Politics101
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 490
- Reaction score
- 133
- Location
- USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Thank you Captain America:roll:
Are you saying that not all threats against the United States should be a legitimate concern?
If they are done through a forum like youtube, then no those threats should not be taken seriously.
It's not that people are OK with it, it is that things like that are inevitable. Our military does tend to do all it absolutely can to minimize mistakes, but they will happen. From my watching, it looks like mistakes where clearly made, with tragic results. It's sad, but in war, these things do happen. It is impossible to describe the stress these young men are under, and knowing that mistakes the wrong way can result in their friends dying, well, you can understand why they tend to err towards tending to be overaggressive.
I still wouldn't take it seriously. Most people who make threats on the internet don't have any substance to back it up.What if the non-serious threat came from Twitter?
To call apache pilots kids, is very wrong. Most Air Force pilots spend like four or five years in college getting their degrees in the sciences or engineering so they are typically 22 or 23 when they get out and are accepted into Air Force school, which the training takes like a year for them to graduate. And the majority of pilots in the air force are in their 30s. So they are not kids.
Also its 2007 not 2003, the chances of the pilots being shot down by some SAM is downright not likely. What I saw were a pair of idiots who were eager to shoot at something. Those pilots were not acting as adults but teens straight out of highschool who enlisted in the marines or army infantry.
It was downright dispicable for the pilots to act the way they did and if I was in charge I would kick them out of the armed forces and send them to prison for not beng professional enough.
I still wouldn't take it seriously. Most people who make threats on the internet don't have any substance to back it up.
I called them "young men" not kids. There is a difference, and they are very much young men.
I am not talking about the chance of being shot down, but the chance that ground forces being attacked and killed by targets not killed. The Apache mission was happening because US ground forces where coming under fire from insurgents in the area.
I called them "young men" not kids. There is a difference, and they are very much young men.
I am not talking about the chance of being shot down, but the chance that ground forces being attacked and killed by targets not killed. The Apache mission was happening because US ground forces where coming under fire from insurgents in the area.
And they must have been some hell of insurgents because they managed to kill how many during the year 2007 in Iraq? Not too many.....if any.....
So you're saying there's a chance the 'gruesome' attack may have indeed saved the lives of other U.S. soldiers at a future date and time? :ssst:
And they must have been some hell of insurgents because they managed to kill how many during the year 2007 in Iraq? Not too many.....if any.....
The U.S. military is damn good, that's why...
232 total coalition deaths in 2007. iCasualties | Operation Enduring Freedom | Afghanistan
Not necessarily, but the Apache crew almost certainly believed the people they fired on where a threat to other US soldiers.
Not necessarily, but the Apache crew almost certainly believed the people they fired on where a threat to other US soldiers.
It's on the front page of the liberal NYT now
Video Shows American Killing of Photographer - NYTimes.com
Thank you Captain America:roll:
Wow... You are all grotesque. Those men attacked noone. The van with kids was obviously random good citizen trying to help someone with no weapons that is hurt. They purposely allowed unarmed non-combatents to be murdered via shoddy rules of engagement.
That is not showed in the video... But what is showed is there willingness to purposely allow unarmend non-combatents to be shot because the law was on their side. They never, ever posed a threat to anyone of the US. Never once did they point a barrel at any person from what I can see in the video. But from the very begining a very big barrel was pointed at the murdered. This whole situation is so easy to figure out by simply listening to the glee of the shooter.
There is no quid pro quo in a war. You're out in the open. You're dead. Period. And random good citizens do not show up to an attack helicopter site with 10 dead people around, especially with kids in the van, good citizens are in the cellar covering their heads and staying alive.
There is no quid pro quo in a war. You're out in the open. You're dead. Period. And random good citizens do not show up to an attack helicopter site with 10 dead people around, especially with kids in the van, good citizens are in the cellar covering their heads and staying alive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?