The thing that surprised me the most was the delay in time from when you hear the firing and see the rounds hit.now I know there choppers are awhile away but still some delay.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You’re right, we should get the fuck out places we don’t belong. And we don’t belong in Iraq. But what does this have to do with people who slam our soldiers and their actions in war? What are they supposed to do, sign up to fight those who attacked us on 9/11 and then refuse to serve in Iraq while their buddies are over there getting killed? Trust me, there are a lot of soldiers in Iraq who are against us being there, but voicing that opposition isn’t their job. They are soldiers, they do what they are told and all of their anti-Iraq War sentiments go right out the window when the bullets start flying. Then it’s all about survival, nothing else.
And by the way, what magnanimous country are you from? [/quote]
I’m Canadian.
That comment about them not being trained well wasn’t accurate, I apologize for that, they are well-trained but I guess like most employees, they get driven into the ground.
Asfaik it wasn’t Iraq that instigated 9/11 either.
Laughing about killing people isn’t cool tho.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who started 9/11, because we went to Iraq because of WMDs. They are seperate conflicts. The only thing that you should be arguing when attacking the US about the Iraq war is:
1.The validity of pre-emptive war, and wether it was justified because U.S. felt an attack was imminent.
- The definition of aggression, and wether or not the US’ security was being threatened by Saddam Hussein.
IF the war had been called illegal, which it wasnt (??), then the rest of the world did nothing about it, your leaders agreed to the war simply because they didn’t speak out about it.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I read the Weekly Standard article.
Here’s the thing. The article reports as fact that in the group of men several had guns and one had an RPG. Now the AUDIO says that, but I do not see that. Maybe I’m just unobservant? Do any of you see that?
I will defer to more knowledgeable people about what war is like. But if you say the conditions and stress are such that killing civilians is inevitable … well, you said it, not I.
Also, yes, soldiers are people too and i’d have to be nuts to be indifferent to them dying.[/quote]
As others have stated the weapons are present and I have no doubt that in the 35 minute a lot of shots that would implicate the insurgents were left out that didn’t fit the narrative.
Is killing civilians inevitable? Depends. These weren’t women and children cowering under a table inside a house trying to stay out of the way. These were armed men, in a deserted neighborhood, shadowing a military operation and facing a superior force. If they had any brains they would have tried their best not to look like a threat. Bit they didn’t they were fucknut insurgents who thought they would try and outsmart the enemy because they “all” weren’t armed and a knucklehead reporter thought he could get some video of a convoy being attacked from the insurgent side. Poor choices all around by the insurgents.
Giving the enemy quarter and allowing him a “fair chance” is a civilian concept seen in movies, not a military one.
Several points:
-
This was in 2007. Not sure if any of you remember what Iraq was like in 2007, but it wasn’t a fun place to be. It was the start of the troop surge. Insurgent violence was up. And the insurgents were using more chemical weapons (chlorine bombs). It’s easy to forget that what is now a country with some sporadic violence was a war zone inhabited by illegal combatants, wearing no uniforms, hiding among a civilian population, with weapons capable of destroying the helicopter that shot this footage.
-
How many people here can ID a Stinger missile or RPG9, in one pass, at full speed, from a helicopter 1000-1500m away? Oh, and no one is going to point out where they are for you. And if you guess “camera” and it’s a missile, you die. Did I mention that both the camera and the RPG are going to be surrounded by adult males, some with Ak47’s, dressed exactly alike?
-
Now, have one guy on the helicopter call out RPG. Are you going to argue with him, or are you going to trust the guy telling you to shoot the threat?
-
Believing that you just stopped a hostile rocket team, you notice a van full of people pull up to what you believe to be the weapon. Adult males jump out.
Do you a) gun them down before they can get to the rocket you think you stopped the other guys from firing? b) get on the loudspeaker and say “Alu Ackbar! Are you the friendly adult males in this war zone or the unfriendly ones?” (Not really an option, btw). c) sit and contemplate the sociopolitical underpinnings of a society where the same people who were cheering for you a year ago are shooting at you now, while waiting to see if someone does in fact start shooting at you?
- Believing you just saved either your own life or the lives of some of your countrymen, do you a) engage in some exuberance? b) quietly mull the complex geopolitical situation that lead to a war in this country where every person over the age of 10 has an assault rifle and may be trying to kill you, but no one will put on a uniform and fight away from civilians? c) cry inconsolably because you just ended a human life? If you picked c go see the wizard for your psych discharge.
[quote]devildog_jim wrote:
Several points:
-
This was in 2007. Not sure if any of you remember what Iraq was like in 2007, but it wasn’t a fun place to be. It was the start of the troop surge. Insurgent violence was up. And the insurgents were using more chemical weapons (chlorine bombs). It’s easy to forget that what is now a country with some sporadic violence was a war zone inhabited by illegal combatants, wearing no uniforms, hiding among a civilian population, with weapons capable of destroying the helicopter that shot this footage.
-
How many people here can ID a Stinger missile or RPG9, in one pass, at full speed, from a helicopter 1000-1500m away? Oh, and no one is going to point out where they are for you. And if you guess “camera” and it’s a missile, you die. Did I mention that both the camera and the RPG are going to be surrounded by adult males, some with Ak47’s, dressed exactly alike?
-
Now, have one guy on the helicopter call out RPG. Are you going to argue with him, or are you going to trust the guy telling you to shoot the threat?
-
Believing that you just stopped a hostile rocket team, you notice a van full of people pull up to what you believe to be the weapon. Adult males jump out.
Do you a) gun them down before they can get to the rocket you think you stopped the other guys from firing? b) get on the loudspeaker and say “Alu Ackbar! Are you the friendly adult males in this war zone or the unfriendly ones?” (Not really an option, btw). c) sit and contemplate the sociopolitical underpinnings of a society where the same people who were cheering for you a year ago are shooting at you now, while waiting to see if someone does in fact start shooting at you?
- Believing you just saved either your own life or the lives of some of your countrymen, do you a) engage in some exuberance? b) quietly mull the complex geopolitical situation that lead to a war in this country where every person over the age of 10 has an assault rifle and may be trying to kill you, but no one will put on a uniform and fight away from civilians? c) cry inconsolably because you just ended a human life? If you picked c go see the wizard for your psych discharge.[/quote]
Excellent post. If I was in Iraq, I’d like to think I’d be able to keep a cool head and avoid situations like what happened in this video. But the reality is I’m just as likely to start killing every motherfucker I see.
All these people who criticize the soldiers for their actions live in some dreamworld or spend too much time playing videogames. There’s no way anyone in this thread can say with any certainty that they know they would not have done the same thing as these soldiers. And to those who say, “well shouldn’t have been there”, fuck off and die.
They ARE there and whether or not the war was valid or not has no bearing on their actions. It’s kill or be killed and in an environment where you’re likely to be killed by virtually anyone over there, to sit here in the comfort of your own home and start condemning our soldiers or to say that you know for a fact that you wouldn’t kill every last Iraqi you saw, just to be safe, is disgusting. Go up to the mother of a dead soldier and tell her “well, he shouldn’t have been there.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
DBCooper, I like you. I disagree thoroughly with you on a lot of what you post in this forum but you generally have a well thought out post or process to your positions.
And I thoroughly agree with your posts in this thread.[/quote]
I agree with him also.[/quote]
Make that X3, I hate his healtchare stance, but I agree with im 100% here. The war sucks, we most likley should have never gone in or should be out by now. But our guys are doing the best they can, putting thier lives on the line day in and day out, and a lot of them have died.
People can take a shot at the policy all they want, but when they start taking shots at the men with guns willing to do violence so we can sit home in our cushy chairs and drink beer, they have crossed a MAJOR fucking line.
V
…if the actions of the soldiers were understandable, and i agree that they were to a certain extent, then why was it so important to surpress the video?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if the actions of the soldiers were understandable, and i agree that they were to a certain extent, then why was it so important to surpress the video?[/quote]
I don’t remember seeing anyone calling to supress the video, what we wouldn’t mind seeing is the people who disagree with the war to NOT attack the soldiers based on the video. Since the fuck faces can’t do that, well then I guess supressing the video would be the second best option.
V
Edited to add NOT
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if the actions of the soldiers were understandable, and i agree that they were to a certain extent, then why was it so important to surpress the video?[/quote]
I don’t remember seeing anyone calling to supress the video, what we wouldn’t mind seeing is the people who disagree with the war to NOT attack the soldiers based on the video. Since the fuck faces can’t do that, well then I guess supressing the video would be the second best option.
V
Edited to add NOT[/quote]
…nevertheless the Pentagon did it’s best to stop Wikileaks from posting the video online, well after Reuters was denied acces to the video in 2008…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if the actions of the soldiers were understandable, and i agree that they were to a certain extent, then why was it so important to surpress the video?[/quote]
I don’t remember seeing anyone calling to supress the video, what we wouldn’t mind seeing is the people who disagree with the war to NOT attack the soldiers based on the video. Since the fuck faces can’t do that, well then I guess supressing the video would be the second best option.
V
Edited to add NOT[/quote]
…nevertheless the Pentagon did it’s best to stop Wikileaks from posting the video online, well after Reuters was denied acces to the video in 2008…
[/quote]
Reuters was shown the video, they just weren’t allowed to have a copy. Please try not to make up facts.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…if the actions of the soldiers were understandable, and i agree that they were to a certain extent, then why was it so important to surpress the video?[/quote]
I don’t remember seeing anyone calling to supress the video, what we wouldn’t mind seeing is the people who disagree with the war to NOT attack the soldiers based on the video. Since the fuck faces can’t do that, well then I guess supressing the video would be the second best option.
V
Edited to add NOT[/quote]
…nevertheless the Pentagon did it’s best to stop Wikileaks from posting the video online, well after Reuters was denied acces to the video in 2008…
[/quote]
Wait, you think the government should just broadcast this stuff on c-span? You bet your ass the gavernment is going to try to cover shit up, they have been doing it FAR longer than any one administration, or ideology in power. I agree with your sentiments, but I think you are misguided in the practicality of what you seek. (what do you seek anyways?)
V
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Soldiers kill civilians.
This creates insurgents.
Insurgents kill soldiers.
This creates soldiers.
More $$$ needed to train and outfit this soldier to kill insurgents.
Soldiers kill insurgents (who used to be civilians).
Soldiers also kill civilians ( noooo!).
… process repeats till we are broke. [/quote]
Untrue. Eventually you kill enough Bad Guys™ that wars end. Otherwise we’d still be fighting .
mike
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:
I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.
The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.
Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:
I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.
The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.
Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.
mike[/quote]
What about the incident in Somolia as portrayed in Black Hawk Down? All they had were AKs and RPGs and still brought down those helos. I am not trying to be an ass, but trying to see your thoughts on this. No hidden agenda either.
While I think that this shines a light or the true realities of what happens behind the trigger of a gun, and will be quick to be used as fodder for insurgency, I think it should be looked at with some perspective.
1st - I think that these soldiers truly believed the group of men were insurgents. In the mind of the soldiers, I’m sure it was beyond a doubt (keep in mind they see insurgents almost daily) I’ll never believe that those soldiers thought they might be civilians but just didn’t care.
2nd - They made a descision that happened to be wrong, and in spite of the audio, I’m sure the gunner thinks about the kids in that van even now, 2 years after.
3rd - First and foremost, we train our soldiers to kill. We don’t train them to be ambassadors who happen to carry rifles. What we saw them doing on that video was their job. Regardless of the outcome, they were doing what they thought was the right and necessary thing.
4th - don’t loiter on a street corner in an insurgent hotspot. If you don’t like the lengths we’ll go to to remove insurgents (suspected or known) then remove them yourself so we don’t have to. If my daughter doesn’t want me to clean up her toys by using a trash bag, then she better keep things tidy.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:
I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.
The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.
Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.
mike[/quote]
What about the incident in Somolia as portrayed in Black Hawk Down? All they had were AKs and RPGs and still brought down those helos. I am not trying to be an ass, but trying to see your thoughts on this. No hidden agenda either.[/quote]
That situation was different from this one. Those birds weren’t there performing Close Air Support. Also, I’m not saying that a man with an AK and RPG isn’t dangerous, only that we have them vastly outgunned. It’s kind of like if you’re Anderson Silva and fighting some 120 lb kid. No matter how big a douche the kid may be, it’d be wrong for Silva to go 100% on him.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:
I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.
The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.
Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.
mike[/quote]
What about the incident in Somolia as portrayed in Black Hawk Down? All they had were AKs and RPGs and still brought down those helos. I am not trying to be an ass, but trying to see your thoughts on this. No hidden agenda either.[/quote]
That situation was different from this one. Those birds weren’t there performing Close Air Support. Also, I’m not saying that a man with an AK and RPG isn’t dangerous, only that we have them vastly outgunned. It’s kind of like if you’re Anderson Silva and fighting some 120 lb kid. No matter how big a douche the kid may be, it’d be wrong for Silva to go 100% on him.
mike
[/quote]
Thanks for the reply.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
I just finished watching the long video and have a few thoughts to fit in between classes:
I can understand the initial engagement, but I don’t understand the second one. Does it really matter that it wasn’t a red cross vehicle? What it looked like to me was a good Samaritan helping out an injured guy. Had those Bradleys rolled up there before the van, THEY’D have given him medical treatment. Even if they were Bad Guys™, they were still performing as noncombatants.
The problem we run into here is an issue of perspective. The one pilot says,“Well, he shouldn’t have brought his kid to a firefight.” Well, to an American, Iraq is a warzone. To an Iraqi, Iraq is home. This guy didn’t bring his kid to a firefight; he brought his kid downtown to rescue a fellow man. Besides, it’d been several minutes since the firing had ceased and the helos were a long ways off. These guys didn’t know they were in a bad place being watched. Hell, had I been in my truck and saw a guy injured like that I’d have gone to help him, regardless of which side he was on.
These guys SHOULD be in deep shit. Some dipshits with AKs aren’t much of a real threat when you’ve got this level of air support to levy against them. When we outclass our enemy to this great a degree, EXTREME caution should be employed. We had well armed, well trained troops with air support and Bradleys. They had AKs and RPGs. No contest.
Oh, and to those that got pissed at the language…deal. To quote the stereotypical 'nam vet, “You weren’t there man!” In truth, war is a high of such magnitude as to tone down the rest of your days on earth. I got only the tiniest taste of it and it has effed up a good portion of everything I’ve done since. And I fucking miss it. You’d just as soon ask a guy to watch his mouth after a Superbowl winning touchdown.
To those that say we went there for WMDs: “we” is quite a big word. I was a part of we and I volunteered after finding out there were no WMDs. I as a part of we, went to remove a vicious dictator who violated human rights to a much greater degree than these fuckass Europeans on this board will ever contemplate. For if they do, their own cowardice may well be too much to bear.
The bottom line in all this is a theme I’ve echoed here often before. We’re the Good Guys™. Being the good guys puts a heavy burden upon us. Extreme caution to avoid deaths of civilians and noncombatants must be employed, even if that means we risk being put into a disadvantageous position later. We volunteered for this shit, civilians don’t. That second van should never have been touched.
mike[/quote]
What about the incident in Somolia as portrayed in Black Hawk Down? All they had were AKs and RPGs and still brought down those helos. I am not trying to be an ass, but trying to see your thoughts on this. No hidden agenda either.[/quote]
That situation was different from this one. Those birds weren’t there performing Close Air Support. Also, I’m not saying that a man with an AK and RPG isn’t dangerous, only that we have them vastly outgunned. It’s kind of like if you’re Anderson Silva and fighting some 120 lb kid. No matter how big a douche the kid may be, it’d be wrong for Silva to go 100% on him.
mike
[/quote]
To use your analogy, Anderson Silva should wait until the kid pulls a knife? Is it any different if the kid says he has a gun, and is holding his hand under his shirt? Because that’s what these guys are dealing with. Most Iraqis aren’t really a threat to a helo, but 1 in 1,000 are, and there are several million of them. If they make motions that indicate they may be that 1 in 1,000, should the pilot have to endanger his crew, his aircraft, and his life to be 100% sure, or is kneeling in a firing position in an insurgent stronghold (New Baghdad, home of the Mahdi army) enough?