gyberg: Then please post it here or link it so people know what they're talking about

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-12-05 16:41

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/pr-5-f ... 911p7.html

Read Gaz's post... yeah I know he has no source....

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-12-05 16:48

I've seen the original video from that action somewhere on the net. Those guys were placeing IEDs on the side of the road, that is why "Mr 30 mm" talked to them. There was no innocent people there, just insurgents who wanted to blow up someone else.

Gyberg · Post by **Gyberg** » 2007-12-05 16:52

but that is not the point.... the thing that might be considered wrong is the insurgents being engaged again after being wounded....

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-12-05 16:56

Note: This is my own opinion and not the team's.

Insurgents/Terrorists aren't 'legally' combatants, so the RoE and Geneva Convention should not apply to them, simple as that.
When fighting a regular army, it's a whole other thing.

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-12-05 17:19

IMO if i was that guy , i will prefer the apache to kill me , a 30 mm wound should make a lot of pain

.

Post by **Jaymz** » 2007-12-05 17:37

In the words of Matthew Pritchard from Dirty Santchez

"If you find it offensive then don't bloody watch it"

Ragni<RangersPL> · Post by **Ragni<RangersPL>** » 2007-12-05 17:37

Gyberg wrote:but that is not the point.... the thing that might be considered wrong is the insurgents being engaged again after being wounded....

1. Insurgents. They don't care about any rules of engagement or Geneva Conventions, if those pilots (or other "infidels") were downed and captured by insurgents, they would probably ended up as an example and executed in some savage way.

2. Emotions. Imagine you are one of those pilots, you are watching some guys that are planting IED, a lot of your fellow soldiers or even friends were wounded or killed by IEDs. You know that they will keep on killing "infidels" and they will not stop until they die. There is a chance that it's not their first planted IED, they probably already killed or wounded someone, maybe it was one of your friends... what do you feel? Do you still want to keep them alive?

3. 30 mm cannon round. When you are hit with one of those, it's over. You can still be conscious but you are already dead. You are in a state of shock and you are bleeding out very fast. With that kind of medical treatment like the one in Iraq you have no chance to survive.

This is war,
war is hell,
men are dying.

Well, at least that's my point of view.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-05 18:50

Outlawz wrote:1. Tons of grammar/spell errors.

2. How can a civilian be a threat?

In some case... if they refuse to folow indication from soldier... like the Canadian accident...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story ... aa&k=38909

and NO English is not my 1st language, iM Québécois, i learn english in America's Army ( yeah you can laught if you wan...but its true ) so i think my english is not that bad

Post by **Masaq** » 2007-12-05 19:18

Righty ho guys back on topic already, yeah?

S.P.C-[Reality]- · Post by **S.P.C-[Reality]-** » 2007-12-05 19:28

Hotrod525 wrote:Huuum... they where active combatant ? They can be engaged no ?

I just try to figure it out in my head... You're in the desert of Irak... you seen hostile...they dont fire at you... what are you suppose to do ? Get back to base and forgot what you seen ?

I know ROE autorise you to engage civilian if they represent's an eminant treath to you or you're unit. ( Canadian kill civilian on a CheckPoint cause they dont stop and try to pass trought. 2 kids... what a waste...) So Why it would not let you engage hostile cause they dont shoot at you ?

i think what he meant is that when a troop is wounded and cant return fire you cant kill him as in the vid it says something like" roger his wounded hit the truck..." (at -00:23) and kill the guy.

Teek · Post by **Teek** » 2007-12-06 06:13

hows this for context?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZNjz21DPpc[/youtube]

There could have been a SA7 in the pick up truck, who knows?

EagleEyeLG · Post by **EagleEyeLG** » 2007-12-06 06:29

Ragni<RangersPL> wrote:I've seen the original video from that action somewhere on the net. Those guys were placeing IEDs on the side of the road, that is why "Mr 30 mm" talked to them. There was no innocent people there, just insurgents who wanted to blow up someone else.

Not that it really matters, but weren't they either firing, or trying to fire stingers at the the choppers? My ROTC class watched the actual video on Tuesday and the major teaching my class said something about stingers and the guy being shot on far left was trying to get at some more of the stingers.

Plus, not that my opinion really matters, but the wounded guy under the truck was probably better off dead than waiting for medical attention. I think we can all assume he was beyond f'ed up.

Polka · Post by **Polka** » 2007-12-06 06:43

I always love to watch that vid...

Killer-Ape · Post by **Killer-Ape** » 2007-12-06 06:47

[R-PUB]bosco wrote:Note: This is my own opinion and not the team's.

Insurgents/Terrorists aren't 'legally' combatants, so the RoE and Geneva Convention should not apply to them, simple as that.
When fighting a regular army, it's a whole other thing.

Please don't compare insurgency to terrorism. And who gets to decide how we define 'legal'? The biggest army? The victors?
(1944 Warsaw Uprising) In the eyes of Nazi occupants Polish insurgents where seen as terrorists and criminals. Yet when it came to specific combat encounters you had Polish civilians marching in front of German tanks, forced to act as living meat-shields. Who sticks to the Geneva Convention anyway.

//Sorry for off topic, had to reply -