-Pv- Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 That's gotta hurt... http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/08/10/von.afghan.insurgent.usdod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan8325 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yup. What was once a purely anti-tank weapon has become quite the multipurpose death-ray from the sky. Just look at all the stories coming out of western Pakistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Gotta love that telltale cold spot in the road with "guilty" written all over it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travcrouse Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Allahu akbar, bitches!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teeps Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No matter whose side that person was on, he was still someone's son/husband/loved one/whatever. It worries me when we celebrate a person's death, I thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorists? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 It worries me when we celebrate a person's death, I thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorists? I will never feel a single ounce of remorse in achieving victory over my enemies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I will never feel a single ounce of remorse in achieving victory over my enemies. It's not really about feeling remorse or pity for the enemy. It's about respect for the dead or dieing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 If wiping that *******er off the Earth saved innocent lives and the lives of our troops, then whoever pulled the trigger should have slept well that night. We're not (at least ME) celebrating the act of a person being blown up, but the lives saved by blowing that person up. He was doing his best to kill someone's son/husband/loved one/whatever. And it seems ironic that he died in the exact manner he was trying to kill with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spindry69 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Wow thats disturbing, did they actually waste a Hellifire on these insurgents or just a rocket? I just read a book on British Apache pilots in Afghanistan and the thing that stands out is despite their glowing sucess ratio is the ammount and cost of munitions that are expended take out one or a few cheaply trained and equipted insurgents. You have to wonder if the war is viable in the long run. Killing insurgents in zoomed in Flir detail did bother these pilots but the fact that it spared their ground humping brothers a nasty IED or RPG attack meant the world to them. They certainly respected the bravey of their adversarys but thats about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Bit surprising that they used Hellfire. Those dudes were right in the open and far away from cover. Why not use the 30mm straight away? Do they hate the US taxpayer that much? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlight Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well I guess they reckon to guarantee first shot kill with the Hellfire and if the targets are close to each other get many with one shot. Afterwards the 30mm appeared to be dropping well short of the cross-hair so would take a number of ranging shots before on target? Also I guess a Hellfire at the point of the IED will destroy it, but also leave substantial hole in the road? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falconander Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 One of the beautiful and about time things they have done is raise the life insurance on GIs. When I was in it was $100K. Now I think it is $400K. So yes, the 'bean counters' finally can agree that taking out someone aimed at killing our troops is cost effective. I'd hate to think of the cost of an IED killing a couple of our troops and maiming some more and blowing up a Humvee or whatever. Cost of the Humvee+Death benefits paid+medical costs for survivors+disability pay for the rest of their life+counseling costs+hit to unit morale+logistics cost to evac the wounded etc etc etc.... Cost of one Hellfire wiping a Baddee off the face of the earth....priceless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomir Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I think you've hit the nail on the head, Starlight. They shot the Hellfire on the insurgent next to the IED and later they probably take the other two with the cannon. The Hellfire will destroy the IED and they make sure no other insurgents are coming later to pick it up and use it at a different location on the next day. Just think what hell of an operation is to send an armed patrol to deactivate that IED in a place where the insurgents are active. With the Hellfire there aren't possible own casualties and just a hole (and not so deep as it may seem) in a dusty road full of them. About the cost of a single Hellfire mentioned before... What price would you actually put to the life of any of your own soldiers going where the IED is? I would say it's priceless. It's technology (and its costs) what prevents the numbers of our casualties abroad growing higher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lomir Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Falconander, you had the same answer one minute before me No matter whose side that person was on, he was still someone's son/husband/loved one/whatever. It worries me when we celebrate a person's death, I thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorists? It doesn't matter when you are talking of a battle between regular armies and men following orders. The ideological background behind these armies can be discussed to say we are the "good guys" and they are the "bad guys", and obviously the propaganda of them will say the opposite. But between soldiers there's no discussion about the respect to the enemy. We would just celebrate that they are dead and we are alive for one more day. You can't make it personal thinking in their beloved sons, wifes and mothers, because then you'll drop your guns and stop fighting. But, if you are talking about insurgents, I have to say a big NO: it matters who are they. If these insurgents are i.e. taliban fighters, then God knows that I'll celebrate every single dead of any of them. Surely they are still someone's son, husband or father, but they should better stay peacefully with them and not putting bombs like the terrorists they are. There won't be place to the respect for them as long as they don't have it for us, and I've got no remorse of their deads. I have a clean conscience and I sleep very well every single night. Unfortunately for us Europeans, the civil society has become a big group of lambs shaking with fear when the wolf is coming from the hills and taking one or two, to just forget it on the next day because they weren't their close ones so they can resume with their bucolic lives. Why sending the dogs to the far hills?? That's so expensive and we prefer to just have a newly painted white fence to make us feel safe! Sadly the European civvies are getting more and more shortsighted, and there's a total lack of understanding about why their "dogs" have gone to the hills to find the "wolf" before it comes back in the future. I guess that probably the shepherds are incompetent to do so, the media is not interested at all and the sheeps pass the day looking at their belly... Sorry me, I'm having a hard day... Cheers, Lomir 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No matter whose side that person was on, he was still someone's son/husband/loved one/whatever. It worries me when we celebrate a person's death, I thought we were supposed to be better than the terrorists? If wiping that *******er off the Earth saved innocent lives and the lives of our troops, then whoever pulled the trigger should have slept well that night. We're not (at least ME) celebrating the act of a person being blown up, but the lives saved by blowing that person up. He was doing his best to kill someone's son/husband/loved one/whatever. And it seems ironic that he died in the exact manner he was trying to kill with. Consider the alternative: Apache (for whatever reason) does not engage and kill insurgent. Insurgent successfully plants IED. Humvee convoy drives down road, triggers IED -- two dead, three wounded. Remaining soldiers -- driven to rage by yet more killing of their comrades by what they consider cowardly and undefenable means -- dismount, storm through several nearby houses and kill everyone (none of whom are insurgents) they encounter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 First, get rid of the insurgents, second, get rid of the ied, and third, scare the crap out of any prospective ied layers in the area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Pv- Posted August 11, 2009 Author Share Posted August 11, 2009 "...there's a total lack of understanding about why their "dogs" have gone to the hills to find the "wolf" before it comes back in the future. I guess that probably the shepherds are incompetent to do so, the media is not interested at all and the sheeps pass the day looking at their belly..." Yup. Sic 'em Rover! For the last two days I've been helping two Iraqi families relocate here in the US. They are wanting to live safe and free. Willing to leave their culture, language, families, learn new trades. Sleep on the floor in empty apartments having left everything they owned behind. These are peaceful, loving people and it twists me inside-out that lawless murderers are sneaking around pouring lit gasoline on their children, bombing schools, mass murdering police who are sacrificing the safety of their families to hold a few blocks for their neighbors. Taking defenseless citizens hostage for years while torturing them. Boom. -Pv- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulgaroktonos Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Consider the alternative: Apache (for whatever reason) does not engage and kill insurgent. Insurgent successfully plants IED. Humvee convoy drives down road, triggers IED -- two dead, three wounded. Remaining soldiers -- driven to rage by yet more killing of their comrades by what they consider cowardly and undefenable means -- dismount, storm through several nearby houses and kill everyone (none of whom are insurgents) they encounter. Hahaha what? What bizarro world do you live in where US soldiers commit war crimes every time someone gets killed by an IED? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanRamey Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yeah our troops(or at least 99% of them) dont commit warcrimes! The ones that do are court marshalled and probably hung! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What can the Taliban or other fighters like Hamas really do, conventionally?? I strikes me that people are so easily brainwashed by descriptions in the media. How is it different from any Guerrilla? It's not that I favor the Taliban course, i'm having the opinion that it was probably the right decision to get away with them. How that was done however, and especially how the aftercare was done, wasn't really carried out well in my opinion. but thats another story. However, IF I happened to be a Pakistan youth without any hope of being any other then ultra poor, I might have another opinion. Just one small example of 'hypocrisy' in the west: Mr. Musharraf came to power using a military coup, which 'the west' frowned upon. As soon as he became of value to the west his past didn't matter really anymore; he became a good friend. The average Pakistani guy will see that his country isn't going anywhere because of the corrupted government. He can never become X because his father doesn't have X name. If the, sometimes self claimed, 'police-man' of the world [uSA] wouldn't always overly express the importance of democracy, human rights, etc etc, perhaps the boy wouldn't feel anger towards the USA/west. Or if the west put their money where there mouths were, most of the time. However the west does talk about ethics and and the Pakistani boy sees the talks are only talks in his reality. In fact, the west is partly responsible for Musharraf maintaining in power. Egypt, Saudia Arabia are another few of the repressionist states that are currently actively supported by the west. Then the Pakistan boy has a chance to do something after years of unemployment, a newly build madrassa where he can study about his believe. There is were the Taliban/Al-Qaida's powerplay comes in the game. Although suicide attacks and the killing of innocent lives are not advocated in the Quran, with the right propoganda young men with nothing too lose can made believe nearly everything (not only in the east by the way). The Taliban has been in war since a long time, after politics couldn't solve the matter at hand with the us (after 2001). Strategically they never had any chance withholding the huge Nato force from capturing Afghanistan. But, guess guess, they never expected that (except from a few soldier maybe). They planned to endure an attrition guerrilla war in which they can't really lose. After all the above bla bla; this is my point: Calling the Taliban cowards and IED's 'unfair', is like the British soldiers being 'not amused' about the way the Native Americans fought them. They wouldn't stand still in a line, and fight the 'gentlemen' type of war. Instead, they hid and sneaked in the bushes, rats and snakes as they are, only to unleash one of their black poisonous arrows in the back of one of those brave British soldiers. They even committed ferocious acts of terror by contaminating water supplies, massacring and torturing civilians and even cutting of scalps!!! The Taliban look sweet compared to those guys. Ow wait, those were the times the word terrorist wasn't invented yet. War crimes were more of a rule then an exception. Even now, 'collateral' can't be avoided. There is also intended collateral. And it can be pretty effective [Hiroshima]. Now we are treating those Afghans / Pakistans that choose to side with the Taliban, perhaps an unwise one, similarly like 'we' did with the Native Americans. They commit acts of terror, use cowardly attacks by unguided rockets and roadside IED's. No, sitting in a pantzer howitzer 2000 leaping GPS coordinated 155MM shells at *brave* Taliban hiding in the nearest building for cover (by lack of armored encampments that would be bombed to pieces the first minute they are built), that are truly heroic acts of bravery. Or flying an Apache 2miles of the target and engaging a target with a button looking through a FLIR sight? Everyone complaining the Taliban using those tactics lost some part of their intelligence, hopefully only temporal. It is the only and smart thing they can do. Its cost effective and probably has a 'good return on investment'. Did you seriously think they would deliver a letter from where they are hiding to make arrangements for a old fashioned 'meeting engagements'? The taliban are not that crazy as that lonely but very brave Chinese on the Tian’anmen square in thinking they can stop a tank in its tracks by standing in front of it. Nor do they have the capability to engage in full fledged warfare when the Blue side is ready for it. You can be supportive about 'our' troops in A'stan and still show respect for the dead, wounded and living Afghans that choose the side of the enemy. We are only what we do, if we think we are better then other because of what we do, we should stay far from things 'they' do, or else we become no different from them. I believe something like that was already (and better) formulated by someone else before. Its such a pity to see a so many persons in this world 'believing the hype' fully. Media attention and tone do have influence, especially over time. There is a nice book about the unconsciousness by a dutch psychology professor, "The smart unconscious", I don't know if it is translated in English though. Also an interesting read apart from the media effect. It helped me a lot in realizing how my opinions were actually built and I try to keep away from too much media attention covered from one side only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Good points Lethaface - it is good IMO to try to see the viewpoints of others to understand them better, even if you believe they are fundimentally wrong. I have travelled to many places in the world and from some places the 'west' certainly doesn't look as rosy as it does on the inside. Likewise, regardless of ideolegy, if I was going to organise an insurgency against a vastly greater power I think I would be doing it just like the Taliban, Viet Cong or the IRA - all labled terrorist organisations by the west. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teeps Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I don't question the military value of killing a particular insurgent, nor particularly of combat troops need to dehumanise the enemy (although I think that comes home to roost for our troops in later years, just IMO), but most of us here are not in combat at the moment, many of us will never be, and remembering that people who oppose us are still people isn't going to cause us to freeze at the crucial moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Hahaha what? What bizarro world do you live in where US soldiers commit war crimes every time someone gets killed by an IED? I was alluding to the Haditha incident. My intent was, not to suggest that "US soldiers commit war crimes every time someone gets killed by an IED", but to use an incident which actually happened (albeit a unique one) to show why not taking out an insurgent who is in the act of planting an IED could have dire consequences beyond the casualties inflicted by the IED itself. To those who bemoan the taking out of the insurgent in the above-linked video, consider this: If you were a police marksman working security during a major state event and you spotted someone planting a large bomb, would you not take the shot, or would you simply report it and wait for the patrolling police personnel to arrest the bomb-planter? Yeah our troops(or at least 99% of them) dont commit warcrimes! The ones that do are court marshalled and probably hung! To put in perspective: Eight Marines were charged by the US military in connection with the Haditha incident. In the case of six of those, all charges were dropped. To my knowledge, none of them have served any sentences, let alone been court-marshalled. The taliban are not that crazy as that lonely but very brave Chinese on the Tian’anmen square in thinking they can stop a tank in its tracks by standing in front of it. Wow... a courageous and nonviolent Chinese student has just been compared to an AK-wielding Afghani insurgent who plants roadside bombs and flings acid onto the faces of schoolgirls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Likewise, regardless of ideolegy, if I was going to organise an insurgency against a vastly greater power I think I would be doing it just like the Taliban, Viet Cong or the IRA - all labled terrorist organisations by the west. The IRA were guerillas. The Provos, on the other hand... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Wow... a courageous and nonviolent Chinese student has just been compared to an AK-wielding Afghani insurgent who plants roadside bombs and flings acid onto the faces of schoolgirls. Nicely put Although quite courageous, it wasn't a smart move imo. If he would have planted a large EFP IED and fired it through all the tanks in a row they surely wouldn't have gotten past him In that way, being a famous student, he could study the Taliban tactics as a side study perhaps, assuming he is still with us. Personally I would respect the men much more then the taliban you so nicely described, obviously. But thats beside the point here :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.